they pretty much all had to be perfected and put into productive use elsewhere And this is the raging case of "I always have to have the last word".

What's the matter? Don't like it when the "whole" truth is put in front of you? Tough!

Sure. But as you know a radically new system is a lot easier to create from nothing than to engineer out of something pre-existing - you've probably encountered that in your programming career. Ideas developed in the UK and France worked extremely well in America yet struggled badly in their home nations; I think the settler status helped a great deal there. When you move to a new state you expect to find new rules, and so change is more appealing.

A radically new system is not easier to create, even in programming. It is nearly always better to work from pre-existing work.

I'm not sure what ideas came from France btw. But clearly English culture and tradition were a major factor. The US really just took what the UK was doing and upped it a couple notches.

Since universal suffrage and the equal rights movements of the 60s, sure. But that happened pretty much everywhere in the first world at much the same time. I'm not sure how that's unique.

The right to vote is not particularly relevant to ones ability to prosper.  Most Americans don't vote now. The lack of a class structure and the freedoms we have (even back to the 18th century) were crucial.

More to the point, a man living in say France vs. a man living in the United States in 1830. Which man is likely to prosper more if we're just randomly selecting. And why?

I am tired debating with you. You think because you live in a better country you are smarter, you know how to live, the "American Way". Well, this expression is the "American Way", not the German or Russian or any other way. You know this is because the only place where the circumstances were given to have such a way was in America. You don't you see that this mentality hardly works here. Personally I live by the "what can I do for making my situation better?-mentality, but I can't change a whole country you see, and have problems with sky-high taxes, overcomplicated adminstration and envious people. In America you can do this: try first, fail, try second, fail, try the third time, success. But over here you have one shot. Just one.

And we're tired of listening to you whine! Want some cheese with it? And personally we don't care if the "American way" works for your country or not. It works here and that's all we need it to do!

A radically new system is not easier to create, even in programming. It is nearly always better to work from pre-existing work.

Well you've enlightened me. I never knew that. In politics though it's usually easier to work with a new population base with no sustained history of a particular form of government. They adapt more easily and more willingly - evidence is the ease with which Putin is seizing dictatorial control in Russia, the painfully slow anti-king movement in the UK in the mediaeval ages and the experiences of the few democratic greek city-states. All these states have/had an amazing amount of political inertia that kept them returning to the same governments again and again.

Based on that kind of history I reckon the population base has as much to do with the chance of successful adoption of capitalist democracy. There must be something to explain why it was adopted so easily in settler states and with such difficulty in established ones.

I'm not sure what ideas came from France btw.

I'm largely thinking of Voltaire's views on free speech and also Rousseau's concept of the social contract, but I'm sure there's other more obscure thinkers who've influenced American thought. The Frenchies aren't entirely a blight upon the world.

More to the point, a man living in say France vs. a man living in the United States in 1830. Which man is likely to prosper more if we're just randomly selecting. And why?

It's hard to say. There's no economic figures from the time as we'd understand them. In any event France was undergoing a revolution at the time, so I can't imagine the economic conditions there would be particularly good. So based on a simple 'civil war' vs 'domestic stability' I'd go with the USA. I think I'd be happier in Europe though. Americans of the time seemed unnecessarily practically-minded, or at least that's the evidence their writings have left us.

Well, yhea! They would maybe starve, but the death toll would be much, much lower. And all the region would not have to worry about a uber-instable neighboor. Americans & Co. set off a time bomb by removing Saddam the way they did.

So according to what I read that you wrote it is ok by your standards that people are raped and murdered as long as Americans are not involved because if we show up it is all our fault. All the Arab nations wanted Saddam removed from power. None of them had the guts to do it. Why do you think no one came to his defense, but were quick to wag their finger at us after it was over? The same thing happened when Israel blew up Iraq's nuclear facility back in the 80's. The whole world condemned Israel for this but nobody attacked Israel for it. Politically everyone had to say it was a bad thing. Nobody warned Iraq that these jets were flying over their air space and nobody shot at the jets in either direction though everyone knew where they came from and Israel had no permission to fly war planes over anyone’s country. It could have been stopped in several ways but none were used. Oops those sneaky Israelis slipped through our radar that is always looking at Israel. Israel is surrounded by hostile nations yet nobody notice 6 war planes entering their air defenses?

