Before you vote, leave behind your feelings of wheter the war was just or not. It can't change the fact that there are U.S. troops over there that have a mission of stabilizing the country. So when should they be pulled out and why? I personally think we should pull them out once we train an Iraqi army that can effectively combat the insurgents, no matter how long it takes. If we pull out now, the insurgents would probably destroy the current government without a fear of a backlash since there are no U.S. troops, and then most likely establish a regime akin to Saddam Hussein's. But that's my view. What do YOU think?
I think leaving now would prove to the world how weak and gutless the US is when it comes to fighting wars. We have had almost 2,000 losses since 2003, and, despite how horrible that is, that total is nothing compared to the total lost in Vietnam. (And the total in Vietnam is nothing compared to the totals from World War II and the Civil War.) Everyone must understand that war, though always horrendous, must remain a necessary option if a nation wants to survive. Iraq is only a "disaster" because we have let it become one. I believe that America must be a compassionate nation AND a strong nation. If we want to become weak (and let "world opinion" dictate our foreign policies) then we will become weak...and at the mercy of those who really hate us.
I personally did not believe the war was justified, but leaving now would be worse than entering in the first place.
Even though the war was unjustified, we can't just leave - that'd be betraying the Iraqis by basically handing them over to the insurgents. I say we should pull out ASAP, which would probably be after the Iraqi security forces are trained. That's really the main thing standing in the way. They can handle all the political stuff.
They're always saying on the news how the Iraqis just aren't ready, but to be honest I don't see why not. Are they just not motivated? Do they think the Americans are going to do everything for them? Is the training not good enough? Are Iraqis just naturally bad shots?
I believe that the war was justified - we took out a brutal dictator who threatened our safety, removed a tyrant who terrorized his own people, and consorted with and supported, both diplomatically and monetarily, other terrorist organizations (including HAMAS and Al-Qaida). We have replaced this tyrannical government with a democracy, under which the people can rule themselves.
As for when I believe the troops should be withdrawn, I believe the withdraw should take place once our military's leaders can confidently say that they have given the Iraqi military and police forces the training and equipment to combat the terrorist threat.
And I think that I should note that I refer to them as terrorists very deliberately - US military leaders have stated quite conclusively that there are few insurgents left in Iraq - that, in fact, the forces our military are currently engaged with are mainly terrorists who have entered Iraq from Iran and Syria (in order to truly be an insurgency, the opposition must be made up of Iraqis fighting against our troops; however, this is not the case).
I never really thought we should ever have been there in the first place, but I really knew we had lost the initiative the day we sat by and let the museums get looted. At that point we lost all control of the situation, the Iraqis knew it, and our forces have been trying to play catch-up ever since.
If we are to do it right then we should double or triple (or even more if we can) the number of troops on the ground, enact total marshal law for at least 12 months, (until the entire contry is as locked down as the Green Zone,) seal every border in or out, get their government up-and-running and totally stable, and train every able-bodied male Iraqi between 18 and 35 as a soldier to battle insurgents on their own.
At the end of that time, we pull out completely, leaving no trace behind, and see if they sink or swim, and good luck to them.
ed: Martial Law
I think we should have never gone to Iraq. The President lied about the reason we went there, and is trying to cover it up with "liberating" crap. If his goal was to liberate people, why not start with African dictators who are far worse than Saddam?
Unfortunately, we're there, and we can't leave until we get the place secure. I pretty much agree with edlib. They need to lockdown the country, sweep for threats, and then train Iraqi soldiers.
Pulling out now would, in my opinion, mean that $200 000 000 000+, 1500+ US troops, and untold numbers of Iraqi civilians died for nothing. We're back at square one, with a dictatorship in Iraq. Except now the civilians there hate the USA even more and Al-Q'aida has even more ease when it comes to recruiting.
I think they should stay or go depending on the wishes of the democratically (well mostly) elected Iraqi government. If they are asked to stay then they should stay, if they are asked to leave (unlikely and a bad idea right now) then they should leave.
