prediction time...

[bishop]

anyone care to guess what the picture in iraq will look like a year from now?

[ComradeRed]

The "crusading" soldiers smiling over the bodies of innocent civilians they killed.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Sigh, ComradeRed sadly is a perfect fit around here if thats his true opinion...


The Iraqi's will be incontrol of thier own ccountry, the Us will have troops on the ground and helping with security but with a much diminished profile, and like Japan and Germany before it, a new country rebuilding itself out of the ashes of its evil leader.

[Zeebadee]

I think it will look pretty much like it does now. We'll just be another $100 billion or so and a few more GI's poorer though.

[ComradeRed]

You mean when the US occupied Japan and West Germany? Iraq will have the same control as Japan or Germany had over their own nation?

Moreover, Japan's "evil leader" was created out of the great depression. The want to be self-sufficient, because of their reliance on the West and Japan is an island with limited resources. Militarism and Imperialism was gaining influence, and the nations leaders were reflecting that. This led to conquests (viz. Korea, China, Pascific Islands, etc.) and events such as the rape of najing. Was Japan evil? Well, yes and no. Their motive to be self sufficient wasn't evil, but their means to be so was.

[Sonart]

[sarcasm]Soldiers will start cutting ears from dead Iraqis as trophies[/sarcasm]

[Comrade]

ComradeRed, heh.

As for predictions, I believe we will be involved in the middle East for the rest of time.
This is not a bad thing.
We have been involved in Germany for the past 60 years, and when was the last time they attacked anyone?
It would be a greater crime to put in an unstable democracy, hand it over to the UN (which has shown no interest in fixing the Middle East), and run to prevent casualties to our soldiers, than to suffer those casualties and destroy Islamic fundamentalism in Arab culture.
Vicchio seems to understand.

Red's arguement seems is that Japan was justified in its imperial ambitions. I'm sorry, but no, it wasn't, and the Japanese are also not children who are not responsible for their own actions.

[ComradeRed]

I feel that imperialism is a stage that all capitalist nations go through, true they should be responsible for their attrocities at the rape of najing and other places, and their social darwinist views are unjustifiable. Many of their motives I condemn, most I have all ready listed.

I felt that comparing Al Quada to Japan, however, is nowhere similiar.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Who compared Al-Quada and Japan?????

[ComradeRed]

sorry, Iraq and Japan. Thinking 2 things at once...

[arclight]

Just as the intafada of Hamas and Arafat declared in 2000 has failed, the terrorism in Iraq will fade out, hopefully sooner than later. I imagine that in a year, Iraq will be mentioned in the press about as often as Kosovo is now ( how many years have we been there now, I don't hear Dan Rather and Peter Jennings complaining about an exit strategy there). Hopefully we will have the resolve to see the situation in Iraq through to the end. History will remember this as ultimately a good deed, and helping to free the tortured, terrorized and maligned Iraqis from an evil dictator, not that it is actually something our government is instructed to do by that one document, what was it called again....Now if we could only help the maligned taxpayers bearing the burden of defunct and failing Social security and welfare programs.

[Sonart]

Just as the intafada of Hamas and Arafat declared in 2000 has failed, the terrorism in Iraq will fade out, hopefully sooner than later.

See there, Arclight? You just defeated your own logic. Yes, the Intifada has failed as far as achieving the Palestinian's political goals. So far. It hasn't stopped. In fact it simply goes on and on; bombings, street fighting, rocket attacks. How long now has it been going on in Israel and the occupied territories, Arclight?

Yet you somehow think that OUR Intifada in Iraq "will fade out"? From the looks of things, I suspect that's a dreamy assumption we can add to other dreamy assumptions, like flower strewn avenues with cheering throngs, and the entire occupation paid for by oil, and the quick dispatching of a "few dead-enders" and our favorite Iranian spy, Ahmed Chalabi, ensconsed as head of the interim government.

[Comrade]

What's wrong with comparing Japan and Iraq?
Both have a flaw in their culture (in Japan's it happened to be militarism rather than religious fundamentalism), which we were perfectly ready to do the whole live and let live, then we were attacked, by both Japan's militarism and by Islamic fundamentalism. Only going after Al Qaida would be solving the symptoms, not the cause.
And like in Japan, we are going to, through armed presence, stamp out the repressiveness, and allow Arabic culture to survive in the modern world.
Groups of men walk around Saudi Arabia with sticks, they beat any women wearing "inappropriate clothing" or not accompanied by a man.

By the way, excusing Japan's imperialism as "just a phase capitalist countries, (which, by the way, is incorrect, as 19-20th century Japan's economy was centrally controlled), go through" is worthless. They expressed the flaws of their culture, attacked us, and we went from live and let live to live and remove the harmful influences.

Sonart, are there not an equal amount of things that were said would happen that DID happen? Such as rebuilding of infrastructure, an Iraqi constitution (of COURSE it was overseen by us. We did the same thing to Japan and Germany, and you can't say they're worse off for it), things that actually matter? Or is leftist (because that IS where this sentiment comes from) defeatism somehow more comfortable?