KdGergo wrote: Feel a little ignorant now?

Nope, should we feel that way? You have a long history of bright people, and an equally long history of not putting your bright people to work. It was Hungarians that came up with the atomic bomb. You should feel proud of that. Had your nation not had a problem with Jews and had our nation not fallen to Hitler you might have been able to destroy the Nazis before American had to get involved. Had you employed your very bright people you would have been able to stop Stalin. Your nation did not the rest is history.

It seems you like to think that 85% of the world population is a loser. Everyone else who is not America or Japan or Germany or the U.K. Maybe we all are.

Not at all we understand what it is like to lose and we don't like it. Other nations seem to like it or at least expect it to be the outcome. Japan and Germany are examples of what happens when America wins. We changed hundreds of years of thinking in only 50. We let them stand on thier own when they were ready. Neither nation is lead by the nose by America and we continue to move forward. If they or anyone else cares to join us fine if not we wish them well. But we don't like to hear reasons for failure unless they are used to help you win the next time.

I am tired debating with you. You think because you live in a better country you are smarter, you know how to live, the "American Way". Well, this expression is the "American Way", not the German or Russian or any other way. You know this is because the only place where the circumstances were given to have such a way was in America. You don't you see that this mentality hardly works here. Personally I live by the "what can I do for making my situation better?-mentality, but I can't change a whole country you see, and have problems with sky-high taxes, overcomplicated adminstration and envious people. In America you can do this: try first, fail, try second, fail, try the third time, success. But over here you have one shot. Just one.

---kdgergo

So you're tired of debating this point with me. Why? As I said earlier, I won't apologize for our freedoms and success as a nation. We managed to avoid all the divisive crap that plagued the peoples of Europe, mostly because the Founders looked for ways to avoid it, rather than having to suffer through it all as a natural matter of course in nation-building.

Gergo, how do you know, for a fact, that our "Way" won't work over there? Have you actually tried applying it? Somehow I doubt it.
Know why our "Way" doesn't seem to work in other nations? Because they resist it....out of spite, jealousy...whatever. Because it's always easier, and more fun, maybe, for the "have-nots" to sit around in an angry, jealous funk and bitch about the "haves".

Well, you can have your self-imposed swamp of self-pity and jealous Penis Envy. Good luck to you and yours. If/when America does fall, as you seem to prophesy, well.....at least we held the shining mountaintop for a time; after all, it's better to have been there for a while than not at all .....where were you?

Nobody warned Iraq that these jets were flying over their air space and nobody shot at the jets in either direction though everyone knew where they came from and Israel had no permission to fly war planes over anyone’s country.

THEY FLEW OVER THE KING OF JORDANDS YACHT, and had indeed alerted Iraqi's air defenses. They fired on the F-16's at the nuclear reactor site.

"Oops those sneaky Israelis slipped through our radar that is always looking at Israel. Israel is surrounded by hostile nations yet nobody notice 6 war planes entering their air defenses?"
Actually Operation Opera contained 8 F-16A's and 6 F-15A's

They flew under the radar as low as 50-100 feet. Very possible to sneak through air defenses because radar's can't search that low because of all the ground clutter and sand dunes in the way. They also didn't think the F-16A's could make that distance, and they only did because they carried a specially modified fuel load out and took off over takeoff weight. They in fact topped off the gas on the runway while the engines were hot, risking explosion. The drop tanks were designed to be dropped but not while bombs were also on the wings, and they further risked having those tanks fly up into the jet upon release. That didn't happen though. Inside 20NM they pulled up to maybe 5-8 thousand feet and then dived performing a CCIP attack on the reactors.

youtube.com/watch?v=svzzrvN92Pg&mode=related&search=

Their defenses were caught off guard and would have been inadaquate to repluse a surprise attack anyway.

"So you are asserting that the Iraqi's would be better off under Saddam?

