This is all I have to say about this issue.

Before the first George Bush imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, the number one epidemiological problem in Iraq was obesity. By the time we invaded Iraq the second time, the number one epidemiological problem in Iraq was starvation. Estimates range as high as 600,000 children starved to death as a direct result of the sanctions.

I've read estimates that Saddam Hussein's thugs killed as many as 35,000 to 50,000 Iraqis in the 35+ years they were in power. Sounds like a lot at first glance.

Until you consider the fact that in a mere six years since we invaded, legions more Iraqis have died (estimates range widely, from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands). Thousands of doctors, lawyers, engineers, university professors, scientists, and religious leaders have been slaughtered or forced to flee. The brain drain has been frightful. Hospitals remain in critical condition. Water purification systems remain in shambles. Much of the country still doesn't have power for more than a few hours a day. The highways, formerly some of the best in the Middle East, are a wreck.

And that doesn't even count the thousands of troops we've lost over there.

We often forget that Iraq was formerly a liberal secular state. Now it's swiftly becoming, for all practical purposes, a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Between my first and second deployments I was shocked at the level of deterioration I saw. Before we invaded Iraq, a woman could walk the streets of Baghdad alone in blue jeans without fear. Now she must walk around in full hijaab with a male escort to avoid being targeted by Islamic fundamentalists.

So I ask you: Who really unleashed terror in Iraq?

Whether in ousting Saddam Hussein we did what had to be done is a matter for debate, but to say we are leaving Iraq a better place is just laughable. Saddam Hussein may have been an evil man, but he understood intuitively something we can't seem to figure out: The country of Iraq is an unnatural entity that can only be held together through sheer threat of force. The Iraqis are not an individualistic culture like ours; they are a collectivist tribal culture. They don't want democracy; they never have; and they probably never will. So why don't we just let them have the kind of government they want and solve our own mounting problems at home?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

So please tell me the plan to make sure there is NEVER a repeat of Hussein. There is no plan. Because that would be impossible. And if that is the reason we are still over there, then we will be there forever.

And I like how you guys always try to turn this into democrat vs republicans. Its impossible to discuss politics with anyone, because no one can ever be objective. I once asked a friend who he was voting for and he said "John Kerry" After asking him why, he simply said, "Because I'm a democrat."

I always found it amuzing how people who have no official ties to either party, decide that they are either one or the other, and will vote that way no matter what. And whenever something goes wrong, its always the OTHER parties fault.

"IronMan" wrote:

"IronMan" wrote:

"IronMan" wrote:

"IronMan" wrote:

This is all I have to say about this issue.

Before the first George Bush imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, the number one epidemiological problem in Iraq was obesity. By the time we invaded Iraq the second time, the number one epidemiological problem in Iraq was starvation. Estimates range as high as 600,000 children starved to death as a direct result of the sanctions.

I've read estimates that Saddam Hussein's thugs killed as many as 35,000 to 50,000 Iraqis in the 35+ years they were in power. Sounds like a lot at first glance.

Until you consider the fact that in a mere six years since we invaded, legions more Iraqis have died (estimates range widely, from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands). Thousands of doctors, lawyers, engineers, university professors, scientists, and religious leaders have been slaughtered or forced to flee. The brain drain has been frightful. Hospitals remain in critical condition. Water purification systems remain in shambles. Much of the country still doesn't have power for more than a few hours a day. The highways, formerly some of the best in the Middle East, are a wreck.

And that doesn't even count the thousands of troops we've lost over there.

We often forget that Iraq was formerly a liberal secular state. Now it's swiftly becoming, for all practical purposes, a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Between my first and second deployments I was shocked at the level of deterioration I saw. Before we invaded Iraq, a woman could walk the streets of Baghdad alone in blue jeans without fear. Now she must walk around in full hijaab with a male escort to avoid being targeted by Islamic fundamentalists.

So I ask you: Who really unleashed terror in Iraq?

Whether in ousting Saddam Hussein we did what had to be done is a matter for debate, but to say we are leaving Iraq a better place is just laughable. Saddam Hussein may have been an evil man, but he understood intuitively something we can't seem to figure out: The country of Iraq is an unnatural entity that can only be held together through sheer threat of force. The Iraqis are not an individualistic culture like ours; they are a collectivist tribal culture. They don't want democracy; they never have; and they probably never will. So why don't we just let them have the kind of government they want and solve our own mounting problems at home?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

There's too much money tied to both Republicans and Democrats for independants to be elected.

"djcubez" wrote: