Nope. You're still a closet commie. You're not red but you are pink.
Dubyette wanted to carve up Iraq for sale to western oil companies. That was after he installed US military governors in each of the provinces. That was after he spent Xmas in Saddam's biggest palace (ok, that's just speculation). That was after he was greeted as a conquering hero (a la Paris) and showered with flowers from appropriately kowtowing Iraqis waving little American flags.
Well, if you can't differentiate between different posters, perhaps you should be getting some more sleep, better food and more exercise to get those brain cells firing on a few more pistons.
This inability to differentiate probably extends to your stance on many issues....it would explain some of them LOL.
"I mean, just how far do you want to go back with regard to establishing territorial claims?"
Humans are just renting the planet, from the planet, and no one has a right to anything. It's a matter of negotiating the current rent from others who wish to rent it for themselves.
So, ultimately, you're blaming the Israel problem on the Italians, the Germans and the Arabs? I also don't think anyone has 'a right' to exist. Ditto any country, any ethnicity, any culture, anything. People and countries and cultures have come and gone and will for our lifetimes at any rate.
It's a matter of current negotiations whether by money, by force, by arguing, by appealing to sympathy, whatever. This makes all of these problems into a current issue: two or more people want the same thing (sometimes this extends to wolves and polar bears) so how best to come to a lasting resolution?
One way is to demolish the other side or weaken it to the point that it gives up. Another way is to payoff the one side or bribe it so that it gives up. Another way is to have a scarier third party come in and demand that both sides settle and that both sides walk away a little bit unhappy.
I prefer the payoff and bribing side and third party idea as a combination because I don't believe that killing a small portion of the population works very well. It just leads the rest of the population to wreck havoc after it has regrouped.
---------
"Isn't this the VERY SAME result you're promoting by insisting that American forces leave Iraq and let them wage their civil war without foreign interference? Is that humanitarian?"
The problem with American forces in Iraq is that there aren't enough of them, their effect appears to be minimal or even rather negative at this late date and they're bankrupting the US.
There is an end to patience and to resources. We are not an endless treasure box in either people or money.
What is the US doing in Iraq at this point in time? What is the end game? They've said they were going to train some 200,000 Iraqis and they've apparently done (maybe?) more than half of that.
So get half the Americans out.
If they admit that they've messed up royally and that those 100,000 Iraqis are full of insurgents and militia and whatever, then you have to determine how many chances we have to make things right?
How many?
This is a practical matter now and no yammering about ideology is going to make any difference. If the US military cannot BRING ORDER and SECURITY to Iraq, then what are we doing there?
Progressives would love to have a liberal, progressive, democratic Republic in Iraq. How is the US military going to achieve this?
How? |