I can see someone arguing that the invasion of Iraq hasn't served US interests sufficiently. But I think it's a no brainer that the average Iraqi is better off today than they were in 2002. If you doubt this, ask the Iraqis. It's an issue that has been polled repeatedly.

There is no non-emotional reason I can think of for someone hating the United States for invading Iraq unless you support oppression and tyranny."

Hey Brad, You have accused me of strawman and now this?

"So you are asserting that the Iraqi's would be better off under Saddam?"

Come on. I am asserting exactly what I said in the post. Re-read it if it is confusing.

By the way if you are implying that ... "someone hating the United States for invading Iraq unless you support oppression and tyranny." that someone is me, you are making a strawman argument yourself. I should think you are more responsible for that.

For the record, I support oppression not at all, and tyranny only in the case of me and my hamster. I'd say the agreement is working out well for us both. Thanks for playing ask Dan a ?

Sorry to disappoint you all. South Africa is the best country in the World!

What I was getting at is that there really aren't a lot of RATIONAL objections to the US invasion of Iraq. Saddam was most definitely a menace in every practical sense. Violence occuring in Baghad and a few other cherry picked regions is certainly annoying but has no international effect in any practical sense.

Except if those violence degenerates into a full-fledged civil war, which has the potential to be much bloodier than Lebanon's. It could draw Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria (and maybe Turkey, they hate kurds) into it, making the whole mess messier.

There is a rational objection: you destabilized the whole region to a critical point for absolutely no gain at all (except maybe some huge financial gain for lobbyists of the GOP & the endebtors of the USA's Government). Saddam Hussein maybe was a treath, in theory, but he was quite powerless in pratice.

The gains were...

A. Verified no deliverable/usable WMD in a WMD capacity.
B. Freely elected Iraqi government
C. Iraqi constitution with laws
D. Removed, capture, and brought to trial a brutal tyrant.
E. Rebuild damaged infastructure to pre-war levels (categories vary but usually improving weekly security remains the weakest link)
Goals yet to be achieved

F. Reduction of the violence to an Iraqi managable level. (may never be achieved while we are there)
G. Maintain Iraq as a free and democratic society. (least likely of the goals to suceed)

H. One more thing we have indirectly achieved and this doesn't get much press, but there have been fewer incidences of suicide bombings in Israel, at least in my perception, but I think if we took a look at the evidence you could see this in the numbers. One of the reasons for this invasion and "regime change" was to stop Hussein from buying homocide bombers in Israel.

Cik you are absolutely right, the way the post war has gone is certainly not to plan at this point, and Iraq could very well de-stabilize even with our forces in country, if it hasn't already begun the slide or drop off a cliff.

Americans need not give a sh*t what is "looks like" we are doing to the "terrorists" but need only care what it is that we are actually doing. I would have to say what we are doing, for better or worse, isn't working out very well. The nation has identified security as the #1 problem since the post war and that has yet to change, in fact the security problem only seems to get worse as each day passes.

Originally it was thought that the "terrorists" were not an unlimited number of persons in country, and it was though the capture of Saddam would also bring a curbing of the violence, neither of these seems to be particularly accurate.

The president has been but now is consistently slapping the label of "terrorist" on anybody would take up arms against the government, yet the people fear the government because the police force is as corrupt as a police force in Palestine. People are targeted daily for assassination, car bombs are blowing up daily, there are death squads roaming urban areas, and I largely agree that this is a terror battle, the major players in Iraq are pissed because they don't see any action that is good for the country. i.e. us leaving anytime soon. Being that it is such a sh*t hole in the country's urban areas, recruiting suicidal Muslims who don't see anyway out, is a pretty easy task for the "terrorists" because of the terror.

I see an Iraq in 5 years, if the entire country isn't at war with itself, being a place very similar to Israel, with these homocide bombers blowing themselves up in cafes or malls pretty much quarterly or monthly, but as of right now with 150,000 troops in the country we can't even get to that level of security, of just occassional atrocious violence.

A. Verified no deliverable/usable WMD in a WMD capacity.

Done by U.N. prior Invasion

B. Freely elected Iraqi government

Hugely contested in large segments of the population

C. Iraqi constitution with laws

Not respected by many. No way to enforce said-laws.

