For The Fans of Barack Obamma

[strigori]

Some wont like what I am going to say here. I do not believe democracy will work in Iraq.

 

One of the unstated most important principles of democracy is that of the national identity. When the United States is ever attacked, the bickering about race, money, liberal, conservative, all vanish and everyone is an American first, then anything else second. In Iraq, people are first sunni shiite or kurd, then muslim, and then Iraqi third at best. There is no national identity, and no real desire for one.

[zoogs]

I think that's one of the most important principles of a nation. Nations don't have to be democracies, but without a national identity, then you end up with a fractured, fragile state.

 

I'm sure there is desire for a national identity: each group desires for *everyone* to be part of their own group identity. This just makes the whole nation-building idea very untenable, in my opinion.

 

Certainly, there are some functions that need to reside with the federal government. Just to name one – the Interstate highway system would never have come into being without a nationally unified system. In fact, interstate commerce would be a nightmare without a federal oversight system. And look at minimum wage – if not for the federal oversight, some regions would be so poor (due to lack of resources, initiative, etc.) that someone born to a particular region or state would start life in a huge hole, with little possibility of moving upward.

 

But all of that comes with a price – a way to pay for it…

 

Agree. There can't be no federal oversight, but this only means that not all oversight is good and not all is bad. The balance is tricky to strike.

[Blackshirtsguru]

Some wont like what I am going to say here. I do not believe democracy will work in Iraq.

 

One of the unstated most important principles of democracy is that of the national identity. When the United States is ever attacked, the bickering about race, money, liberal, conservative, all vanish and everyone is an American first, then anything else second. In Iraq, people are first sunni shiite or kurd, then muslim, and then Iraqi third at best. There is no national identity, and no real desire for one.

 

 

 

I totally agree with you. Some Middle Eastern people would love to have it but it would considered "Americans throwing their beliefs onto us" therefore trumping any idea of Democracy.

[walksalone]

 

So your only reason for endorsing a President is because he has served in the Military? Did I read that correctly?

 

That's not my only reason, but a very important one. When you're sending our servicemen and women into harms way, shouldn't the president know what that really means, instead of just giving a concerned look, and that they'll "be in his prayers"?

 

I was in the US Army during the watch of the "inept one", Clinton. We were deployed to more area's, where we didn't need to be, than anytime in recent history. Was he in the military, no.

[walksalone]

As you noted, though, your belief is only one of many possible scenarios. I find it, based on a historical perspective and based on current situations, to be unlikely.

 

The history of Iraq, for almost 5,000 years, is that of a fractured state – in reality, of warring tribes. That’s true today, with the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. The only times that “Iran” has been a unified state is when it was ruled by a totalitarian authority. Obviously, the U.S. will not do that.

 

So what happens if the U.S. pulls out (either immediately or in a staged process)? Most likely, there will be a power struggle between the Shiites and Sunnis, with the Kurds remaining isolated in the North (they already claim to not belong to the “unified” Iran). And what of the insurgents? Not much. They wouldn’t be able to gain in greater foothold than they have now, as any attempt to align with one faction of Iran’s population will bring about immediate reprisal by the other.

 

More to the point, I have yet to understand the argument that a U.S. pullout would result in “the terrorists gaining a foothold”. They have that – and the fact that it has remained largely a guerilla action points out that most Iraqis will not subscribe to their cause. If they were going to, they would have done so by now; the presence of Americans in the country would be a natural unifying force – but it hasn’t happened.

 

Further, what more do we have to fear? The administration claims that various other countries are already bases for terrorist operations – Syria, Iran, etc. Claiming Iraq (even if it was possible) would gain terrorist only one thing – access to oil. But if they try that, they have to create static locations that we can easily attack with little risk to us.

 

The reality is that 5,000 of history demonstrates that Iraq will never be democratized or unified (at least, not without totalitarian rule) – there will always be tribal conflicts and warfare.

 

To be unlikely? Well, I beg to differ.

 

I think that Iran would jump at the chance to attack Iraq, where in turn, we'd be sending soldiers back to where they'd just left from. Not because of the oil, or the nukes, but because our president would cave in to the pressure of the U.N.