It was clear from the start that this would need to be a long term operation, and going into places and then abandoning them is exactly the sort of thing that creates resentment, as is staying too long once you are not wanted.
Right now i'm actually more worred about Afganistan, which has been completely forgotten and undersupported since everyone moved on to iraq. Most of that country is still in chaos, and the main acheivement there seems to have been to create an entire country of heroin farmers all sending their drugs to the US. Wonderful.
ed: Martial Law
Yup, you're right... how did I ever miss that? I probably mis-typed it in the first place, and let the Google Toolbar spell-check fix it to whatever it thought I meant without really giving it a second thought. That's what I get for trusting technology...
Back on topic: These wars were a sort-of Pentagon experiment in doing more with less troops. A lot of people thought it was a bad idea in the beginning, but they went through with it anyway.
To me it pretty much proved that you can conduct a war against a far lesser force with a small, lightweight, fast-moving army... but it's no way to conduct any kind of long-term occupation.
Why is everyone talking as if only the US has troops in Iraq? This is based purely on news broadcasts, but the feeling comes over that the American troops are less welcome than the British troops, and as the wording of the question clearly states 'United States', I believe the US should pull out as whenever the Iraqi government requests them to do so. ...going into places and then abandoning them is exactly the sort of thing that creates resentment...What, you mean like we did in the 90s? The first time we invaded Iraq (Which was quite likely for the same reasons as this time)?
I don't think it would be a good idea to pull out. Now that it's done, finish it and do it right.
There was obviously no plan for occupation and the US expected a quick conclusion. Well, it wasn't quickly ended and it's still quite a thorn on the US' side.
Anyway, leaving now would probably create a new theocracy and we know how fun those are.
Why is everyone talking as if only the US has troops in Iraq? This is based purely on news broadcasts, but the feeling comes over that the American troops are less welcome than the British troops, and as the wording of the question clearly states 'United States', I believe the US should pull out as whenever the Iraqi government requests them to do so.
I'm not clear if you are saying we are being too PRO america by only mentioning their troops, or too ANTI by blaming their troops for everything. :)
Odds are quite high that the US will pull out most of its troops before the job is fully done and leave the UN holing the bag again.
What, you mean like we did in the 90s? The first time we invaded Iraq (Which was quite likely for the same reasons as this time)?
I was really only refering to this time, but i guess you could apply it to a number of actions over the past 1/2 century by the US and other countries.
I say keep them there. I agreed with the war on Iraq when it was to make them comply with about 6-8 different UN Resolutions, and when 1 week before the war, UN Inspectors found missiles which were contraband sitting and waiting for launch, and furthermore agreed with the war when in the early stages of fighting while watching the news you could see the missile attacks on bases in Kuwait..they had long range missiles god knows whatelse they had..
Unfortunately though nothing more was found. If anyone ever bothers to read the UNSCOM Chronology then you'll yourself think Iraq was hiding a varitable arsenal of bio/chem weapons. Especially with all the descrepencies in their reporting..but its all schemantics now..a stable and democratic Iraq would be good for the region. With the way the terrorists are targeting everything under the sun, the civilian population will no doubt begin to grow disenfranchised with them further.
I'm not clear if you are saying we are being too PRO america by only mentioning their troops, or too ANTI by blaming their troops for everything. :)
Odds are quite high that the US will pull out most of its troops before the job is fully done and leave the UN holing the bag again.Sort of the former, as the implication is that the US troops are all that is holding the country together, when we have quite a few troops there as well.
A lot of other countries do have troops in iraq, including a number of countries that weren't keen on the invasion in the first place. However I think the US does still have by far the largest number of troops. I may be wrong, but i have a feeling all the troops are operating under overall US coordination. But it is true that even if the US government decides tomorrow to bring all troops home that doesn't mean that all the other countries would follow suit. In fact, unless the Iraqi government requested a withdrawl of all troops, a US withdrawl would almost certainly lead to an increase in other troops.
