How dare *YOU* criticize *THIS* war or *THESE* war plans

[pxc]

Rummy is pretty steamed that anyone would dare criticize his war plans now that there are troops out in combat, but that didn't stop him from doing the exact same thing a few years ago. And it's not just the hypocrisy that's disgusting...

"I would not say that we've been effective in this campaign because it seems to me that the goal in life is to avoid crises, not to manage them once you're in them. And I feel that this was an avoidable -- probably an avoidable situation."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/06/vietnam.vs.kosovo/

[Vince]

Rummy is pretty steamed that anyone would dare criticize his war plans now that there are troops out in combat, but that didn't stop him from doing the exact same thing a few years ago. And it's not just the hypocrisy that's disgusting...

I think he's mad that his Joint Chiefs, Gen. Meyers and himself are under fire on strategic and tactical decisions by the same reporters who can't tell a F/A-18 from a B1b.

I think he's quite justified. If you want to question, which I fully support, do it knowing the facts.

EDIT: Beyond that, Tommy Franks put together a brilliant plan to fight a 21st century war with 21st century tactics, units, and time-table. It's execution has been no less than amazing as seen by the fact that the 3rd ID and Marines are in Baghdad.

[Joe DeFuria]

EDIT: Beyond that, Tommy Franks put together a brilliant plan to fight a 21st century war with 21st century tactics, units, and time-table. It's execution has been no less than amazing as seen by the fact that the 3rd ID and Marines are in Baghdad.

Agreed.

Thus far, the way the operation has been unfolding is nothing short of amazing. It's quite disappointing to me to see media backed by "retired military officers" who have no idea waht the full plan actually is, are are also quite likely a bit out of the loop in terms of military capability anyway, criticize the operation at this time.

This doesn't mean that things can't "unfold badly" going forward, but to this point I don't see how the operation can be considered anything but remarkable.

On one hand, we're trying to do this as quick as possible (for political reasons), and on the other hand, you are trying to minimize damage to infrastructure and civilians. Those two goals are more or less in direct conflict with one another. It is astounding to me how well we have balanced to two to date.

It is a testament to the planning, and also to the troops executing the plan.

[pxc]

I think he's mad that his Joint Chiefs, Gen. Meyers and himself are under fire on strategic and tactical decisions by the same reporters who can't tell a F/A-18 from a B1b.

I think he's quite justified. If you want to question, which I fully support, do it knowing the facts.

It still doesn't excuse his criticism about Kosovo *during* the conflict. And it's not the reporters he's angry with (like they matter at all right now). I suggest you should check the dissent from the military itself, past and present. Yep, "do it knowing the facts".

[Sxotty]

PCX I think you are slightly misinformed the people whining are the people who are mad they didn't get money from him.

[pxc]

PCX I think you are slightly misinformed the people whining are the people who are mad they didn't get money from him.
Xsotty, care to elaborate on that vague statement? I don't see how it is connected to anything written above.

[Joe DeFuria]

I suggest you should check the dissent from the military itself, past and present.

Past ("retired") means nothing.

I have yet to see one named, current, military officer on record. All I see is a bunch of either

1) "Retired" folks, who just aren't in on the loop.
2) "Unnamed" sources. Who knows what that means, or who they are, or what their true gripe (if any) is.

[pxc]

I have yet to see one named, current, military officer on record.

Lt. Gen. William Wallace. Now you have.

[Vince]

It still doesn't excuse his criticism about Kosovo *during* the conflict. And it's not the reporters he's angry with (like they matter at all right now). I suggest you should check the dissent from the military itself, past and present. Yep, "do it knowing the facts".

Maybe it's just me as IE's been a bitch lately, but the only quote from Rumsfeld I see at your provided link has him saying the following:

"There is always a risk in gradualism. It pacifies the hesitant and the tentative," former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

"What it doesn't do is shock and awe and alter the calculations of the people you're dealing with," Rumsfeld point out.

Which is hardly a comment that any American whose heard the word "Vietnam" mumbled would disagree with. But, it does show that Rumsfeld knows his shit. That, right there, is the basic principle that's guided the War on Iraq in 2003.

[Joe DeFuria]

Xsotty, care to elaborate on that vague statement? I don't see how it is connected to anything written above.

Basically, it's this:

The ARMY leadership has an issue with Rumsfeld, because Rumsfeld's "vision" of the future military consists of a lessening role of ground troops. More emphasis air power and precision weapons, special ops....less on traditional army personnel.

And less army personnel = less money for the army.

So in general, the ARMY doesn't "like" Rumsfeld. And what you typically see is retired ARMY generals running around saying "NOT ENOUGH GROUND FORCES!". The fear of the ARMY is, that we'll win this war, with far fewer ground forces than these army generals are saying is necessary, and that would vindicate Rumsfeld's position.

[Joe DeFuria]

Lt. Gen. William Wallace. Now you have.


Like I said. ARMY. I would like to see the particular statements made though. Links?

[Vince]

I would like to see the particular statements made though. Links?

Same here, IIRC, he's in charge of V Corps and was just singing praise on the plan in January...

[DemoCoder]

All I can say is, remember Afghanistan. Weeks of bombing, with no perceived result by the news media. Everyone was saying "they don't even have any targets to bomb", "they already are in the stone age", etc etc. The image of a $1 billion dollar stealth bomber flying around looking for clay houses to blow up. Then of course, the comparisons to the British and Russian defeats, Vietnam, etc

Afghani fighters were supposed to be super battle hardened, would stand their ground, etc.

Then, in a few amazing days, the war was over and the whole country fell.

You can simply go back to that October on this message board and see the same arguments about the battle plan being rehashed.

Just because you don't feel there is any real progress, doesn't mean it isn't happening, especially psychologically. In Afghanistan, after a few weeks of aerial bombardment, the opposition simply caved.

As a soldier, even if you are patriotic and defending your country, there is a point -- usually after all of your buddies have died and you haven't even seen the enemy, but are starving, and being bombed 24 hrs a day -- where you can't take it anymore. Especially if you know that surrender isn't really that bad for you.


Also, you can't really surrender if your commanding officer is suicidal has a pistol in your back pushing you forward.

[SvP]

Then, in a few amazing days, the war was over and the whole country fell.

The war is far from over
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/0,1284,548335,00.html

[Joe DeFuria]

No one is saying that THIS war will be over in a "couple days."

The point is, do you really think there was "no progess" being made during the "apparent lull" in Afghanistan before things quickly turned around?

