You wouldn't say that if you lived in Grenada.

I guess I'll add to the military "big dick" contest and say I'm also in Baghdad, Iraqi (45 days left baby!) and as a mid-level enlisted with the dual privileges of going on patrols AND sitting in on officer meetings, it seems that we're winning the people over by dumping millions into these neighborhoods that, in my most humble O, would have been better spent at home.

A lot of soldiers, when they talk about the good we do, point to the smiles on children's faces when they hand out backpacks and soccer balls or run a MedOp. I wish the world worked like that. I really do.

The "peace" we've accomplished in Iraq is tenuous as best and once the cash starts trickling back, we can probably expect to see a rise in the violence again. The strategy, so far, is to just throw tons of cash at the problem. I just did an entry on this.

In our AO, we have a simple plan. Our neighborhood has a Sunni AND a Shia section. Since thrusting the American "legal system" on the Iraqis, all we have to do is, when we want to detain a Shia, we go to the Sunni area and get our sworn statements (milspeak for citizen testimony) and if we want to detain a Sunni, vice versa. That's where OUR "success" come from. We overtly play the sides against each other. Detainees are the new body count, baby!

I won't even get into that these "Sworn Statements" are legally Fifth Amendment Rights waivers which apply only to Americans and lying on one (if you're American) is punishable but the Iraqis (because they fear the Iraqi Police) are encouraged to put fake names on the statements or numbers OR that their testimony is never challenged (as it is usually pretty damn vague).

As for saying soldiers here are dying for freedom. C'mon, now. Soldiers are dying defending nobody but themselves. You can't even say we're dying to defend Iraqis from Iraqis since we're only able to secure the streets we're physically on.

If you're in the military and against the war, check this out:

Iraq Veterans Against the War

It never ceases to amaze me how our country has an overly idealistic view of our military. It's working though. Of my platoon of 20, only 1 is pro-war (though anti-Bush), but I'm the only IVAWer (though some are on the fence). The rest have decided to keep their mouths shut and keep on being "heroes."

More power to 'em. I couldn't sell myself out. I tried, but I couldn't.

You make good points, but I want to point out a discrepency.
I work with detainees, and I am very familiar with the legal process their cases go through. I'm not sure what you're refering to when you say that those sworn statements don't get challenged, or what American legal system you are refering to, as applies to Iraqis. Maybe we are on two different subjects? The detainees we see at the theater level are tried in Iraqi courts, under Iraqi law, and those sworn statements are basically ignored. The people dealing with these cases know damn well the statements are unreliable (at best). So, I guess you could say they are unchallenged, since they aren't even given the time of day, but they are certainly not important to the courts.

Southern Iraq and the British area ia a different ball game...can't compare it to the rest of the country.

If we leave...Iran enters...then what people?

Remember 60 years ago when Germany and Japan were our biggest enemies...now they are our best friends. Look at what those relationships have down and imagine Iraq 60 years from now.

Did you seriously just make that comparison with a straight face?

That's a pretty standard neocon analogy, actually. Of course it ignores the huge distinctions of circumstance between conventionally defeated industrial powers and occupied failed states with ongoing asymmetric conflict - but then, neoconservatism isn't known for acknowledging inconvenient realities when there's a stirring rhetorical point to be scored (usually something along the lines of, "Everybody wants and deserves freedom! Or do you disagree?" or "See? This is just like World War II!").

The worst part is they tend to actually believe their own claptrap.

Uh, then the inevitable happens. We made a stupid decision and opened the door for Iran. That is what happens when you remove a dictator and the majority of people share a common religion with the people next door.

Also, THEN WHAT!?!?!?!? OH MY GOD! IRAN WON'T HAVE AN ENEMY NEXT DOOR!

It may bring stability to the region, that's what.

it may bring stability to the reigon....or it might touch off a larger conflict between the shiite central iran/iraq and their surrounding Sunni neighbors. and of course Iran is exactly who we want taking over any other country. Their regime is so nice and friendly.

Basra and Southern Iraq was an entirely different zone with its own problems, but it was certainly more secure than Anbar or the Baghdad area. Part of that security came from the overwhelming presence of the Sadr forces who pretty much kept all dissent in check.

anyhow, I do think the Iraqi people benefit from our being over there. They may have (ok almost certainly) benefitted more if we had a president other than Emporer Shrub who would have more diligently pursued a diplomatic solution/dialogue with Iraq.

and when it comes down to it, our presence in Iraq has always been about our own national interest in keeping a large force in the reigon. Saudi Arabia was getting to be a pain in the ass, so now we have Iraq to settle into Germany 1945 style. that's been the plan from the outset and that's what I forsee happening. The establishment of permanant military bases out in Anbar and maybe up in Kurdish land. That's where we'll eventually pull back to. but that's still either a long way off...or coming about sometime early in 2009.

Well, actually Germany was our enemy - you kept on trading with them, right up to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Coca Cola even advertised on the back of Hitler Youth magazines. Until you eventually entered the war, then stopped selling them the syrup, forcing them [Nazi Germany] to make their own fizzy pop. Which they called Fanta. Ever heard of it ??

There is one vital difference between that situation and this, and it's called Islam. The US's failure to properly understand Islam is the reason why they're in such a mess.

The *really* scary part is, there is no winning this war. Forget a Universal Declaration of Human Rights - it's incompatible with Islam. As is modern, 'Western' forms of democracy. The quicker you realise that, the sooner your kids will stop dying.

I don't even know where to begin with that.

In this corner, you've got a dude so blinded by neoliberal ideology that he actually thinks the comparison between occupied Iraq and occupied Germany is a fair one, and in the other corner, an out-and-out old-school bigot.

Was the 'bigot' remark referring to me ?? If so, an explanation of why would be an interesting read. Ever read the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights ?? Noticed the not-so-subtle variances 'twixt it and the UN's (Judaeo-Christian) version ??

At no point did I say that Islamic countries should embrace democracy, by the way. That's the USA's job. I have no problem with them being theocracies, oligarchies, kingdoms, whatever they want. As Winston Churchill observed, democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest. Particularly yours. I doubt very much that a new state following the democratic form we have here in the UK would pass the US's muster. I like our constitution just the way it is. Those parts of Europe you didn't foist your version on to feel much the same way.

Yes.

No, and I couldn't care less about it. Do you actually know any Muslims? I do. Pretty much all of them are upright citizens who work hard, pay their taxes, and vote. Like any other American. In fact, they tend to be a lot less heavy-handed about their religion than the Christians I know, and a lot of them are more politically and even socially liberal.

Now, that's anecdotal, obviously. And it doesn't address countries outside the United States (though, to my certain knowledge, there are major politically liberal movements in many Islamic countries - they're being cracked down on in Pakistan by the secular military authorities even now). But you said "Islam" itself is "incompatible" with "human rights." The fact that I know any Muslims who don't feel their religion is incompatible with human rights is enough to disprove your blanket statement.

Which was, by the way, bigoted.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the part where you suggest that Islam AND democracy are incompatible with human rights is not just bigoted, it's pretty retarded. But I'll look forward to Zarths response.


Edit : Shit, that Zarth dude is fast.

Great, broadcast it on the internet, why don't you? I said it never happened to me before.

If you'd just give me another chance . . .

Yeah, you're welcome btw.