*sniff* I smell Strawmen.
A strawman is a claim one makes that they know is false so they can knock it down to (bogusly) prove some point. But nothing I said is untrue. Obama did propose we give up in early 2007 and again just before the surge. And he's still saying we need to withdraw in a very tight timetable regardless of what the military and intelligence staff now say we should do ... despite the fact that our military commanders are saying we've turned the corner and the signs are that Iraq is stabilizing. So what I smell is someone trying to defend Obama's very poor decisions because they want Obama to be President regardless of his competency.
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
No, it's going to be a wonderful victory. One that will mean freedom and prosperity for the Iraqi people for the first time in generations. One that spells eventual defeat for al-Qaeda and islamofanatic dictatorships throughout the middle east.
How do you know this?
Well, the Iraqi's have a new Constitution that guarantees it's people freedom and they have successfully had several elections. They seem to be coming together in that government despite their differences. As for prosperity, Iraq's economy is showing every sign of life. Oil production has surpassed the pre-invasion amounts and are growing rapidly. And since Iraq is sitting on what may be the largest oil fields in the world, it would seem likely that prosperity is coming. And it most certainly has been decades since things looked this good. And they seem to view America in a much more friendly fashion than Saddam's regime. We may even be invited to have a long term presence in their country, both business and militarily. That too is a big change from the last few decades. Finally, a successful, free, anti-terrorism and prosperous Iraq will most certainly cause big problems for the islamofanatics of the region. Isn't that just obvious?
The domino effect didn't work in regards to Communism spreading in the 1960's and 70's what makes you think it will work now in regards to Democracy?
Actually, it's premature to dismiss the domino effect.
From
http://www.januarymagazine.com/features/triumphexc.htm
The domino theory was valid. The fear of falling dominoes in Asia was based not on simple-mindedness or paranoia, but rather on a sound understanding of the toppler countries and the domino countries. As Lyndon Johnson pondered whether to send U.S. troops into battle, the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that South Vietnam's defeat would lead to either a Communist takeover or the switching of allegiance to China in most of the region's countries. Information available since that time has reinforced this conclusion. Vietnam itself was not intrinsically vital to U.S. interests, but it was vital nevertheless because its fate strongly influenced events in other Asian countries that were intrinsically vital, most notably Indonesia and Japan. In 1965, China and North Vietnam were aggressively and resolutely trying to topple the dominoes, and the dominoes were very vulnerable to toppling. Throughout Asia, among those who paid attention to international affairs, the domino theory enjoyed a wide following. If the United States pulled out of Vietnam, Asia's leaders generally believed, the Americans would lose their credibility in Asia and most of Asia would have to bow before China or face destruction, with enormous global repercussions. Every country in Southeast Asia and the surrounding area, aside from the few that were already on China's side, advocated U.S. intervention in Vietnam, and most of them offered to assist the South Vietnamese war effort. The oft-maligned analogy to the Munich agreement of 1938 actually offered a sound prediction of how the dominoes would likely fall: Communist gains in one area would encourage the Communists to seek further conquests in other places, and after each Communist victory the aggressors would enjoy greater assets and the defenders fewer. Further evidence of the domino theory's validity can be found by examining the impact of America's Vietnam policy on other developments in the world between 1965 and the fall of South Vietnam in 1975, developments that would remove the danger of a tumbling of Asian dominoes. Among these were the widening of the Sino-Soviet split, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and the civil war in Cambodia. America's willingness to hold firm in Vietnam did much to foster anti-Communism among the generals of Indonesia, which was the domino of greatest strategic importance in Southeast Asia. Had the Americans abandoned Vietnam in 1965, these generals most likely would not have seized power from the pro-Communist Sukarno and annihilated the Indonesian Communist Party later that year, as they ultimately did. Communism's ultimate failure to knock over the dominoes in Asia was not an inevitable outcome, independent of events in Vietnam, but was instead the result of obstacles that the United States threw in Communism's path by intervening in Vietnam.
And let's not forget the consequences of walking away from victory in Vietnam. You want an example of a domino?
http://www.jfednepa.org/mark silverberg/papertiger.html "Al Qaeda and its global Islamic terrorist affiliates came to the conclusion that America's weakness stemmed from a post-Vietnam conviction that required future wars to be short, antiseptic and casualty free."
And it's not just democracy that the US is *selling* in Iraq. It's also a western style legal system, a free market and a free press. They are very powerful ideas. And guess what? Those ideas have taken hold in Iraq ... something the naysayers said couldn't happen because Iraqis weren't *ready* for them. The notion of democracy in other Middle Eastern countries has clearly been spurred by Iraq's success in building democracy there. Just read the news. And when they see the economic success that our market system will bring to Iraq ... is bringing to Iraq ... some may be prompted to try it. Why even China is becoming a free market society. Didn't you hear?
Like Bush; you're assuming that the Western way of life is inherently superior and the only possible way that anyone would want to live.
And your fallacy is thinking poor, uneducated and dictator dominated people "want" to remain that way. As for superiority, the proof is in the historical success of the modern western world relative to nations that haven't enjoyed our system of government, law and economic principles. One would have thought liberals might have learned that lesson by watching what happened to the Soviet Union, Cuba, and numerous other controlled economies and dictatorial regimes over the last 60 years or so. But I guess that's just asking too much.
I hate to burst the red state bubble you've formed around yourself to block out reality but there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq until the invasion.
This is absolutely false and easily provable as such. And you'd know this by now if you'd taken your head out of the sand the last 5 years. The dozen terrorists that were caught in Jordan in a plot that would have killed tens of thousands if successful, publically admitted they were members of al-Qaeda and testified that they were funded by al-Zarqawi, and even met with him IN BAGHDAD BEFORE THE INVASION to plan the operation. al-Zarqawi was clearly al-Qaeda (keep in mind that al-Qaeda is just an association of terrorist organizations). That's why he had camps in Afghanistan at the time of our invasion there. And he went to Iraq after being driven from Afghanistan. And many of his fellow terrorists went there with him. We even captured documents that prove Saddam's regime knew he was there and had released at least one member of his group under orders from Saddam before the invasion ... despite the belief of the arresting Iraqi police that he was guilty of certain crimes.
Perhaps you can provide a reasonable argument about how military success automatically equals political and social success.
Just look at what's happening in Iraq at this very moment. Why look at what has happened in the Kurdish regions of Iraq even before the latest good news. The evidence is there if you'll only take off the liberal, anti-war blinders.