I mean, if we're not physically "sprinting" toward Baghdad 24 hrs. a day, or if John Smith hasn't gotten his 3rd MRE for the day, the reports come in that we are at a "operational pause" our supply lines are crap.

If the media has nothing new to report on, "then nothing's going on." I hope you see the fallacy of that type of mentality.

Edit: OH, I see you were talking about the war in "Afghanistan" not being "over" yet. Agree and disagree. There will always be action in Afghanistan as long as we feel terrorism / terrorists are still hiding out/plotting there.

However, the operational objective of removing the taliban from any "governmental control" has been won.

[DemoCoder]

Yes, there is still police action in Afghanistan, but the war is over and the government was toppled.

If you argument is that as long as there are guys with guns there shooting people, there is war, then war is never over, even in the western states, or in any country where there are separatists. Is Spain at war? Northern Ireland?

There will be fighting for years in Afghanistan, but you must admit, the difference between the US occupational situation and the Soviet occupation situation, are qualitatively different.

[nutball]

Sorry but when I read that Rumsfeld was giving "full credit for the miltary campaign" to the US military planners (that being the military campaign which wasn't over in seven days, and which neither shocked nor awed anyone, and was his idea), my personal reaction was:

"You two faced lying piece of dumb f*****t s***head traitor".

I can't you guys can let him get away with that nonsense! If the war was over ten days ago, do you honestly believe he'd'ave been giving credit to his "who he?" Generals? I don't think so!

[Joe DeFuria]

Um, can you explain your logic? I don't follow you at all.

Assuming that Rumsfeld is giving "full credit" to the military planners (quote? Link?), and Rumsfeld continually praises the operation thus far....

what exactly is the problem?

[Nagorak]

The picture painted by the administration as to how the war was going to go was pretty unrealistic. Whether or not they actually believed it was going to be over in a week and "everyone would surrender", that's what they implied. In that way, I think Rumsfeld and his generals deserve all the heat they get.

Just as a rule of thumb: never assume the absolute best outcome. Reality will almost never live up to your expectations, and you'll just end up being disappointed. Meanwhile, if you assume the worst, you'll almost always be pleasantly surprised, and if worst comes to worst, at least you're prepared for it.

I'm sure the US military was prepared for the worst, but the American public was not, thus the backlash by the media.

I just wish I'd known how gullible the people on Wall street were going to be. I would have gone on a short selling frenzy. ;)

[Vince]

The picture painted by the administration as to how the war was going to go was pretty unrealistic. Whether or not they actually believed it was going to be over in a week and "everyone would surrender", that's what they implied. In that way, I think Rumsfeld and his generals deserve all the heat they get.

What "heat"? You people drive me insane, what did you expect them to battle this out like you do sitting on your ass playing Counter-Strike?

How was the "picture painted by the administration as to how the war was going to go was pretty unrealistic"?

Here's some facts:

-We're in Baghdad proper after 2 weeks of fighting; having traveled over 250miles in ~ 3 days. Well beyond anything accomplished thus far in mechanized warfare.
-We've taken under 20 American dead and a smiliar amount for the Brits.
-The Iraqi government is in shambles, there is no Command & Control structure.
-The much 'vaunted' Republican Guard has been routed and a few divisions are operating at ~15-20% after an encounter.
-There was no IRBM strikes at Israel, or Saudi, or Jordan
-There are, AFAIK, no Oil fires buring in Iraq
-The number of Iraqi killed are astronomical, the 3rd ID alone killed over 400 in a little over a day.
-The collateral damage to the indigenous population has been minor.

I could keep going to, this has been one of the most sucessfull military operations EVER thus far. To say it doesn't meet your expectations just shows your ignorance - this is unpresidented. We've entered a foreign country, and killed the enemy on their land (which they know well) consistently with a kill to loss ratio thats probobly in the region of 1000:1 or higher. This isn't a war, its a route.

Where you get off saying it hasn't met your expectations just escapes my grasp of reality. It's like saying, "Why couldn't the Yankees have beat the Mets with a score of 500 to 3". Give me a break.

[chavvdarrr]

There will be fighting for years in Afghanistan, but you must admit, the difference between the US occupational situation and the Soviet occupation situation, are qualitatively different.
Few differences between USA&Soviet "occupation" of Afghanistan.
1) In 80's Afghan rebels had support from USA and Pakistan. No support now from anywhere
2) In the beginning of Soviet occupation, resistence was relatively "weak" compared to what happened later.
-We're in Baghdad proper after 2 weeks of fighting; having traveled over 250miles in ~ 3 days. Well beyond anything accomplished thus far in mechanized warfare.
This will be great if you manage to get out of Baghdad. I hope so, but it's too early to sing songs IMHO.
Besides, the choosen tactics to "run ahead" could become devastation. Iraq was consulted before the war from retired Russian generals (its confirmed). The setup now looks definetely a lot like Stalingrad just before Russian started offensive in winter 43. By any info we knew 3rd infantry is heavily outnumbered with long lines of supply, fresh reinforcements are at least 1 week away IMHO ( I may be wrong).
-We've taken under 20 American dead and a smiliar amount for the Brits.
? 20? Last time I read for 50 confirmed, 15 MIA, and I read that official data are 3 days old , and confirmed means US army have the body. Ah, and 90% of Brits were killed by US cowboys (according to BBC)
-The Iraqi government is in shambles, there is no Command & Control structure.
-The much 'vaunted' Republican Guard has been routed and a few divisions are operating at ~15-20% after an encounter.
You're sure? They saw US army and become operating @20% ? Then where are their tanks ?! destroyning 2 armoured divisions should give no less than 200 destroyed tanks. I see no pictures... nor confirmation.
-There are, AFAIK, no Oil fires buring in Iraq
But Haliburton has its contract ... yea, everyone knew it 2 months ago, why should we be surprised?
-The number of Iraqi killed are astronomical, the 3rd ID alone killed over 400 in a little over a day.
Probably. Still no confirmation.
-The collateral damage to the indigenous population has been minor.
Yes, less than 2000 dead that's really small damage.

[Lezmaka]

Yes, less than 2000 dead that's really small damage.

lol, where do you get your numbers from?

i guess technically, you're correct, although anyone could say less than 1 million and it still wouldn't be wrong.

By the way, it's more like a 1/4 to 1/3 of that if you believe the numbers at the iraqi body count site. Although, it doesn't seem they always try to find out who caused the deaths (US/UK or other Iraqi's). And if you think civilians were killed only by US/UK, then you obviously have no idea whats going over there, or has been for the past 20 or so years..