D. Removed, capture, and brought to trial a brutal tyrant.

Trial was contested worldwide

E. Rebuild damaged infastructure to pre-war levels

Nothing to say about this one. But I would bet a lot of lobbyist of the GOP got the big buck out of that one. Directly came from the taxpayers.

Hey Brad, You have accused me of strawman and now this? "So you are asserting that the Iraqi's would be better off under Saddam?" Come on. I am asserting exactly what I said in the post. Re-read it if it is confusing.

I guess I'm slow. Could you dumb it down for me and go with a straight YES or NO answer.

Do you think Iraq would be better off today with Saddam in power?

BTW Dan, you really  need to use the quotes system it's hard to tell what you wrote and what someone else wrote.

The gains for the US by invading Iraq was removing an open enemy of the United States who controlled a significant % of proven oil reserves and therefore had a massive long term economic capability to do harm.

That is the only reason the United States needs. Period.

Everything else is fluff/PR. 

After 9/11, open enemies of the United States who have significant economic resources needed to be removed. 

Iraq was chosen to be first because it was the most politically feasible to go after.  Him having WMDs or whatever merely provided casus belli to do so.

If I were emperor, I would have immediately followed up by removing the regimes of Syria and Iran. 

I do not consider it particularly important whether Iraq has a "stable democratic" government. I understand the strategy and think it's viable but only if the costs are reasonable which is looking like it's not.

The ultimate strawman in these debates is that if Iraq falls into civil war that somehow the United States has "lost".  I guess I don't see how Iraq's stability is really our problem when it comes right down to it. 

The military is very good at blowing things up, breaking things, and killing people. That's what they do. How creating a stable democracy somehow became part of "the mission" is a mystery to me.

I really don't understand why we haven't eliminated Syria's regime at this point as well as Iran's.  Sure, it would plunge "the region" into chaos but there are other players in the region who have a much bigger stake at the region being stable than we do and would probably create an incentive for them to be more cooperative.

Bush doesn't seem to get this which is why he has such a low approval rating. He loses the 30% of the population who would have been against going in no matter what.  He loses another 30% of the people who want more decisive action taken. And keeps part of the remaining gropu that doesn't really care that much.

I really don't understand why we haven't eliminated Syria's regime at this point as well as Iran's. Sure, it would plunge "the region" into chaos but there are other players in the region who have a much bigger stake at the region being stable than we do and would probably create an incentive for them to be more cooperative.

So you do not consider having a Middle-east-wide internal conflit (Syria + Iraq + Iran) be nefast for.. oh, let's say, the price of oil?

Or the safety of Israel?

Or even your own safety, since terrorism would be increased in an exponential factor..?

More resentment from the Arab population than there could ever be?

"BTW Dan, you really need to use the quotes system it's hard to tell what you wrote and what someone else wrote."

Quotation marks work just fine thanks.

"If I were emperor, I would have immediately followed up by removing the regimes of Syria and Iran."

I'm ready to vote for you into public office Brad. If you need a heckler as in political machine, I'll trash your opponent here in the Dairy land lol.

"I guess I don't see how Iraq's stability is really our problem when it comes right down to it."

Agree, so why the hell are we still there?

"I do not consider it particularly important whether Iraq has a "stable democratic" government. I understand the strategy and think it's viable but only if the costs are reasonable which is looking like it's not."

Also agree, on the costs, they were never reasonably asserted to be this high, one could argue in lives but one could more certainly argue in $$.

"Do you think Iraq would be better off today with Saddam in power?"

No. I think we would be better off in some ways if history had taken a different course. The opportunity costs may end up costing more some way some how the maintaining the containment of Iraq and focusing instead on Iran, or North Korea, and also tidying up Afganistan.

As of right now Iraqi's are better off living in a free society, but the fear of being murdered or tortured by Saddam has been replaced by a fear of real instability inside Iraq and the fact that the country's unity/integrity is melting like a snowman in March.

"Or even your own safety, since terrorism would be increased in an exponential factor..?"

Like that's stopped us thus far. If that's the approach the "terrorists" are looking to see/hear, get real, were coming for you all. By the way, how exactly do you think terrorism can increase by an exponential factor when we have already isolated it well inside the pressure cooker of Iraq called Baghdad?