 

If we leave, we'll just end up having to go back, sooner rather than later.

 

The "terrorists gaining a foothold", is the least of our worries. It's their neighbor, Iran, is whom we need to be concerned with.

[Blackshirtsguru]

 

So your only reason for endorsing a President is because he has served in the Military? Did I read that correctly?

 

That's not my only reason, but a very important one. When you're sending our servicemen and women into harms way, shouldn't the president know what that really means, instead of just giving a concerned look, and that they'll "be in his prayers"?

 

I was in the US Army during the watch of the "inept one", Clinton. We were deployed to more area's, where we didn't need to be, than anytime in recent history. Was he in the military, no.

 

First off I applaud you for serving in the US Army. I also did 10 years in the US Military. I do see your point and I respect your comment however...I trump that with a George W Bush question. What branch of Military did "G Dubya" serve in again? Oh that's right the Texas National Guard. If you want to get techinical, some claim that he joined the Guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Even in the Guard his flight times and attendence record were questionable. I'm just sayin............

[AR Husker Fan]

As you noted, though, your belief is only one of many possible scenarios. I find it, based on a historical perspective and based on current situations, to be unlikely.

 

The history of Iraq, for almost 5,000 years, is that of a fractured state – in reality, of warring tribes. That’s true today, with the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. The only times that “Iran” has been a unified state is when it was ruled by a totalitarian authority. Obviously, the U.S. will not do that.

 

So what happens if the U.S. pulls out (either immediately or in a staged process)? Most likely, there will be a power struggle between the Shiites and Sunnis, with the Kurds remaining isolated in the North (they already claim to not belong to the “unified” Iran). And what of the insurgents? Not much. They wouldn’t be able to gain in greater foothold than they have now, as any attempt to align with one faction of Iran’s population will bring about immediate reprisal by the other.

 

More to the point, I have yet to understand the argument that a U.S. pullout would result in “the terrorists gaining a foothold”. They have that – and the fact that it has remained largely a guerilla action points out that most Iraqis will not subscribe to their cause. If they were going to, they would have done so by now; the presence of Americans in the country would be a natural unifying force – but it hasn’t happened.

 

Further, what more do we have to fear? The administration claims that various other countries are already bases for terrorist operations – Syria, Iran, etc. Claiming Iraq (even if it was possible) would gain terrorist only one thing – access to oil. But if they try that, they have to create static locations that we can easily attack with little risk to us.

 

The reality is that 5,000 of history demonstrates that Iraq will never be democratized or unified (at least, not without totalitarian rule) – there will always be tribal conflicts and warfare.

 

To be unlikely? Well, I beg to differ.

 

I think that Iran would jump at the chance to attack Iraq, where in turn, we'd be sending soldiers back to where they'd just left from. Not because of the oil, or the nukes, but because our president would cave in to the pressure of the U.N.

 

If we leave, we'll just end up having to go back, sooner rather than later.

 

The "terrorists gaining a foothold", is the least of our worries. It's their neighbor, Iran, is whom we need to be concerned with.

If there is one thing that would unite Iraq, it would be an attack by Iran. Regardless, Iran is already considered a terroist state. We don't have any appreciable interest in Iraq's oil supply - check out the countries from which we import oil. So, what is lost even if what you believe were to happen came to pass?

[walksalone]

Here's a question for you liberals, conservatives and moderates:

 

If Obama is elected president, do you honestly think he would immediately pull our troops out of Iraq? What if his generals strongly advise him against doing that? Do you think he is going to listen to his generals?

 

I can't imagine him not listening. We already have a president who failed to listen to his generals. I don't think Barack, Billary or John are going to ignore their advice. So the anti-war activists may be in for a big disappointment no matter who is elected.

 

 

 

Many Generals strongly advised Bush not to go to war before they had an exit strategy firmly in place. We all see how that is working, I feel that no matter what we do in Iraq the country will never be a true Democratic nation free of Tyranny. It's sad to say but the Middle East will ALWAYS be in turmoil no matter what happens. If Obama is elected you will start to see downsizing of our forces and more turned over to the Iraqi Government. Then again, he will be inheriting a huge friggen mess started and left by "G Dubya" no matter the outcome!

