[JakeW]

Originally Posted by Pieter Friedrich

why would it be better? either way Iraq would be controlled by a dictatorial regime. true, the US would be a dictatorial regime that killed less (note the "less") innocent people than the Hussein regime did, but it would still be dictatorial.

I appreciate the dramatic effect of your comments, but anyone who understands the meaning of the word dictator, or a dictatorial government system can understand that a U.S. puppet government does not behave the same way.

As for why it would be better, it's not hard list to populate, but we'll start with "less" people will die, and "more" people will have the chance to vote on changes to their own government.

Jake

[Wheatmeister]

Originally Posted by JakeW

I appreciate the dramatic effect of your comments, but anyone who understands the meaning of the word dictator, or a dictatorial government system can understand that a U.S. puppet government does not behave the same way.

Really? So the Shah of Iran was better than say...Mohammad Mossadeq, the man the CIA financed an overthrow of to restore the Peacock Throne in Iran.(It should of course be noted here that Mossadeq was not at all dictatorial. This is merely an instance of a nasty acting US puppet government.) Because you see, all of our problems in the Middle East can be traced back to the overthrow of Mossadeq and the rise of Reza Shah. US intervention in the affairs of other countries because we were scared sh..spitless about first the spread of communism then Islamic radicalism started here. We are currently not only paying for fifty years of foreign policy screwups(Mossadeq was ousted in '53), but we are also continuing such screwups with our actions in Iraq. The solutions to these problems are not military. They are humanitarian. And even then, only in an advisory capacity. Anyone who believes different is deluding themselves.

Originally Posted by JakeW

As for why it would be better, it's not hard list to populate, but we'll start with "less" people will die, and "more" people will have the chance to vote on changes to their own government.

Unless of course it's Algeria in 1996, where the CIA subversively put an end to democratic elections because the party securing most of the votes was an Islamist party. So much for the Algerians having a chance "to vote on changes to their own government."

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by Wheatmeister

Unless of course it's Algeria in 1996, where the CIA subversively put an end to democratic elections because the party securing most of the votes was an Islamist party. So much for the Algerians having a chance "to vote on changes to their own government."

Good points all. Do you have any evidence that this situation will be the same? Having concerns is appropriate and responsible, but the chance for things to be done wrong or badly doesn't make it a certainty.

Jake

[Wheatmeister]

I agree, Jake, that it isn't a certainty, but our government seems to make it a habit to repeat mistakes of the past. I have very little confidence that such a nasty cycle will be broken in Iraq.

[aiwahead]

Jared, with the recent events such as the relative peace after the so called handover of soverignty and the assesment of the Congressional board that the CIA had a major falling out if it misread the fact that Saddam had WMDs, which we still have no hard evidence in the form of testimony (Correct me if I'm wrong, I havent read the report, going off of what I have heard in news media which can be inherrantly flawed) either way. Essentially as it stands now, it could be either way: The CIA goofed and dropped the ball, Saddam's former regime was one of lies reporting to himself that there were indeed WMD's when there were not, OR that they are somewhere else, hidden or elsewise moved. I remember in the opening days of the war the statement that a truck convoy had crossed iraq's boarder into syria, was this ever fully investigated? Er.. I think I lost my train of thought there, and Im sorry but Ive been up for 72 hours doing various last minute papers for my english classes ..but anyways, What are your current thoughts?

[JerryLove]

I have very little impression that there is a relative peace occuring; earlier today 8 or more were killed, and at least 34 wounded in a car-bomb, and I believe we currently have 4 kidnap-victims awaiting execution by millitants. True, Al Sauder has been quieter as he rearms.

"he sent them to Syria" is something of a desperate attempt to save face. Blair has come out and taken full responsability for his own country's poor intelligence. Further, we had the unin (Blick comes to mind) telling us that there were no WMD there... I suppose we owe Saddam an apology.

[aiwahead]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I have very little impression that there is a relative peace occuring; earlier today 8 or more were killed, and at least 34 wounded in a car-bomb,

Correct, jerry. I said relative peace, and it has been relatively peacefull, with a total lack of car-bombings for nearly a month (Correct me if Im wrong). This morning's carbomb was actually probably set to be another simoultanious explosion with a pair that were in another city.. although I forget which. Marines caught and destroyed the other two, the one that killed did relatively little damage to its estimated 1000 pound payload, injuring far more than it killed.