Out of interest the UK has just sent another 2,500 paratroopers to Afganistan to try and stop heroin production.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm)
Scroll down and you have a listing and number of troops in Iraq in terms of foreign nations.
The US is however the one with the most troops in Iraq, followed by the Iraqi army, and then followed by private security..or to be more blunt, mercenaries.
The US should stay until Iraq has a stable, democratic regime with a credible army and police force. Why? Three reasons:
1: You screwed up. Now you have the moral obligation to stay there and correct the screwup or die trying.
2: It'll keep the US too busy to play cowboys elsewhere in the world for a while.
3: The continued drain on American resources imposed by this train wreck destabilizes the illegitimate Bush Regime, making a democratic Regime Change in the US a less daunting proposition. It also tilts the strategic balance in favor of the European Union.
Additionally, #3 is the #1 reason why the EU should pull out all its troops: That would turn up the pressure on the US.
1) I fully agree with you, EU troops should be removed from Iraq. One problem, the EU doesnt have an army. Mission accomplished. Individual EU member nations decided whether or not to send troops. Thats their choice for whatever reason they decided to do it. To have them remove forces just because you disagree with the US government is a great way to stablize a country...
2)Cowboying around the world...I always view it as going around and cleaning up the mess you Europeans left around the world with your glorious empires...I say tomato you say tomatoe.
3)While I'm all in favor a strong EU(maybe then you guys can clean up the messes in your own backyard instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you), I dont think it should be advesarial to the US. If anything the EU and the US should be working together more for the stability of the world instead of trying to harm each others powerbase at every step and bound. Cold wars and shooting wars start this way..after two World Wars I figured you Europeans would have learned that lesson.
4)Finally..illigetimate Bush regime..do you Europeans still have sour grapes over that? Get over it. He was elected legally twice. Tell me one election law he violated. He hasnt. Its a legal government, and just because you dont happen to like it doesnt make it any less so.
OK, first I would like to know when Iraq was part of a European empire, then I think it would be a good idea to tell us how you know Bush didn't break Election law. All you know is that he wasn't caught.
From 1920 to 1932, the British controlled Iraq as a Leage of Nations "protectorate" state. I urge you to look up the history of this time, including the revolt which took place against the British rule in 1920-1922 and how the British acting with complete disregrad for the existing borders of the nation set up the country for the problems they have currently.
Its amazing though you cant prove he didnt do something..but he's not innocent because he cant prove that either? He's damned if he does and damned if he doesnt?
1) I fully agree with you, EU troops should be removed from Iraq. One problem, the EU doesnt have an army. Mission accomplished. Individual EU member nations decided whether or not to send troops. Thats their choice for whatever reason they decided to do it. To have them remove forces just because you disagree with the US government is a great way to stablize a country...
They shouldn't be removed. They're better peacekeepers then the rampaging marines.
2)Cowboying around the world...I always view it as going around and cleaning up the mess you Europeans left around the world with your glorious empires...I say tomato you say tomatoe.
You're right. Let's fingerpoint every single german men and women born post WWII and call them a bunch of nazi. Let's blame them for the actions of their grandfathers :dozey:
3)While I'm all in favor a strong EU(maybe then you guys can clean up the messes in your own backyard instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you), I dont think it should be advesarial to the US. If anything the EU and the US should be working together more for the stability of the world instead of trying to harm each others powerbase at every step and bound. Cold wars and shooting wars start this way..after two World Wars I figured you Europeans would have learned that lesson.
Impossible. Both want more power. If you think the US doesn't want to remain the number 1 economical and military power in the world, you're pretty blind to the realities of international politics. The EU follows the same objective. Both will clash eventually, hopefully in a peaceful economical war.