[chavvdarrr]

Let's just hope with every day war is closer to its end.
last news are either very good (ie Iraqi troops loosing motivation), or very bad (if its setup from them). Next 2-3 days will clear the situation.

[epicstruggle]

I have yet to see one named, current, military officer on record.

Lt. Gen. William Wallace. Now you have.
Actually Wallace only said that they didnt war game against the some of the tactics used by the iraqis. Like suicide bombing, soldiers putting on and off their uniforms, some other non-standard tactics.

but where has that gotten them(iraq), nothing, they killed a hand full of soldiers, and lost major parts of their country. Parts of Bhagdad have fallen/falling. So wallace can just STFU.

later,

[Joe DeFuria]

More on "disgruntled retired Army officers":

http://www.mediaresearchcenter.com/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030402.asp#2

Barry McCaffrey versus Barry McCaffrey. In an op-ed in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal the former Army General turned NBC News military analyst praised the successful military strategy against Iraq: “Gen. Tommy Franks's superb air-land-sea forces have achieved total air dominance, sunk the remainder of the Iraqi navy, and achieved a blitzkrieg success in plunging an Army-Marine three-division task force 300 miles into Iraq up to the gates of Baghdad.”

But a New York Times news story the same day quoted McCaffrey denouncing the military strategy as a failure. “Their assumptions were wrong," McCaffrey told the Times, complaining: “They went into battle with a plan that put a huge air and sea force into action with an unbalanced ground combat force."

[Silent_One]

chavvdarrr wrote:

But Haliburton has its contract ... yea, everyone knew it 2 months ago, why should we be surprised?
:roll:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5043&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=20

[Joe DeFuria]

I have yet to see one named, current, military officer on record.

Lt. Gen. William Wallace. Now you have.
Actually Wallace only said that they didnt war game against the some of the tactics used by the iraqis. Like suicide bombing, soldiers putting on and off their uniforms, some other non-standard tactics.


Lol...the media at it again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/03/pageoneplus/corrections.html

front-page article on Tuesday about criticism voiced by American military officers in Iraq over war plans omitted two words from an earlier comment by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of V Corps. General Wallace had said (with the omission indicated by uppercasing), "The enemy we're fighting is A BIT different from the one we war-gamed against."

Do you have another military officer in mind, pxc? :wink:

[kid_crisis]

Yes, less than 2000 dead that's really small damage.

Here's a snip from the article about the Iraqi lawyer (Mohammed) who helped save Jessica Lynch's life. He's talking about the Fedayeen:

"Mohammed recalled that, after the war began, he watched them (the Fedayeen) drag a dead woman’s body through the street, apparently killed because she waved at a U.S. helicopter."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895233.asp?0cl=cR

Is that one of your 2000 dead, Chavvdarr? I suppose you could say that it was the U.S. helicopters pilots fault, since if he hadn't flown over she wouldn't have waved at them and gotten killed.

Is that what you would say Chavvdarr? Do you really want to quote death statistics from an administration/regime that would allow this kind of thing to happen?

[Goragoth]

A civilian killed by the regime that would not have been killed if the US had not invaded is still partly the US' fault. Any human being dead by human hand is a dispicable thing no matter what the cause. True, more may die if Saddam stays in power but it still does not make the war just or right. It may make it neccessary and the lesser of two evils but it is not good and there are no winners. Whenever a human is murdered (and I believe that murder is still the right word for a soldier killed in war) it is a terrible thing for humanity as a whole. I do not condem this war, it may well be the right thing to do (although I think this cannot be judged until years after it is finished) but it cannot be looked upon with joy because it signifies everything that is wrong with humanity. Without the war and greed all people could be living comfortably and in security.

But I rant on. It is not the US that has caused this conflict to happen for without a reason they would not have attacked but they do carry some small responsibility for every death in this war. It is Saddam and his Baath party cronies that are the real devils.

[epicstruggle]

you know goragoth, you and people who think like you have may be killed more innocent people than anyother reason alone. Conflicts would be resolved sooner, with less deaths if we did not have to wait to convince the likes of you that the ends justified the means. Look in a perfect world there would be no evil, and everyone would live a free life. HOWEVER we dont live there. And as long as there are evil people we will have to fight them while they are trying to rise to power. If the do rise to power then more will die to bring them down. There were many dictators that should have been taken out before they had a chance to murder millions of people. To save millions, i would not mind sacrificing thousands.

The question i like to ask people like you is, "if you had to save a thousand people, would you if you had to kill one inncent child?"
I would not hesitate. Would you?

later,

[Barnabas]

To save millions, i would not mind sacrificing thousands.
Depends on saving who from what.

The question i like to ask people like you is, "if you had to save a thousand people, would you if you had to kill one inncent child?"
I would not hesitate. Would you?

Of course i wouldn't have hesitated to save a thousand iraqis who recently died as collateral damage by sacrificing George W. in his early years. :twisted:

We don't know what the future brings so it might be entirely possible that the future of this particular innocent child may well be worth the lives of those thousand people. By all means you may just be about to kill the reborn Jesus Christ (assuming you yourself carry out the 'sacrifice', of course).
The only case where such a descision can be made easily is when it comes down to the choice of saving a thousand people or yourself.

[Silent_One]

epicstruggle wrote:
The question i like to ask people like you is, "if you had to save a thousand people, would you if you had to kill one inncent child?"
I would not hesitate. Would you?

It's not so easy. As in the book Sophie's choice (and movie starring: Meryl Streep) by William Styron, making a choice like that is heart wrenching. I would like to think I could easily make what seems the obvious choice but I would be haunted.

Barnabas wrote:
The only case where such a descision can be made easily is when it comes down to the choice of saving a thousand people or yourself.

Made Easily? No situation like that is easy. Most people would be crapping their pants. The only time things get easier is when you don't see them, don't have to look the child in the eyes, when their the "enemy". War sucks, none of it is "easy", and these hypothetical would be gut wrenching.

[Barnabas]

Made Easily? No situation like that is easy. Most people would be crapping their pants. The only time things get easier is when you don't see them, don't have to look the child in the eyes, when their the "enemy".

I think you got me wrong there. I was talking about a situation where you were required to sacrifice your own life and not that of another.

[Silent_One]

I was talking about a situation where you were required to sacrifice your own life and not that of another.
I know. And it woun't be easy.

[Deepak]

Now NSA Rice says that intially Iraq will be under a retd. US General.....US is showing its true intentions, this war was never to librate Iraqi people....