[tusaki]

The main thing wrong with comparing japan and iraq is that japan is country with one people, one religion, one history. And without insurgents blowing themselves up.
Japanese imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism, I agree with that. But I disagree with your notion that US presence in iraq has anything to do with "allowing arab culture to survive" (how? why? what). This is true: "Only going after Al Qaida would be solving the symptoms, not the cause.".. But what would the cause be?

[Comrade]

I thought I explained, so I'll do so again.

I believe that the problem, the same as it was for the nationalistic Japanese, is in the culture of entire Arabia. Not the whole culture, when we reformed Japan we didn't make them Little America, neither outlawing kimonos or shinto. I am saying that the Arab needs to go through SOMETHING that would remove those things that lead Arabs to terorrism and, more importantly for US, and the reason we actually got involved, is to stop using America as the scapegoat for its failures to compete in the world. Al Qaida has (or had) numbers in the tens of thousands.

Their original demands, as I read on CNN.com back at the first WTC bombing, were that we cut off all contact with their society. Internet, radio, television. Because we were subverting their society. We couldn't subvert their society if the average Arab didn't want it, which means to me that the average Arab WANTS freedom, but those freedoms are HERESY to Islam, as dictated by the rulers of the Arabic world, the best example of which is Khomeini. The goal would be to liberalize the interpretation of the Quran, much as a Arab version of the Reformation, or something like that.

They outlawed Barbies as immoral (in Iran, I believe)! Barbies, that of women who dress as they please, own and drive their own cars, date, all those things that symbolize the antithesis of fundamentalist precepts of Arab society as it exists today. The goal would not be to destroy Islam or anything silly like that, but to just "liberalize" Arabic society, so that it can get on it's feet.

Sure, of course Japan and Arabia aren't the same situation, but the overall concept is the same. That is why we are building bases there.
If that is not why we are there, why ARE we there? I even made a thread about this and nobody produced counter-claims, besides "contracts for Halliburton by Crime Lord Bush."

[tusaki]

I agree with you of the absurdity of the demands of islamic extremists, but how is the military occupation of one country going to "help arab culture survive"?

[Comrade]

Not the military occupation, the liberal democracy we are trying to implement. The occupation is just a prerequisite to success for the new country. Same reason why we stationed troops all over the place in Japan and Germany. The "Germany problem" as it is sometimes, politically incorrectly, refered to.
If we leave before Iraq can stand on it's own, then we just wasted our time. A failed democracy in Iraq will be infinitely worse than Saddam ever was, because the Islamic fundamentalists could go, "See! God has struck down that heathen contruct! We must follow the word of God (i.e. the fundamentalist perception of the Quran)."
A successful Iraq is NOT good for other fundamentalist leaders, because a successful, liberal Arab country? Khomeini once said that America is successful, despite breaking all of the fundamentalist (i need a better word, that one is too long) laws, is because it is in league with Satan. Yet, an Arabic culture that shows fundamentalism is NOT the path to success...

If you want to compare something.
The Bible says that homosexuals should be burned, also people who plant 2 different crops side by side should also be killed. But people have recognized, during the Reformation (am I saying the right movement?) that there are parts of the Bible which are simply products of their times. Fundamentalism is that in order to be a holy society, we MUST burn those homos and farmers. Liberalism is saying, "You know, The Quran is a good book, but some parts of it..."
Right now, admitting that any part of the Quran could be wrong is heresy. The objective would be to change that, through making a liberal society, and Iraq (more specifically, Baghdad) is the traditional capitol of the Arabic world.

Do you see what I mean?

[tusaki]

I see what you mean, and I think it has a chance. But the 'sunni/sjiite/kurd' problem could rip the country apart. And there will be outside insurgents who will believe that the iraqi government is a puppet of satan, no matter if it was chosen or not.

[Comrade]

I've heard it said that Bush might have a bigger chance of success if he had supported a country "Kurdistan," broken those 3 sections of Iraq up into the 3 respective parts, but Turkey would've opposed a Kurd nation because they could possibly lose a lot of southern territory if there was some sort of pan-Kurdism, and a fractured Iraq would be harder to administer, as well as look bad to Arabs. I think the effect is better if we take Iraq as a whole.

As for the people who say the new Iraq is the puppet of Satan, that is what we are trying to change, that anything that doesn't follow the strictest interpretation of the Quran is evil.

[bishop]

The Iraqi's will be incontrol of thier own ccountry, the Us will have troops on the ground and helping with security but with a much diminished profile, and like Japan and Germany before it, a new country rebuilding itself out of the ashes of its evil leader.

i agree somewhat, although the reality won't be nearly so rosy.

the kurds will increase their struggle for autonomy. (they were extremely unhappy with the security council resolution that just passed) al sadr's militia will still remain. terrorists will continue to infiltrate iraq and assassinate moderates/democrats. the likelihood of civil war will greatly increase.. and iraqi oil exports will be insufficient to pay for iraq's needs - so we will continue to foot the bill.

now, if all of these scenarios either don't happen, or are effectively resolved (which would be a miracle since the post-war period has been mired with failure), then things could end up close to your rosy scenario.