regime change in iraq

[mysecondstar]

i have no doubt that the US will take iraq swiftly and with as little losses as possible, but what worries me is the regime change. we went through a regime change in Afganistan and promptly left. no one even talks about Afganistan anymore. Bush even forgot to add them into the national budget in his State of the Union address. and Afganistan is far from being anywhere near ready to govern their own people.

iraq may soon feel the same fate. all people want is victories. if we win, it's all over. and we did that. the Taliban is no longer ruling in Afganistan, and i predict that soon saddam hussein will no longer rule iraq in the near future. but the US must make for certain that the take the responsibility to look after the countries they have created until it they are fit to govern themselves.

[TheEvilOne]

No, we did not leave Afghanistan. We still have troops there, cleaning up, trying to help the new government get on its feet, and looking for Osama and his cronies. We'll take care of business in Iraq, and we'll help get a new government established. It just takes a little bit of time.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/5/03 01:13 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: No, we did not leave Afghanistan. We still have troops there, cleaning up, trying to help the new government get on its feet, and looking for Osama and his cronies. We'll take care of business in Iraq, and we'll help get a new government established. It just takes a little bit of time.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...04/wl_oneworld/1032_1046814148

and basically all we have there now is mostly CIA cracking down on terrorists in the region. Afghanistan is not getting a lot of support in general as far as aid in monetary form and military is concerned.

[mysecondstar]

furthermore, 10,000 troops is hardly enough to police an entire country. especially a country rife with terrorists and rogue tribal leaders. normally it should take at least 40,000 troops to be effective in any given occupation. so apparently we are about four times behind the number of troops that should be there.

[Soundbyte2kx]

sigh, the problem with Iraq... we can't install a new Sha... personally, i think we should work to get the country's infrastructure built (like we did with Japan, Post WWII) then worry about the regeim. We can't allow anyone just anyone to become Saddam's replacement killer. Especially not anyone in his army. or any of his associates... the most outspoken people for peace tend to wind up very, very dead in Iraq.

Personally, i'm in favor of offering them statehood.

Yeah, just welocme them into american statehood, then start settign up buisnesses, police, colleges. give it a year, and they place might as well be called "little america". Then we only have to worry about DOMESTIC terrorists,. and there's allways fewer of them then there are of the foreign types.

Maybe we'll start having to deal with Iranians, turks, and everyone else illegally crossing the border to try and get work in Iraq-sylvania.

Hee hee hee.

[JMHX]

Afghanistan and Iraq, the first new nations of New America. Oh, wait, that sounds sort of like what happened with the British. Hey, didn't we end up rebelling against them and winning our independence?

It just seems like a very bad idea.

[mysecondstar]

At 3/5/03 02:48 PM, Soundbyte2kx wrote: sigh, the problem with Iraq... we can't install a new Sha... personally, i think we should work to get the country's infrastructure built (like we did with Japan, Post WWII) then worry about the regeim. We can't allow anyone just anyone to become Saddam's replacement killer. Especially not anyone in his army. or any of his associates... the most outspoken people for peace tend to wind up very, very dead in Iraq.

Personally, i'm in favor of offering them statehood.

Yeah, just welocme them into american statehood, then start settign up buisnesses, police, colleges. give it a year, and they place might as well be called "little america". Then we only have to worry about DOMESTIC terrorists,. and there's allways fewer of them then there are of the foreign types.

Maybe we'll start having to deal with Iranians, turks, and everyone else illegally crossing the border to try and get work in Iraq-sylvania.

Hee hee hee.

that has to be one of the sickest bet i have ever heard of. betting on how many people will DIE!? i have friends over there right now and they might just become one of your statistics.

also, the infrastrutcure in iraq is fine as it is. the US is actually taking steps to NOT destroy them so that rebuilding would be easier.

[Grinwald]

At 3/5/03 12:54 PM, mysecondstar wrote: we went through a regime change in Afganistan and promptly left. no one even talks about Afganistan anymore. Bush even forgot to add them into the national budget in his State of the Union address. and Afganistan is far from being anywhere near ready to govern their own people.

Totally false. We didn't leave at all. Our troops remain, and an interim government is in place. They're doing much better economically now than ever before under the Taliban. Just because Bush didn't mention it in his speech (He didn't mention Hillary Clinton either, but that doesn't mean she doesn't exist) doesn't mean it's not happening. It's just that nothing too exciting has been going on over there ever since we liberated it.

[thenark]

Its canadian soldiers doing the peacekeeping in Afghanistan, there may still be a few american units operating in afghanistan but most of them got pulled to go to the persian gulf.

And in reply to the actual topic, I read in a couple newspapers last weekend that Bush's favorite for governorship of Iraq, is a fellow who has been convicted of fraud and embezzlement of funds from an arab national bank, I think in jordan. I think they might wanna try harder, cos embezzlers make bad politicians Just ask alberta's premier Ralph Klein

[mysecondstar]

At 3/5/03 07:23 PM, Grinwald wrote:

At 3/5/03 12:54 PM, mysecondstar wrote:

Totally false. We didn't leave at all. Our troops remain, and an interim government is in place. They're doing much better economically now than ever before under the Taliban. Just because Bush didn't mention it in his speech (He didn't mention Hillary Clinton either, but that doesn't mean she doesn't exist) doesn't mean it's not happening. It's just that nothing too exciting has been going on over there ever since we liberated it.

as i said before, there are about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan as we speak. it takes about 40,000 to actually occupy a country.

and not only did he not mention Afghanistan in his speech, he neglected them from the national budget. this led Hamid Karzai, the new president of Afghanistan, to tell Bush not to forget about them.

[mightypotato]

.

iraq may soon feel the same fate. all people want is victories. if we win, it's all over. and we did that. the Taliban is no longer ruling in Afganistan, and i predict that soon saddam hussein will no longer rule iraq in the near future. but the US must make for certain that the take the responsibility to look after the countries they have created until it they are fit to govern themselves.

It's very true. I think that once the US wins in Iraq, they will move right on to North Korea...that's a whole other topic in itself.