US/UK are hypocrites.....geneva conventions/WMD blah blah....

They dont want any-OTHER country to develop WMDs as if they only have some DIVINE right to posses them....

I think it is time to dis-arm US itself....their conventional weapons have killed more around the world than these so called WMDs....

everyone knows that...

US supported actively Osama/mujahideens against Russians in Afg in 80s.....

Saddam was US's fav ally in 1980s after he attacked Iran...so much for liberating Iraqis...

US/UK are supporting almost all the dictatorships in Gulf and around the world....these would not survive if US stop supporting them....question is why US is not concerned about poeple in these countries.....

The truth is US will do anything for OIL....for global domination....I think we are heading towards a global war.....pretty soon!

[PC-Engine]

Now NSA Rice says that intially Iraq will be under a retd. US General.....US is showing its true intentions, this war was never to librate Iraqi people....

US/UK are hypocrites.....geneva conventions/WMD blah blah....

They dont want any-OTHER country to develop WMDs as if they only have some DIVINE right to posses them....

I think it is time to dis-arm US itself....their conventional weapons have killed more around the world than these so called WMDs....

everyone knows that...

US supported actively Osama/mujahideens against Russians in Afg in 80s.....

Saddam was US's fav ally in 1980s after he attacked Iran...so much for liberating Iraqis...

US/UK are supporting almost all the dictatorships in Gulf and around the world....these would not survive if US stop supporting them....question is why US is not concerned about poeple in these countries.....

The truth is US will do anything for OIL....for global domination....I think we are heading towards a global war.....pretty soon!

Hmm...interesting..

[epicstruggle]

@deepak: Sigh, I read your post and feel saddened that you cant/refuse to see the truth. The US has always said that there might be an interm goververnment where some US general or other would governm Iraq for some time. Do you think a democracy can be built within a day or two. You need to create a judicial system, a police system, then there the actual problem of making at least 3 different groups (shias, sunnies, kurds) to agree on what kind of government they feel they want. This will take time and so it makes sense to set up a government that is only TEMPORARY.

I read the rest of your comment there deepak and cant see you actually studying much in school about history. So ill refresh it to you. (I thought the indian schooling system was improving but I guess im wrong.) Do you remember the USSR. If you do then you must recall that the US and USSR were not allies, and actually enemies for a while. At least until the US saw the crumbling of that "evil empire". Now during this time of conflict the US HAD to support some lesser evils to defeat the USSR growing domination of the world. Good thing they did, because the US did defeat the USSR. :wink:

Next time please read history books instead of quoting from antiwar people who actually have no idea what they are talking about. :)

later

[Deepak]

epic....I finished graduation in 2002... :wink:

Who says USSR was evil....just becse they were anti-US they were evil.....this attitude sucks...

BTW, I am not against US removing Saddam...he must go....but how do you explain US support to various dictatorships regimes around the world (gulf).....

US arrogance/attitude sucks....they think as if whatever BS they say people are going to believe....they have some divine authority to decide what is good for this world and what is not....they try to meddle in each and everything in the world...

[DemoCoder]

Well, if you can't figure out what was wrong with the USSR, obviously your diploma doesn't mean very much.

[Deepak]

Well, if you can't figure out what was wrong with the USSR, obviously your diploma doesn't mean very much.

They were defintely against US.....they did hate US....they had pointed thousands of their ICBMs at US cities....they had spies in US doing anti-US activities...sabotage.....etc...

so...what?

US was doing exactly this in USSR....

They were defintely against USSR.....they did hate USSR....they had pointed thousands of their ICBMs at US cities....they had spies in USSR doing anti-USSR activities...sabotage.....etc

I cant see how USSR is evil and US is not??

[epicstruggle]

deepak, ever hear of stalin. he might have been the SINGLE greatest killer in all of history. Somehow your going to say something nice about him arent you? :roll:

later,

[Neutrality]

Well, if you can't figure out what was wrong with the USSR, obviously your diploma doesn't mean very much.

They were defintely against US.....they did hate US....they had pointed thousands of their ICBMs at US cities....they had spies in US doing anti-US activities...sabotage.....etc...

so...what?

US was doing exactly this in USSR....

They were defintely against USSR.....they did hate USSR....they had pointed thousands of their ICBMs at US cities....they had spies in USSR doing anti-USSR activities...sabotage.....etc

I cant see how USSR is evil and US is not??

*sigh*

Deepak, what the hell are you on?

I want some............

-Neutrality-

[chavvdarrr]

over and over again - black&white.
Some are white&fluff, others are black&dirty .............
Deepak says how he sees the things, and some of you say, he's dumb. But not saying WHY. because you're american? Just seeing such answers I can say he's not gonna change his POV.
That's not the way to discuss. Usually everyone gives his arguements, and answers questions pointed to him. Using insults like " you're dumb, you're left", does not help, even if it looks obvious for you.

IMHO, USSR were bad. Their way was not good way. But they were definetely not "evil empire" by design. Especially in 80's .Neither USA's way is best possible, but better maybe.
There is no way to determine for sure, if one takes in acount how different were both countries start positions after WW2.
And - someone in another discussion answered me that USA were the power that took the biggest part of winning WW2. that's just an example how watching too many times "saving Rayan" can twist so's mind. Or an indication how bad were his history-teachers. Should I call such man dumb? Obviously not. Some people seem to think their POV is the only possible truth.
then again, to fight "empire of evil" is fighting by all possible means, no matter the price.

[epicstruggle]

chavvdarr, some things are black and white. no matter how much you would like to muddy things up. USSR was an evil empire. There is no question about it. They had leaders that had no problem with killing millions of people, they might have sent millions more to the gulag. The gulag was not a summer camp, people died there for the not going along with the government. How simple is that, they were evil. Now in their demanted minds, they might have seen some reason for this, but i cant see reasonable people not seeing that this is bad.

Like I said the US did stumble from time to time in its war with the USSR. However the fact that they won, is worth the mistakes made.
The reason I did not like what deepak said was because his arguments were not reasonable. It was a basic bash US argument. Please give me a break!

BTW who do you think carried most of the fighting during WW2? The french. :roll:

later,

[Deepak]

epic.....

I am not bashing US....I am only trying to say that US is no goody-goody.....they are no better.....if Stalin killed millions....

I know this has repeated millions time....but...

Only US has ever used WMDs (ironically)......it nuked Japan killing hundreds of innocent civilians even when there was no need for it.....

It killed millions in Vietnam....