(maybe then you guys can clean up the messes in your own backyard instead of waiting for someone else to do it for you)
What mess needs cleaning? They left, they don't have anything to clean. It's like living your old house and having to come back to clean it. If they had one to clean, then why would the terrorists not attack them first?
Frankly, hate against the USA isn't the result of the old Empires leaving their colonies.
I was hoping my sarcasm would have been evident in #1.
Okay..his finger pointing is okay and wanting the US to waste resources is fine but my finger pointing back at them is unacceptable?
As for what needs cleaning...take a look at Africa and try saying that again with a straight face.
Why do terrorists attack the US? Well lets see, we're the world superpower. We symbolize the West..even though one of their major things is us supporting Israel by all accounts they should have rammed planes into the UK for creating the country in the first place.
I was hoping my sarcasm would have been evident in #1.
It wasn't.
Okay..his finger pointing is okay and wanting the US to waste resources is fine but my finger pointing back at them is unacceptable?
Yes, because he finger points modern US actions, what YOU did, not what your grandfather did. Nobody is fingerpointing the actions of the US during the war of 1812 against Canada. Let's lay off the insult against other nations shall we? Let's keep this from becoming a "trash the euros because they're idiots who try to give us lessons about international politics when they don't know anything themselves".
As for what needs cleaning...take a look at Africa and try saying that again with a straight face.
Africa will clean itself with the help of other nations. War doesn't clean anything. It makes a bigger mess.
I know the situation in Africa is pretty bad but that doesn't give anyone the power to come in and "make things right" for them. Often, it involves the creation of a puppet government of the invading nation.
You aren't little angels. At all.
At any rate, the euros know a lot more about terrorism then the US. They've had terrorism problems for decades before 9/11.
Why do terrorists attack the US? Well lets see, we're the world superpower. We symbolize the West..
You make it sound too easy. Obviously, they have a gripe against most western nations, but why would the US be targeted specifically?
You mentionned US support of Israel which is totally true. Israel was already unpopular and supporting it no matter what they did (the colonies for example) was not very smart.
There's also a US military presence in Saudi Arabia, too close to their "holy land".
There's also the support of a dictatorial regime because it fits US needs.
Irak/Iran war anyone? Talibans and Afghanistan vs the Soviets?
Saudi Arabia's regime?
even though one of their major things is us supporting Israel by all accounts they should have rammed planes into the UK for creating the country in the first place.
You forgot July 7. Though it was not for the those reasons.
All the pre/post WW2 fiddling and country carveup was a very bad idea, and has been responsible for many of the problems in the world today. Though of course it should be pointed out that most of the motivation of the British empire builders was to bring peace, proseperity, democracy and enlightenment to all these poor people.
Strange that 50 years on the US is repeating the exact same mistakes as it tries to spread ITS philosophy around the globe and help all these poor little peoples. Installing nice governments whether they want them or not, etc...
info:
The British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government. As a consequence, the new political system allegedly suffered a lack of legitimacy. Britain imposed a Hashemite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq with little regard for natural frontiers and traditional tribal and ethnic settlements. Britain had to put down a major revolt against its policies between 1920 and 1922. During the revolt Britain used gas and air attacks on Iraqi villagers.
The Kurds wavered between adherence to Turkey and to Iraq and were finally lured by promises of autonomy. The British soon broke this promise.
In the Mandate period and beyond, the British supported the traditional, Sunni leadership (such as the tribal shaikhs) over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement. The Land Settlement Act gave the tribal shaikhs the right to register the communal tribal lands in their own name. The Tribal Disputes Regulations gave them judiciary rights, whereas the Peasants' Rights and Duties Act of 1933 reduced the tenants to virtual serfdom, forbidding them to leave the land unless all their debts to the landlord had been settled. The British resorted to military force when their interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani coup. This coup led to a British invasion of Iraq using forces from the British Indian Army and the Arab Legion from Jordan.