 

I thought that Iraq could have waited, until things in Afganistan, were more "manageable"

 

Invading Iraq was a tactical error from the get go. It spread our forces way to thin. Now if something was to happen in North Korea, we're screwed.

 

But, whats done is done.

[Blackshirtsguru]

Here's a question for you liberals, conservatives and moderates:

 

If Obama is elected president, do you honestly think he would immediately pull our troops out of Iraq? What if his generals strongly advise him against doing that? Do you think he is going to listen to his generals?

 

I can't imagine him not listening. We already have a president who failed to listen to his generals. I don't think Barack, Billary or John are going to ignore their advice. So the anti-war activists may be in for a big disappointment no matter who is elected.

 

 

 

Many Generals strongly advised Bush not to go to war before they had an exit strategy firmly in place. We all see how that is working, I feel that no matter what we do in Iraq the country will never be a true Democratic nation free of Tyranny. It's sad to say but the Middle East will ALWAYS be in turmoil no matter what happens. If Obama is elected you will start to see downsizing of our forces and more turned over to the Iraqi Government. Then again, he will be inheriting a huge friggen mess started and left by "G Dubya" no matter the outcome!

 

I thought that Iraq could have waited, until things in Afganistan, were more "manageable"

 

Invading Iraq was a tactical error from the get go. It spread our forces way to thin. Now if something was to happen in North Korea, we're screwed.

 

But, whats done is done.

 

 

 

Ah yes! Something that you and I can agree on 100%! Then again that was 3/4 of "G Dubya's" presidency. He never thought things through. He used the ole "Shotgun" technique....."If I fire in it's direction I am bound to hit something". He surrounded himself with morons such as Rumsfeld and Rove.

[walksalone]

 

So your only reason for endorsing a President is because he has served in the Military? Did I read that correctly?

 

That's not my only reason, but a very important one. When you're sending our servicemen and women into harms way, shouldn't the president know what that really means, instead of just giving a concerned look, and that they'll "be in his prayers"?

 

I was in the US Army during the watch of the "inept one", Clinton. We were deployed to more area's, where we didn't need to be, than anytime in recent history. Was he in the military, no.

 

First off I applaud you for serving in the US Army. I also did 10 years in the US Military. I do see your point and I respect your comment however...I trump that with a George W Bush question. What branch of Military did "G Dubya" serve in again? Oh that's right the Texas National Guard. If you want to get techinical, some claim that he joined the Guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Even in the Guard his flight times and attendence record were questionable. I'm just sayin............

 

I'm not defending him, in anyway shape or form. Outside of McCain (who's become a former shell of himself), any of the other two scare the crap out of me.

 

There should be an amendment to the portion of the constitution, that lays out the prerequisites for being president, that the individual should have served in the U.S. Military, excluding the reserves.

[Blackshirtsguru]

 

So your only reason for endorsing a President is because he has served in the Military? Did I read that correctly?

 

That's not my only reason, but a very important one. When you're sending our servicemen and women into harms way, shouldn't the president know what that really means, instead of just giving a concerned look, and that they'll "be in his prayers"?

 

I was in the US Army during the watch of the "inept one", Clinton. We were deployed to more area's, where we didn't need to be, than anytime in recent history. Was he in the military, no.

 

First off I applaud you for serving in the US Army. I also did 10 years in the US Military. I do see your point and I respect your comment however...I trump that with a George W Bush question. What branch of Military did "G Dubya" serve in again? Oh that's right the Texas National Guard. If you want to get techinical, some claim that he joined the Guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Even in the Guard his flight times and attendence record were questionable. I'm just sayin............

 

I'm not defending him, in anyway shape or form. Outside of McCain (who's become a former shell of himself), any of the other two scare the crap out of me.

 

There should be an amendment to the portion of the constitution, that lays out the prerequisites for being president, that the individual should have served in the U.S. Military, excluding the reserves.

 

 

 

Ok I understand ya now.

[AR Husker Fan]

 

So your only reason for endorsing a President is because he has served in the Military? Did I read that correctly?