It has aided many non-democratic regimes...and continues to do so...infact many times it has conspired against democratic govts (in central america) if they went against US interests....

Osama was a creation of US not USSR....
Saddam was an US ally not so long ago////
Taliban was created by then Pakistani govt with the blessings of US....
ironically talibans were barbaric even before 9-11 but US never did anything...infact UNOCAL was trying to fix a deal with them in return for an OIL pipeline from central Asia.....

so basically all current TERRORISTS were US allies at one point of time....

So US is not so nice as they pretend to be......

[RussSchultz]

While the US isn't all roses, it certainly isn't the "friend of all terrorists" at one point or another.

The Pakistan that the US is "allied" to is Musharref, who, coincidentally, is not the one who spawned the Taliban. The Taliban supporters in Pakistan are left over from the previous regime. Musharref is doing his best to keep Pakistan relatively secular.

Hezbullah is definately the product of Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran, neither one of which has ever been on the US's list of close friends.

[ZoinKs!]

I cant see how USSR is evil and US is not?? To try to create a moral equivialancy between the US and the USSR is absolutely astounding. I am truly flabbergasted that there is anyone in the entire world who can not see the moral distinction between them. The only excuses I can find is a lack of knowledge regarding historical facts, lack of a careful consideration of those facts, or, in the worst case scenario, moral bankruptcy on the part of the person making the comparison. Deepak, I'm going to assume that you are a good person yourself and I'm guessing that you are simply unaware of some facts and haven't considered some ideas.

For example, consider the treatment of captured territory after WW2. Can anyone honestly say that, in the post WW2 period, Poland belonged to the Poles or Hungary belonged to the Hungarians? No, they belonged to the Soviet empire. Although the Red Army drove the Nazis out of Poland, they didn't liberate Poland. They set up local Communist Parties which were controlled by Moscow. They occupied Central/Eastern Europe for themselves, making Stalin the new master. When the people tried to escape Soviet influence, they paid a harsh price. (Hungary 1956; Czechoslovakia 1968)

Contrast Poland with France. After the war was over, France belonged to the French. As the US, British, Canadian, and Free French forces liberated Western Europe, they really did liberate Western Europe. And shortly after the war, when Europe couldn't even feed itself, the Marshall Plan (http://www.bnt.com/marshall/speech.html) and other assistance created a foundation upon which the Europeans built their current liberty and prosperity. (I hope the long term results of the current situation in Iraq will be just as good.)

I won't take time here to discuss any other examples, but, Deepak, I encourage you to re-examine the issue with an open mind. Perhaps you will gain a new perspective.

[Deepak]

I cant see how USSR is evil and US is not?? To try to create a moral equivialancy between the US and the USSR is absolutely astounding. I am truly flabbergasted that there is anyone in the entire world who can not see the moral distinction between them. The only excuses I can find is a lack of knowledge regarding historical facts, lack of a careful consideration of those facts, or, in the worst case scenario, moral bankruptcy on the part of the person making the comparison. Deepak, I'm going to assume that you are a good person yourself and I'm guessing that you are simply unaware of some facts and haven't considered some ideas.

For example, consider the treatment of captured territory after WW2. Can anyone honestly say that, in the post WW2 period, Poland belonged to the Poles or Hungary belonged to the Hungarians? No, they belonged to the Soviet empire. Although the Red Army drove the Nazis out of Poland, they didn't liberate Poland. They set up local Communist Parties which were controlled by Moscow. They occupied Central/Eastern Europe for themselves, making Stalin the new master. When the people tried to escape Soviet influence, they paid a harsh price. (Hungary 1956; Czechoslovakia 1968)

Contrast Poland with France. After the war was over, France belonged to the French. As the US, British, Canadian, and Free French forces liberated Western Europe, they really did liberate Western Europe. And shortly after the war, when Europe couldn't even feed itself, the Marshall Plan (http://www.bnt.com/marshall/speech.html) and other assistance created a foundation upon which the Europeans built their current liberty and prosperity. (I hope the long term results of the current situation in Iraq will be just as good.)

I won't take time here to discuss any other examples, but, Deepak, I encourage you to re-examine the issue with an open mind. Perhaps you will gain a new perspective.

Hey! It is not as if only Soviets installed puppet regimes....US is no better....

who is Karzai...
who will be the next leader of Iraq (with blessings of US)...

The fact is US has always tried to destroy anti-US govts doesnt matter if they were democratic govts...they dont care.....

more latter...

[epicstruggle]

Hey! It is not as if only Soviets installed puppet regimes....US is no better....

who is Karzai...
who will be the next leader of Iraq (with blessings of US)...

The fact is US has always tried to destroy anti-US govts doesnt matter if they were democratic govts...they dont care.....

more latter...
Sigh, I can only inform those that want to be informed of the truth. I see that you and others dont care about the truth and would rather slam/bash the US. Well Im quiting this particular thread. Im tired of arguing the same things over and over again. Deepak please see some of my previous posts on the US helping osama, saddam in the past.

later,

[Deepak]

epic...you better read this....

US Has Its Own Record of Atrocities (http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/us-atrocities.htm)

[ZoinKs!]

Hey! It is not as if only Soviets installed puppet regimes....US is no better.... *sigh* I will, for now at least, persist in my attempt to provide some enlightenment since it appears you are unaware of another set of facts.

who is Karzai... The current leader of Afghanistan. He was elected by the people of Afghanistan through means of the Loya Jirga (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1782079.stm), the Afghani Grand Council. Doesn't sound like a puppet regime to me.

who will be the next leader of Iraq (with blessings of US)... No one knows that yet. It's probably an issue Bush and Blair will discuss when they meet in Northern Ireland. Most likely, for 6-12 months after war's end, the "next leader" will be an interim government in which most internal affairs are handled by Iraqis while security and international affairs handled by the US and Britain and humanitarian assistance is handled by the UN. Eventually, the Iraqi people will elect a new governent which will replace the interim government. When the Iraqi military is rebuilt, they'll handle their own security as well.

This is what's happening right now in Afghanistan. An interim government made by the people of that nation was formed, and a national Afghani army is being assembled. This same process also happened in Germany and Japan, and I don't think either of them would appreciate being called "puppet regimes."

Contrast the examples above with Soviet behaviour. In 1956, Hungary tried to separate from Soviet influence. The result was 20,000 dead Hungarians and Hungary's prime minister was executed for treason. Or consider the USSR's response to the Solidarity movement in Poland during the early '80s. The USSR announced large scale military "exercises" near Poland's border and started mobilizing a million or so troops. Poland's leaders took the hint and crushed Solidarity.