In ten years China is going to dwarf both the EU and the US and be the true superpower in the world. Then things are going to get really interesting....
Let's lay off the insult against other nations shall we? Let's keep this from becoming a "trash the euros because they're idiots who try to give us lessons about international politics when they don't know anything themselves".I feel the need to mention once more that Europe has been politicking since before America was even discovered (By Europeans, what's more. America is in fact one of these so called 'colonies we left a mess in'. Hang on a minute, let's look at America. Hey, you are right after all. We left one hell of a mess behind us). Anyone who wants to attack Europe on these sort of grounds should really read the history first.
I feel the need to mention once more that Europe has been politicking since before America was even discovered (By Europeans, what's more. America is in fact one of these so called 'colonies we left a mess in'. Hang on a minute, let's look at America. Hey, you are right after all. We left one hell of a mess behind us). Anyone who wants to attack Europe on these sort of grounds should really read the history first.
The Brits did leave quite a mess here in the US, but the main reason they couldn't hold on to the American colonies was because they couldn't run their own government efficiently (read The Long Fuse: How England Lost the American Colonies by Don Cook for more info)...and besides that, they had agreements with the American colonies that they kept changing (which is why America has a Constitution that is difficult to ammend). All in all, America's Founding Fathers did a pretty good job cleaning up the mess that England left here.
What disgusts me about the setup of the Iraqi government is how PC we're being about it. After WWII, we gave Japan a constitution, and they had to work with it...and they have done so, with great success. Of course, the religious aspect of that situation was quite different, seeing as how we were able to remove the religious element of the Japanese government by simply getting Emperor Hirohito to admit that he was not, in fact, a god. It's gonna take a lot more than that to get the jihadist Muslims to stop their acts of terrorism...and the only government that's gonna get them to do that in Iraq is a hard-line Islamic state based entirely around the shari`ah...which would be an extremely bad idea (check out The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer, or other books by the same author, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims for more info on the dangers of Islamic law).
Don't try and blame us for your constitution. It was written after you seceded from the Empire. Part of your problems appear to me to be a result of your attitude towards it. When we don't like one of our laws, we change it. You say something like 'That's a terrible law. What a damn shame, but it's part of the Constitution.'
About Iraq: we're not being Politically Correct, we're simply not forcing our laws down their throats.
About Islam: It's not the religion, it's the people. Christianity (mentioned because it's the dominant religion in the west) also has many ridiculously strict laws, but we are (mostly) sensible enough not to treat every tenet of our religion as the ultimate law.
Not to mention Islam is pretty much in it's inquisition - crusade stage. All religions go through it at nearly the same age. It's like puberty for religions. Angsty and pissy.
Don't try and blame us for your constitution. It was written after you seceded from the Empire. Part of your problems appear to me to be a result of your attitude towards it. When we don't like one of our laws, we change it. You say something like 'That's a terrible law. What a damn shame, but it's part of the Constitution.'
And yet, when faced with a law that truly was terrible, we managed to change it...and our government (when it works like it's supposed to) isn't left to the whim of the legislature or any other body other than the people. And anyway, whether you like it or not, the format of America's Constitution was in part a reaction to the format of Britain's constitution. Our Founders didn't just throw together a government - they had actual reasons for their choices.
And personally, I'd say that 'not forcing our laws down their throats' is the very definition of being PC about it. Like I said, we gave Japan a constitution, and they've done pretty well with it.
And it's not just the people - discrimination against all unbelievers is built in to Islamic law. Islamic law states quite clearly that conquered unbelievers (or, unbelievers living in any Islamic territory) are to be given this choice: either convert, pay the jizya (tax), or be put to death. Furthermore, unbelievers are to be treated as dhimmi, essentially, second-class citizens. The poll tax was to be paid by the dhimmi in such a way as to make them feel subjugated and inferior; all that is left up to interpretation is the method of humiliation the dhimmi would be put through when paying the jizya. Historically, non-Muslims living in Muslim lands were forced to convert or tried to flee due to the extreme burden of the jizya. Islamic law has not changed since that time.
