Originally Posted by pj67coll (Post 1911835)

No. The west in general has always ignored the region. Iraq is part of the region. Being in Iraq is a tacit acceptance that the region can no longer be ignored wether or not it's directly related to OBL and his gang.

- Peter.

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1911883)

Being in Iraq is taking away resources from the pursuit of the real threat which is Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Being in Iraq is mostly about providing American war profiteers with good income.

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1911691)

The book is even more astonishing, given the tremendous array of people interviewed. The movie seems like a made-up story that's pretty cool. When you read the book, it fleshes it out into factual believability. I'm only a 3rd into the book and am captivated. May have to rent the movie again.

B

PS If I had contacts with them, I'd ask people in the CIA if the book was reasonably accurate.

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1911883)

Being in Iraq is taking away resources from the pursuit of the real threat which is Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Being in Iraq is mostly about providing American war profiteers with good income.

Originally Posted by pj67coll (Post 1912277)

Then we need to find those resources elsewhere. America was once able to fight a world war against the Jappanese empire and Nazi Germany simultaneously on two fronts. If it's true that we can no longer afford to conduct operations simultaneously against two minor states in the same part of the globe then we might as well surrender now because we are surely ****ed.

Al Quaeda and the Taliban are not the real threat. They are merely one manifestation of the real threat which is medieval islamist religiosity that is on a crusade against western civilization. As Bot said. The fact that a major state in the region is now bereft of a psychopathic mass murdering beast as it's dictator and has a nascent democracy that sits atop much oil shows about the only promise in the scenario.

- Peter.

Originally Posted by Vronsky (Post 1912300)

Only promise of what? A break up of that nascent democracy seems unavoidable, with even more oil reserves coming under Shi'a Iranian control.

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1912472)

I thought we were winning the war and the surge was successful. So which is it? It seems that the neocons want to stay there regardless of the conditions on the ground.

What I'd like to know (from you pj and Bot) is whether you'll still approve of Iraq's democracy if the people there elect a hardline Shiite government that's aligned with Iran (kind of like Hamas won the last Palestinian election). Is it democracy regardless of results that you truly support, or is democracy good only if a pro-western party/candidate is elected?

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1912526)

I'm not keen on the French.

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1905700)

Again, we have the money and personnel. We don't have the stones to do whatever it takes. They do.

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1912535)

What do you mean? You don't think Sarkozy is pro-US enough?

Originally Posted by DieselAddict (Post 1912472)

I thought we were winning the war and the surge was successful. So which is it?

Originally Posted by pj67coll (Post 1912641)

The surge appears to have been sccessful, but that doesn't mean the war is over or even close to being over. Hence the reality that if we are to achieve our goals we may well have to be prepared to stay there for a long time. It's probably the wrong strategy to reduce troop levels to pre-surge levels. That's politcians playing to people back home who don't have the stomach for a fight and is likely to backfire down the road.



The same way we are staying in Korea, Europe, Britain etc. It would be better for the US if we could also pull out of all those places and it may be feasible to do so. But then it would also be better if everybody around the globe just kissed and made up and lived happily ever after. :rolleyes:



No. I would not appove of it. But then it's not democracy itself that I care about. Recall I mentioned a situation where states begin to behave in a more civlized fashion. You do not require democracy to achieve that. Theoretically an enlightened benevolent dictatorship would do so as well. That might be an acceptable plan B. And I don't really even have a problem with the breakup of Iraq which is an artificially created state anyway.

What I do have a problem with is those who think this is not a civilizational clash and that by cutting and running the problems we leave behind wont return in amplified form in the near future.

- Peter.