The fact is US has always tried to destroy anti-US govts doesnt matter if they were democratic govts...they dont care..... Be more cautious when using the word "always." It doesn't "always" apply. There've certainly been times the US has done things it shouldn't have done, not done things it should have done, or left undone things it should have finished.

But this doesn't make the US a villain of the same caliber of the Soviet Union. (A case could be made that the US has been the world's single greatest force for good for the last two or three generations.) In the Cold War period, the Soviet Union was, as Reagan put it, "The focus of evil in the modern world." There's a vast gulf between the occasional errors of US foreign policy and the never ending struggle to sieze and hold on to others which characterized the communist Soviet empire.

To claim that the "US is no better" than the USSR is a sign of ignorance of the facts, not enough analysis of those facts, or moral illiteracy.

Deepak, I ask you to re-examine this issue with an open mind. On questions of morality, a vast gulf separated the US and USSR. You are currently on the wrong side of history.

[Crusher]

Only US has ever used WMDs (ironically)......

Firstly, you are flat out wrong in every aspect on this first portion of your comment.

Example 1: 1987: Saddam used mustard gas (a weapon of mass destruction) on Kurdish Iranians.

Example 2: 1993: Aum Shinri Kyo cult releases Anthrax from rooftops in Tokyo (anthrax was improperly incubated, and no human lives were lost, only birds and other small animals died). They also executed two Sarin gas attacks in 1994 and 1995, killing 18 people and injuring thousands (who only survived due to the incompetent manner of releasing the gas). They were also implicated when police discovered a device containing Cyanide, which could have killed 9,000 people.

Example 3: Many countries, including the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, Pakistan, and India, have used nuclear weapons in testing.

A correct statement would have been "The U.S. is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on a populated region of enemy territory." An even more appropriate statement, which would reflect the context of the attack, would be to say that "The U.S. is the only nation to have ever successfully used nuclear weapons on a populated region of enemy terrority in order to force the enemy to surrender."

it nuked Japan killing hundreds of innocent civilians even when there was no need for it.....

That is your (uneducated) belief, and not a fact, so please don't try and present it as one. It is also not a belief shared by the majority of the world. If you want to argue about the United States' mistakes with regards to Japanese in WW2, please use justified arguments, such as the confinement of Japanese Americans in California. The 200,000 Japenese civilians who lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki pale in comparison to the estimated 35,000,000 Chinese killed during the Japanese invasion between 1894 and 1945. There is also a difference in using WMD's to stop a war and prevent prolonged circumstances which would ammount to an even greater loss of life (U.S. bombing of Japan), as opposed to using them in genocide (Saddam gassing Kurds) or as terrorist attacks (sending Anthrax-filled letters to Americans).

[Deepak]

Ultimately the question is WHO the hell is US to decide who should govern a country....what people of a country deserve....who has given them right to do so...

[Crusher]

Ultimately the question is WHO the hell is US to decide who should govern a country....what people of a country deserve....who has given them right to do so...

According to our Constitution, and the ideals of democracy, it's the right of the people to decide who should govern the country. The U.S. isn't appointing their leaders, just giving the Iraqi people the opportunity to decide for themselves. Of course, someone will get put in charge until the system is built, because someone has to be in control. If you want to view that as the U.S. deciding who should govern the country, it's your right to have that perception I guess.

[Neutrality]

Ultimately the question is WHO the hell is US to decide who should govern a country....what people of a country deserve....who has given them right to do so...

I could see your point if Saddam was CHOSEN by the people of Iraq to rule the country but since he is not your point is rather useless and irrelevant.

Little history lesson for you :

In 1991 just after the war the kurdish population in the north and the shia muslims in the south rebelled against Saddams regime. They failed and ended up with several hundred thousand killed. They showed that the Iraqi people HAVE the the will to change the regime but LACK the power to do so. For the majority of the Iraqi population the removal of Saddam and this war is something they have been hoping for for a long time now.

Deepak, I personally find it quite astounding that a person can come here and talk so much crap about some many things without knowing even the most basic facts.


-Neutrality-

[epicstruggle]

Deepak, I personally find it quite astounding that a person can come here and talk so much crap about some many things without knowing even the most basic facts.


There are people who dont like the US, period. And will misquote or misrepresent facts to suit their needs. They see the trees but not the forest. The US has made mistakes but that pales in comparisions to all the good it has done in the world.

I am saddened that such attitudes still exists around the world.

later,
Didnt want to come back to this thread but I could not believe the amount of nonsense coming out from some.

[Sxotty]

Ultimately the question is WHO the hell is US to decide who should govern a country....what people of a country deserve....who has given them right to do so...

According to our Constitution, and the ideals of democracy, it's the right of the people to decide who should govern the country. The U.S. isn't appointing their leaders, just giving the Iraqi people the opportunity to decide for themselves. Of course, someone will get put in charge until the system is built, because someone has to be in control. If you want to view that as the U.S. deciding who should govern the country, it's your right to have that perception I guess.

Yep pretty much the reason we say they are unalienable rights, is because no one can give them away, and no one can take them, therefore anyone that takes them is wrong.

I will grant you the US has done many stupid things, and used bad arguments to say well the greater good and what not, but I truly believe that in this case it is much more justified, because we our giving our lives, not just weapons like in afganistan, and to other despot leaders. And because we are not out on some complicated game to prop up a pro-US regime that is despicable for debateable gains against the USSR. In Vietnam we did not like their democratically elected leader, so I also grant that at times we did not do what we should have, but until you see what happens now you won't know. Hopefully we will let them vote, and hopefully the election will go off in a manner that is actually fair.

Then we will see what happens.

[ZoinKs!]

Ultimately the question is WHO the hell is US to decide who should govern a country....what people of a country deserve....who has given them right to do so... I am pleased to see that you have (apparently) dropped the allegation that the US and USSR were morally equivalent.

And I think I now see some root causes of why you are/were so vehemently biased against the US. (My first guess had been that maybe all your teachers were Marxists, but I changed my mind when I realized you don't like the USSR either.) While some parts (maybe major parts) of my new analysis are likely wrong, I'll share my ideas in the next two paragraphs and let you correct any errors:

The cause of the bias against the US is emotional resentment, which in the US/USSR comparison clouded your judgement of the historical facts. The US has power and, from time to time, has been willing to use that power. The USSR once upon a time had power and, from time to time, was willing to use that power. Therefore you decided that the two nations were the same.