 

That's not my only reason, but a very important one. When you're sending our servicemen and women into harms way, shouldn't the president know what that really means, instead of just giving a concerned look, and that they'll "be in his prayers"?

 

I was in the US Army during the watch of the "inept one", Clinton. We were deployed to more area's, where we didn't need to be, than anytime in recent history. Was he in the military, no.

 

First off I applaud you for serving in the US Army. I also did 10 years in the US Military. I do see your point and I respect your comment however...I trump that with a George W Bush question. What branch of Military did "G Dubya" serve in again? Oh that's right the Texas National Guard. If you want to get techinical, some claim that he joined the Guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Even in the Guard his flight times and attendence record were questionable. I'm just sayin............

 

I'm not defending him, in anyway shape or form. Outside of McCain (who's become a former shell of himself), any of the other two scare the crap out of me.

 

There should be an amendment to the portion of the constitution, that lays out the prerequisites for being president, that the individual should have served in the U.S. Military, excluding the reserves.

An excellent way to drift into a military dictatorship - at least, that's been the formula in all other countries in which it's occurred. There's a reason that there is a civilian oversight - fear of the military takeover.

[Blackshirtsguru]

 

So your only reason for endorsing a President is because he has served in the Military? Did I read that correctly?

 

That's not my only reason, but a very important one. When you're sending our servicemen and women into harms way, shouldn't the president know what that really means, instead of just giving a concerned look, and that they'll "be in his prayers"?

 

I was in the US Army during the watch of the "inept one", Clinton. We were deployed to more area's, where we didn't need to be, than anytime in recent history. Was he in the military, no.

 

First off I applaud you for serving in the US Army. I also did 10 years in the US Military. I do see your point and I respect your comment however...I trump that with a George W Bush question. What branch of Military did "G Dubya" serve in again? Oh that's right the Texas National Guard. If you want to get techinical, some claim that he joined the Guard to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Even in the Guard his flight times and attendence record were questionable. I'm just sayin............

 

I'm not defending him, in anyway shape or form. Outside of McCain (who's become a former shell of himself), any of the other two scare the crap out of me.

 

There should be an amendment to the portion of the constitution, that lays out the prerequisites for being president, that the individual should have served in the U.S. Military, excluding the reserves.

An excellent way to drift into a military dictatorship - at least, that's been the formula in all other countries in which it's occurred. There's a reason that there is a civilian oversight - fear of the military takeover.

 

 

 

Good points from a lot of you and a damn good debate! I do agree with AR on this one. Martial Law could be a scarry Mutha!

[walksalone]

 

If there is one thing that would unite Iraq, it would be an attack by Iran. Regardless, Iran is already considered a terroist state. We don't have any appreciable interest in Iraq's oil supply - check out the countries from which we import oil. So, what is lost even if what you believe were to happen came to pass?

 

But even then, Iraq wouldn't be able to stop them.

 

No we don't have any interest in their oil supply, but whoever is going to be president, is worried about the U.S.'s image, and they would be the first to volunteer our "services" to make amends?

 

It's Clinton all over again. US troops being deployed to anywhere and everywhere so we can kiss the U.N's behind, to make us look better...

[Blackshirtsguru]

 

If there is one thing that would unite Iraq, it would be an attack by Iran. Regardless, Iran is already considered a terroist state. We don't have any appreciable interest in Iraq's oil supply - check out the countries from which we import oil. So, what is lost even if what you believe were to happen came to pass?

 

But even then, Iraq wouldn't be able to stop them.

 

No we don't have any interest in their oil supply, but whoever is going to be president, is worried about the U.S.'s image, and they would be the first to volunteer our "services" to make amends?

 

It's Clinton all over again. US troops being deployed to anywhere and everywhere so we can kiss the U.N's behind, to make us look better...

 

 

 

No need to worry about the UN for years to come. Bush and his band of merry men have screwed up our foreign policy for the next decade! I just hope the next President whoever it may be will do something to fix it. If anyone believes that the US doesn't need foreign policy....next time you go to the gas pump and bitch while filling up your gas tanks...remember foreign policy.