Originally Posted by therise21

the iraqis chose to but their equipment from china, so why would the US give them our technology also? that would be a giant training nightmare. and i dont think the israelis would be too keen on iraq having their tanks. so if they want all of this stuff they can buy it from china. if you need indication of the US govt's will to get out of iraq, look at the approval ratings of the president and the headlines of the newspapers over here.

And a lot of Russian equipment as well

If they are used to the AK's, why retrain them to M-16's?

Originally Posted by boris116

And a lot of Russian equipment as well

If they are used to the AK's, why retrain them to M-16's?

I'd agree with training them with AKs instead of M16s. AKs are more widely available to them, cheaper, and easier to maintain. M16s are weapons of finesse built for effectiveness requiring skill. A few decades down the line when the Iraqis are a lot more stable, then switching over to M16s would be a good idea.

The power in Iraq is not in Baghdad. It is to the north and the south. Iraq will probably break up into separate federations. The US will be in Iraq in some form or another for decades. Just have a look at the huge US bases that are/will be built.

Have another round and then finish your drunken rant Lord Dingleberry.

[quote=Damien435]Germany - Ruled by a monarch (Kaiser) till the failed Weimar Republic was established, I suppose you could include that as a history of democracy but that would do little more than convince Germans that it was a failed system and that they needed one strong leader.

Democracy in Germany failed because bad economic conditions, not because the Weimar Republic itself.

France - They were on what, the fourth Republic when WWII rolled right over them?

Nope the 3rd. And it was still a democracy. And it remained a Democracy after the war ended.

Italy - Wasn't Italy unified only a few years before WWI and didn't Mussoulini (I think I butchered that) rise to power because the previous dictator had been really bad?

Italy was and remained a constitutional monarchy. They had a King and a Prime minister. Moussilini was elected to Parlement just like any politican in a democratic state. He became a dictator after being made Prime Minister.

Korea - Didn't they go from thousand year old dynastic rule to Chinese occupation to Japanese occupation to split in two? Also, didn't Korea go through a series of dictators before finally establishing a democratic form of government? Let's not forget the US foreign policy at the time stated that so long as they were communist they were good enough. (referring to military dictators around the world.)

I was wrong on Korea. I thought it was a constitutional monarchy, but in fact it was merely a annexed province of China and later Japan.

That sounds like my "Let them learn from their own mistakes" theory except their own mistakes could involve me getting hurt, which I don't like.

So can all the other options, there is no option thats completely safe.

Two reasons why that won't work, Korea and Vietnam.
I dont get your reasoning here. Korea does work there is both a North and South Korea and Vietnam is only one country. Your forgetting something, both Korea and Vietnam are homogenious countries. Theis means the people are exactly the same (for the most part). Same culture, same religon, same customs etc... But Iraq has 3 different groups who are completely different. The Kurds are not even Arabs and they all use radically different interpretations of Islam. This means the culture, holidays, customs are all different. Worse given the somewhat 'superior' view of Islam toward non-muslims in that part of the world they view each other as heretics. Its even worse than what the Europeans suffered during the 100 years war (Catholics against Protestants). These people having been killing each other for 800 years, thats not going to stop because Bush decided to make a 'democracy' there. What we are doing is making a sand castle against a rising tide.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Have another round and then finish your drunken rant Lord Dingleberry.

Uh it's Lord Londonbe...... oh..... hahahahaha.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Have another round and then finish your drunken rant Lord Dingleberry.

The US is actually building the biggest embassy built by anyone ever in Iraq.

If the Defeaticrats allow pres. Bush handle the war properly and stop asking to cut and run, I think USA will be able to handle Iraq very successfully

Is the US serious about it? Yes. Is the US making progress? Umm... check back later.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Democracy in Germany failed because bad economic conditions, not because the Weimar Republic itself.

The reasons don't matter, what matters is that under the Weimar Republic Germany became so desperate that they handed their governmet over to Hitler and the Nazi's, such situations are what allow the Hitlers and Stalins of the world to come to power.

Italy was and remained a constitutional monarchy. They had a King and a Prime minister. Moussilini was elected to Parlement just like any politican in a democratic state. He became a dictator after being made Prime Minister.

I don't really understand how a nation with a Prime Minister works, the people elect Parliament who in turns chooses the Prime Minister? Sounds just like the Electoral College to me, so why are so many hollering for us to change our system if it is the same as everyone else's?

I dont get your reasoning here. Korea does work there is both a

North and South Korea and Vietnam is only one country.

Korea is two countries because over two million people have died in a war that still has not ended and the United States has maintained sizable garrisons in South Korea for over 50 years now. If the US were to pull out of South Korea and the Chinese were to let Kim loose, how long before the North Koreans are pouring over the demilitarized zone only to waste their lives in human wave attacks against the far superior South Korean Army?

Your forgetting something, both Korea and Vietnam are homogenious countries. Theis means the people are exactly the same (for the most part). Same culture, same religon, same customs etc...

Yet they still tried to kill each other off to try and gain supremacy over the other, strange how that worked out, eh?

But Iraq has 3 different groups who are completely different. The Kurds are not even Arabs and they all use radically different interpretations of Islam. This means the culture, holidays, customs are all different. Worse given the somewhat 'superior' view of Islam toward non-muslims in that part of the world they view each other as heretics.

Its even worse than what the Europeans suffered during the 100 years war (Catholics against Protestants). These people having been killing each other for 800 years, thats not going to stop because Bush decided to make a 'democracy' there. What we are doing is making a sand castle against a rising tide.

Ok, then compare this issue to what is going on in Kashmir. Either way we are there for a long time until one side, hopefully the one we are backing, gains dominance over the other(s). I personally think you are falling to take into account nationalist feelings, do you really think that most Iraqi's want to split up their country? I highly doubt it, sure I may not have something in common with a New Yorker or your average Californian, but that doesn't mean I want to break off and form a nation full of likeminded people. Most Iraqi's probably just want to live in peace and want the best for their nation and their families, which is why it is so important to stamp out this insurgency.