I don't know if it is the power itself, the way the power is used, or the fact that the power is used to influence others; but there's something about it which you find abhorrent. Please let me know if this analysis is anywhere close to the truth.

---
And now I'll briefly respond to some specifics of the post quoted above.

The US has decided that Saddam should not govern Iraq any longer. Is that a wrong decision? Should Saddam govern Iraq for years to come, die peacefully at an old age, and pass the power onto his son?

The US has decided that the people of Iraq deserve something better than Saddam Hussein's boot on their neck. The coalition has decided the people of Iraq deserve clean water, food, and the profits from their nation's natural resources. The US has decided that the people of Iraq deserve a chance: a chance for liberty, a chance for democracy, a chance for safety, and a chance for prosperity. They could have none of these things as long as Saddam remained in power.

I hope these benefits will be the long term result of the war. (Just like the liberty and prosperity of modern Europe and Japan were benefits of our victories in the Second World War and Cold War.) And I also think that war against Saddam's regime was the only way to give the people of Iraq a chance to gain those benefits.

[Deepak]

The US has decided that Saddam should not govern Iraq any longer.
The US has decided that the people of Iraq deserve something better than Saddam Hussein's boot on their neck.


IMO this is the kind of arrogant attitude US needs to abandon!

BTW why didnt US remove Saddam in 91 war itself....? They had a chance then!

Kurds were gassed in 88....why suddenly US remembered it in 2003 and decided to punish Saddam...?

US attacked Iraq this time becoz of *non-compliance* of resolution 1441 (?)....that means Iraq didnt declare its WMDs (according to US)....so do you guys feel that had Iraq declared its WMDs, US shouldnt have attacked Iraq and let Saddam run the country?

[epicstruggle]

:) I guess you dont like the US deciding/doing when you can argue/debate endlessly in the UN. Problem is that powerless people die.

BTW 1441 said something to the effect that we know you have WMDs and you need to show to us the WMDs (and destroy them) or prove that you dont have them (or have destroyed the ones we know you had).

Im going to state it again deepak, you see a tree or two but refuse to see the forest.

Saddam was not removed in 91 because the old Pres Bush did not have a mandate from the UN to remove him. Too bad he didnt just listen to the people of Iraq and do the job without the UN. We now know better that the UN has lost all credibility to deal with major crisis that might require force. Case and point North Korea, everyone wants the US to deal with it, except the US wants the UN to get a backbone and do its job for once.

About the kurds, I have stated in other threads here that my main reason for going to war was for the people of Iraq. I wish we could have liberated them back then. Unfortunatly we were still dealing with a bigger evil the USSR, and we needed Iraq in our corner.

Argue all you want there deepak that the USSR wasnt evil, but they were. Not sure how you cant see a ruthless killer for anything but a ruthless killer. Here in the states we see them as killers, not sure what you call them in India, maybe "misunderstood people"?

sigh,

[Deepak]

epic...

Scan through my previous posts, I never said that USSR was not evil (we need to find another word!).....end of story!

OK! lets see why US is invading Iraq....

Official Reasons:

1) Non-compliance of 1441 (Iraq has WMDs)

2) This regime is an evil regime....links with Al-Qaida

3) Saddam must go....he is a killer...

4) Freedom for Iraqi people

My response....

1) They havent found any WMDs...nor are they going to find any....do u believe that a country who has been under sanctions for last 10 yrs can produce WMDs...

2) Why all Al-Qaida officials are being caught in Pakistan....infact OBL himself is believed to be in Pakistan...still Pakistan receives billions of dollars in AID and Iraq is pounded with weapons costing billions of dollars BTW we have never seen any Iraqi Al-Qaida member....!

3) Similarly US can also be tried for killing millions in Vietnam....

4) Do you really believe that US would risk thousands of soldiers in fighting a war costing billions...which has resulted in some europian allies being angry with US...which has turned world opinion against US....do you believe US would fight such a war only to librate Iraqi people....?? and not for something else...?!

[epicstruggle]

deepak: I read your post and started laughing, and then I realized you probably believe what you say. :)

Anyways, Im watching tv and I see people celebrating in the streets of Iraq (some are looting, but thats probably because they have nothing), others are throwing flowers at the tanks of the coalitions, other are tearing down pictures of saddam and using their shoes to hit those pics (big insult in the middle east), iraqi women are cooking food for the coalition soldiers to show their joy.

This made me a bit teary eyed, seeing people realize they now have hope to have a better life. And then I think of you, and the rest of the radical anti war movement that are probably thinking they wished saddam had won, or some such nonsense. I hope we can bring joy to the North Koreans next.

I just thank god (hindu gods :)) that the Pres of the US was bold enough to do as he saw was the right thing to do.

later,

[Deepak]

But even you will agree (you may not want to show it though :D ), US is in Iraq for anything but to Librate them...why on earth US would fight an 80 billion dollars war in Iraq?? Answer!!!

[epicstruggle]

Answer: to remove the chance that Iraq gives WMDs to terrorist groups, which could cause TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF DAMAGE. A couple of envelopes of anthrax cost several million dollars of damage/cleanup costs. If the person used something deadlier it could costs an unimaginable amount of money and many thousands, if not millions of deaths. THATS WHY.

You want me to say *il, not going to say it since thats not the case. :roll:

[Deepak]

epic....You are a good man!

Atleast you agree that This war is not to librate Iraqi people....Thanks! 8)

I would urge B&B...Bush and Blair to stop harping again and again that this war is to Librate Iraqi poeple!!!!

[epicstruggle]

Atleast you agree that This war is not to librate Iraqi people....Thanks! 8)

:shock: :shock:

What, my primary reason to go to war with Iraq has always been to liberate the people. To me the WMD is second, and still a worthy reason to go to war for.

Let me repeat myself: The people of Iraq should be liberated and war seems to be the only answer.

later

[ZoinKs!]

1) They havent found any WMDs...nor are they going to find any....do u believe that a country who has been under sanctions for last 10 yrs can produce WMDs... Why (or how) would the economic sanctions keep Saddam from developing wmd's? He certainly had plenty of cash to spend on frivolous palaces...

2) Why all Al-Qaida officials are being caught in Pakistan....infact OBL himself is believed to be in Pakistan...still Pakistan receives billions of dollars in AID and Iraq is pounded with weapons costing billions of dollars BTW we have never seen any Iraqi Al-Qaida member....! I see that you are from India; you really should know enough about your region to not need to ask this question. Some parts of Pakistan are practically ungovernable. In some places, the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is only a line on a map; it is very porous; for practical purposes in some areas the border could just as well not exist.