Finally, Islam has essentially been going through its crusade stage since its inception. Muhammed himself led Muslim troops into battle, and while it would be inaccurate to say that Islam has constantly been at war since the beginning, the vast majority of Islamic history is either that of armed conquest of new territory or violent defense of that territory. In fact, the Muslim terrorists who are so bent on killing Americans are hardly doing it due to any hatred for American foreign policy, as has been claimed over and over - they are following the religious mandates of the Koran, their holy book, to kill unbelievers.
As I said before, it is the people, not the religion. The bible also decrees that unbelievers be put to death, but like I said before, in the west we have learned not to blindly follow our religion at the expense of sanity.
The irony of reading one cult follower quibble over the cult practices of others is amazing to the point of hypocrisy.
Its not as if Xian missionaries didn't travel the globe offering food, medicine, clothing, and shelter to anyone willing to listen to sermon and convert. They've been doing this forced-proslytization/extortion for centuries and still do.
The problem is religion, not individual cults.
There's quite a difference between offering food, medicine, clothing, and shelter to people willing to convert and giving them the choice between death, subjugation, and conversion.
There is no command in Christianity to subjugate or kill unbelievers - quite the opposite. However, these things are fundamental parts of Islam - they are written into the Koran.
There is no command in Christianity to subjugate or kill unbelievers - quite the opposite. However, these things are fundamental parts of Islam - they are written into the Koran.
Intriguing....I'll take this excerpt posted by Toms in the Tolerance thread that you started and perhaps haven't had the opportunity to read yet...I'm not sure what chapter of the Bible this comes from...but you can ask toms
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.
what rccar328 said was right, there is no command in Christianity to subjugate or kill unbelievers. Love your enemy as you love youself is what Jesus commanded us.
And that scripture you quoted is from the old testament when you had to sacrifice your livestock to attone for your sins, before Jesus was sent down from heaven to attone for the sins of the world.
Yes - there are two Covenants with God mentioned in the Bible - the one with Abraham, in which God pledged to give the Israelites the Promised Land (and part of gaining access to the Promised Land included driving out the Gebusites, Hittites, Amorites, etc), and the New Covenant under Jesus Christ.
Which has always seemed a convenient sort of confusion. since we're apparently supposed to take SOME of the old testament as literal and truth, but the stuff that you don't like is cool to ignore.
There are moral laws in the Old Testament that we should still follow (Exodus 20:1-17), and Jesus' words in Luke 10:19 tell us that these Commandments should still be followed. The command to drive out and kill the people living in the Promised Land, however, was terminated when the Israelites were disobeyed God (Judges 2:1-3), and no longer applies.
It's not just a matter of selecting those commands that we agree with - the New Testament is the main guide for Christian morality, along with those parts of the Old Testament that the New Testament tells us still apply.
But there are so many different versions of the Bible, it really is a case of selecting the one you like. And there are many commands that weren't revoked, but are still ignored today.
1) I fully agree with you, EU troops should be removed from Iraq. One problem, the EU doesnt have an army.
That is indeed a problem...
To have them remove forces just because you disagree with the US government is a great way to stablize a country...
Iraq is going to hell anyway. 5% more or less forces aren't going to matter when the fecal matter hits the rotating air impeller. 5% extra forces drawn from an already overextended US army might, however, insure that the US doesn't go ahead and turn Iran or Syria to warzones too for at least a couple of years.
2)Cowboying around the world...I always view it as going around and cleaning up the mess you Europeans left around the world with your glorious empires...I say tomato you say tomatoe.
OK, European Imperialism was a Bad Thing. We can agree on that. But do you seriously think that American Imperialism is the solution?
3)While I'm all in favor a strong EU [...] I dont think it should be advesarial to the US.