Speaking of which, you might of heard something. I was wondering about the materials used in these carbombs. A vast majority of them seem to be a sort of mobile HE bomb, that is to say they are meant for their explosive nature and not their shrapnel, although quite a bit is obviously created. Any idea if they are planting shrapnel along with the explosives as many times is the case in many israeli bombings?

EDIT: Oops, forgot about the hostages. I belive its 3, although im not sure the exact number, but the philipene hostage is supposedly going to be kept alive since they're pulling out anyways. Although I wonder at just how smart these guys are when the pullout was pre-scheduled. (Although I do belive they were talking of extending the tour of duty for their 50 some troops)

Edit2: Can you tell I'm tired? I forgot about the syria thing as well. Yes I agree that it is a very weak explination, but it is a possibility none the less and with the possible failure of the CIA in the first place it must be considered just as much as the fact that they just dont exist. Iran, for that matter, would have been a perfect place to send them. Although somewhat improbable because of the Iraq-Iran relations, I doubt they would refuse it, if hypothetically they had gotten such items. What do you think?

Edit3!: Man I cant read today.. oh well. About blair, Yes I heard that a few minutes ago, and I dont doubt blair's party will be largely voted out of office, if not he also. However, logically and through the chain of command, I dont see how blair would have been personally responsible (I know he claims to take responsibility), that would be the screwup of MI-6..er.. or is it MI-5? Stupid english acronymns ^^;

[JerryLove]

Correct, jerry. I said relative peace, and it has been relatively peacefull, with a total lack of car-bombings for nearly a month (Correct me if Im wrong).

There have been many bombings this month... let me see about car-bombs in particular...

Car bombs are down, but violence / deaths are consistant:

"RAJIV CHANDRASEKARAN: I think that's the case here. You know, in these past two weeks, we haven't had any of the spectacular car bomb type attacks as these big assaults against Iraqi or U.S. targets. But U.S. Military officials tell me that all is not really quiet, that the average number of daily attacks is still hovering around 40. "

Speaking of which, you might of heard something. I was wondering about the materials used in these carbombs. A vast majority of them seem to be a sort of mobile HE bomb, that is to say they are meant for their explosive nature and not their shrapnel, although quite a bit is obviously created. Any idea if they are planting shrapnel along with the explosives as many times is the case in many israeli bombings?

The car itself would seem to be shrapnel; the IED's are used against vehicles, so shrapnel-bombs would not be as appropriate. I'd have to check on suicide bombs.

EDIT: Oops, forgot about the hostages. I belive its 3, although im not sure the exact number, but the philipene hostage is supposedly going to be kept alive since they're pulling out anyways.

There are at least 4. Two Bulgarians, one Egyptian, and the Phillipine.

I dont see how blair would have been personally responsible (I know he claims to take responsibility), that would be the screwup of MI-6..er.. or is it MI-5? Stupid english acronymns ^^;

Because he is ultimately in charge... he makes the final decisions. To quote one of our presidents: "The buck stops here". I wish Bush had a similar sense of responsability.

In fact, forget Bush and Kerry; I want to elect Blair .

[aiwahead]

Haha, good point about blair taking responsibility even if it isnt his in the chain of command. Its been quite some time since any american president did that, and both bush and kerry have shown their reluctance to take responsibility for anything that happens to go against their wishes.

I think the violence is going to be consistant untill the crackdowns get hard-core and the people start learning their new government isnt jacking them around. Thanks for the quote, though. Tough to figure real numbers when no news networks actually GIVE them. =/

I know the IED's are anti-vehicular.. they arent much more generally than a traditional shape-charge explosive on a slightly larger scale. IE a mine. Granted its more of a claymore in the way they're detonated, but still.

About the cars, I actually wonder just how effective any shrapnel would even be. A thousand pounds of explosives, depending on the car's body components, may disintigrate a vast majority of the metal immediately. Not sure though.