As for why Pakistan is recieving aid money, refer back to your very own statement about the Al-Qaida officials being captured there.

As for Iraqi Al-Qaida members, I'm not an expert on the group but there probably were some Iraqis in it. And there are terrorist groups other than Al-Qaida. A number of their camps have been found in Iraq.

3) Similarly US can also be tried for killing millions in Vietnam.... I don't know offhand the casualty numbers of Vietnam, but I don't see how a trial would be justified. If we wanted, I'm sure we could have a debate about a war from a generation ago. However, to be blunt, considering the grasp of history you displayed during the US/USSR debate, it doesn't seem a worthwhile use of either my or your time right now. Particularly when there are events of immense consequence happening right now.

4) Do you really believe that US would risk thousands of soldiers in fighting a war costing billions...which has resulted in some europian allies being angry with US...which has turned world opinion against US....do you believe US would fight such a war only to librate Iraqi people....?? and not for something else...?! The liberation of the Iraqi people is the major goal of this war, it isn't the major trigger of it. There's definately a lot more to this story. But I can't take time right now to tackle such a big topic... :( (I might need to start a whole new thread for that one.)

---
btw, I'd still like to know your thoughts regarding my analysis of why you so strongly despise the US... to save you the trouble of going back to that post, I'll quote it below. (The reason I'm belaboring this point is because I'd like to know why people hate us even when our goals are honorable.) Whether it is or isn't the reason for your anger against the US, please let me know. The cause of the bias against the US is emotional resentment, which in the US/USSR comparison clouded your judgement of the historical facts. The US has power and, from time to time, has been willing to use that power. The USSR once upon a time had power and, from time to time, was willing to use that power. Therefore you decided that the two nations were the same.

I don't know if it is the power itself, the way the power is used, or the fact that the power is used to influence others; but there's something about it which you find abhorrent. Please let me know if this analysis is anywhere close to the truth.

[Deepak]

by US I mean US policies only....

more later....

[Snyder]

Let me repeat myself: The people of Iraq should be liberated and war seems to be the only answer.
later

So, as you think war is the only answer, maybe you could answer me that question, as no one I tried to discuss this with seemed to have an answer:

In order to liberate millions of civilians - is it ok to put up with the (predicted) death of thousands of them? (Please no bickering about exact numbers - its the order of magnitude I'm referring to) That you calculate a small part of casualties so that the greater part can live in freedom sometime?

[epicstruggle]

listen if i had to kill myself or someone else to save thousands of lives. Id do it. I could not live with myself if i did not help save those people. (movie choice, hard to believe it would ever come to it).

I would sacrifice the thousands of lives to liberate the millions, as I know that saddams regime costs about 5000 lives a months. So in one month youve made up the diff. Too bad we couldnt get the rest of the sissies (france, germany, russia, china) to help show a united front, could have gotten saddam out without any fighting

later,

[Pete]

Deepak, get real: of course America expects to get something out of this, given the human and material resources we're putting into it. But the moral aspect, which is right/good/just, shouldn't be lost amidst economic reality.

To refute your response #1 above, just look at North Korea's nukes. #2 & 3 are also overly simplistic, but I don't feel like typing out a response just now. :P

Snyder: thousands of people had and would have died under Saddam's regime. The question is, will they die (accidentally) in the name of freedom, or (wilfully) in the name of Saddam's gilded toilets?

The question of whether it's worth sacrificing a thousand lives for a million's freedom is much more difficult, but not one that applies to the current situation.

[Crusher]

I think some people need to keep in mind that we have declared war against Terrorism, not just al-Qaida, and not just Iraq.

Pakistan's government is relatively acceptable. Pakistan's militant organizations that are not controlled by the government are not. And if you want a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida through Pakistan, try looking in the other direction. Al-Qaida are being captured in Pakistan, where their friends are hiding them. These same militant groups that are hiding al-Qaida members are the ones who have pledged their support to Saddam's regime in Iraq. It's hard to argue that there is no connection, some people just like to nitpick and say that the connection doesn't matter until there's hard evidence that Iraq has given material support to al-Qaida.

[Deepak]

Now that *Operation Iraqi Freedom* is more or less over, do you guys think that US will take military action against Syria/Iran as few US officials seem to suggest??? :?:

[Pete]

No, I think a successful Iraqi democracy may be enough to topple the other thugocracies in the region by itself. The excuse of "America the imperialist" will be irrelevant; neighbors would now be able to look to their "fellow Muslims" for a better example of government than their own.

This all hinges on a successful Iraqi democracy presiding over a unified Iraq, though.

[Deepak]

A difficult question for you....how do you justify US/UK support to Saudi/UAE/Bahrain/Qatar and other Kingdoms which are nothing more than theocracies in true sense....? People in these countries have no voting rights....atleast in Iran, President is elected by Irani people...still US talks about bombing Iran... :roll:

[Pete]

I'm not sure I can. Bernard Lewis said something interesting in his BookTV interview, that paying taxes guarantees your right to vote, and most Arab countries are so oil-rich that the ruling class can do away with the pesky technicalities of government.

Iran is interesting, as I believe the religious council still rules supreme. The mere fact that they hold elections, democratic or not, is a positive step toward real democracy. They might be the first to change on their own.

But I certainly don't approve of a thousand princes running around with their own "allowances" while the rest of the country goes without. Heck, I don't even approve of one price on a government payroll. Nor do I approve of Saudi Arabia's apparent blind eye to Wahhabism [sic?].

And I don't profess to know much more about the Middle East than the reading and news-watching I've done in the past few months, so my opinions on what should happen in the region are based on very recent and perhaps superficial facts. So I don't know who would be governing now if America didn't value a steady supply of oil as much as it does. I don't even know if American troops are there to prevent foreign invasion or internal change, though, judging by troop deployments elsewhere, I'd guess it would be the former more than the latter. South Korea only recently transitioned to a democracy from a military dictatorship, I was told, so I doubt America would be opposed to progressive governmental change.

[Deepak]

South Korea has been a democracy since 1988!.....History of South Korea (http://www.worldrover.com/history/south_korea_history.html)...

I am surprised that a country like South Korea who is an industrial powerhouse has been under military rule for many year...

and even more surprisingly, India has been a democracy despite poverty (reducing), curruption, mal-governance etc/// since 1947 when she got her independence from UK....

I salute our people for supporting democracy!! 8)