That, mein Freund, would be for the US to decide. If the US decides to keep riding roughshod over NATO, UN, and Human Rights and keeps treating the EU as a protectorate, then hostility will ensue. And if present political and economic trends in the US continue, the US will be a liability, politically, economically, and morally, to the EU within the next few decades.
If anything the EU and the US should be working together more for the stability of the world
Unfortunately recent events have proven that a more stable world order would be one where the US holds radically diminished power.
4)Finally..illigetimate Bush regime..do you Europeans still have sour grapes over that?
That was not - quite - what I meant. When I said 'illegitimate' I was referring to the fact that he bases his power on fascist and near-fascist political groups, caters blatantly to special interests, employs GeStaPo tactics and an unprecedented level of smear campaigns against political opponents and has near-total control of all significant electronic media bar one.
But, in answer to you original question, yes we still have 'sour grapes' over the fact that he didn't win his first election legitimately, and that there is considerable room for doubt as to whether the second election was fair and honest. More to the point, we have grave concerns about that fact. 25000 grave concerns to be precise.
Get over it. He was elected legally twice. Tell me one election law he violated.
Why the one that says you aren't allowed to arbitrarily disenfranchise voters and stuff the ballot box.
After WWII, we gave Japan a constitution, and they had to work with it...and they have done so, with great success.
In WWII Japan happened to be an agressor...
and our government (when it works like it's supposed to) [my emphasis] isn't left to...
\snickers
1) I fully agree with you, EU troops should be removed from Iraq. One problem, the EU doesnt have an army.
No, but its member states do. The EU isn't a country, in the same way that NATO isn't, and as such it doesn't have an army. Thats why some EU states still have troops there, some have had troops but since removed them; and some never sent troops in the first place.
The troops do tend to operate together under combined command structures regularly though.
There is talk of creating an EU rapid reaction force, but i think the anti-EU-as-a-state feelings may have put that on hold.
OT:
It's not just a matter of selecting those commands that we agree with - the New Testament is the main guide for Christian morality, along with those parts of the Old Testament that the New Testament tells us still apply.
Its amazing the illogical hoops people will jump through to justify their inconsistent beliefs. Jesus said the OT still applied, but apparently now only certain bits still applied?? Did he overide the part about women needing to keep their heads covered too? or te bit about stoning to death rape victims who don't cry out? I'm thinking he should have been a bit more specific about what he was overriding and what he wasn't, cos now i'm totally confused.
The catholic church of the crusades period definately read those parts as still applying when they tried to wipe out all other religions. I think you are applying your modern feelings to the bible as much as I do.
Aren't both muslims and christians basing many of their beliefs on the same texts? Its only AFTER Jesus that the split appears. Which means a lot of their beliefs are based on the Old Testament too... its just they are more consistent about enforcing ALL of them, not just the ones against gays...
Most muslims would claim that they aren't instructed to kill unbelivers anyway. As they would also argue that anyone who commits suicide would go to hell.
its only the small minority who make a lot of noise that believe differently.
50 years ago islam was a very moderate religion... that was before the post-war messing-up of the region and the creation of and defeat by Isreal lead to a lot of extremists who said "it was better in the old days before all these modern ways destroyed society and the family" and then got into power in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The saudi royal family (allies of the US if we forget) believe in a far more extremist version of islam, and have spent billions exporting it around the globe (creating new hardline versions of the qur'an and insisting that any muslim project they funded around the globe took a teacher from their sect)
I heard it described like this once by a professor: Imagine if the KKK had gained control of all of Texas's oil revnue, and then had used that revenue to create schools and hospitals and pojects all around the christian world that propogated THEIR messed up version of christianity. Imagine that times 100. That is kind of what has happened to islam in the past 50 years.
Again you imply that the Islamic so-called extremists are not faithfully representing their religion. I submit that this is not true, and that they - like the KKK - are actually founded on strong precedents in tradition and valid inferences from their respective Scriptures.