Like that's stopped us thus far. If that's the approach the "terrorists" are looking to see/hear, get real, were coming for you all. By the way, how exactly do you think terrorism can increase by an exponential factor when we have already isolated it well inside the pressure cooker of Iraq called Baghdad?

I would have to contredict you on the fact that you isolated it well...

So you do not consider having a Middle-east-wide internal conflit (Syria + Iraq + Iran) be nefast for.. oh, let's say, the price of oil? Or the safety of Israel? Or even your own safety, since terrorism would be increased in an exponential factor..? More resentment from the Arab population than there could ever be?

Syria produces no oil.

In what way would terrorism be increaesd in an exponential factor? Provide evidence to support this.  All the US has to do is disrupt any sort of terrorist infrastructure (like training camps) to do about as much as it can do already.  The US military isn't going to prevent terrorists from getting together at someone's house even if it's stationed in downtown Bagdad.

Why should we care if the Arab (or Persian which Iran is) population is more resentful?  The "Arab street" doesn't seem to care about our resentment when they murder people over cartoons or books.

I would have to contredict you on the fact that you isolated it well...

Explain how? What US interests have been attacked since the invasion of Iraq? Any at all?

Pre-9/11 and pre-Iraq invasion US embassies were being attacked. US planes shot at on a regularly basis. The USS Cole, the WTC, etc. were all hit.

Here is where the problem comes in:

You seem to believe that terrorists blowing things up in Baghdad is somehow damaging to US interests.  I don't grant you that premise.  Terrorists blowing thigns up "over there" is not really something I worry about.  Terrorists blowing things up over here, however does. And that's not happening.

Frankly, when I see someone saying that the US is "losing" the war on terror it's hard not to just dismiss that person as being a loon.  By any reasonable definition of victory the US is doing an outstanding job.

Yet you have people trying to define failure because Jeffersonian democracy is struggling in post-Saddam Iraq. Oh woe is me.

People (dumb people anyway) lose sight of the whole point of the "war on terror" which is: To keep terrorists from attacking the United States or US interests.  That is the measurement of success.  And the terrorists are clearly not doing a very good job doing that.

Explain how? What US interests have been attacked since the invasion of Iraq? Any at all?

None. Its Bush's fault!

You seem to believe that terrorists blowing things up in Baghdad is somehow damaging to US interests. I don't grant you that premise. Terrorists blowing thigns up "over there" is not really something I worry about. Terrorists blowing things up over here, however does. And that's not happening.

Well, since the terrorist have failed to attack us again the only thing they have to point at is Iraq. I like that. Better there than here.

Frankly, when I see someone saying that the US is "losing" the war on terror it's hard not to just dismiss that person as being a loon. By any reasonable definition of victory the US is doing an outstanding job.

But people are dying! Killing is wrong! We should not kill the terrorist!

Yes people are dying just not our people. yes, killing is wrong which is why we are at war we were attacked first. we need to kill the terrorist because treating them like people seems to make them think we are weak.

This war is not just in Iraq
Killed in the war on terrorism
92,469 on both sides, largest counts (500+)

Iraq - 49,207
Afghanistan - 17,475
Chechnya - 12,479
Somalia - 4,450
Israel/Palestine - 4,234
Turkey - 1,474
Lebanon - 1,347
Philippines - 1,158
Indonesia - 620

so far so good!

Yet you have people trying to define failure because Jeffersonian democracy is struggling in post-Saddam Iraq. Oh woe is me.

Don't feel bad that idiots are on the planet. Be glad you are not one of them.

People (dumb people anyway) lose sight of the whole point of the "war on terror" which is: To keep terrorists from attacking the United States or US interests. That is the measurement of success. And the terrorists are clearly not doing a very good job doing that.

I disagree with you here. The terrorist are doing a great job! They make bold attacks and die in numbers greater than ours. What more can you ask for?

I disagree with you here. The terrorist are doing a great job! They make bold attacks and die in numbers greater than ours. What more can you ask for?

True. In a way, we're helping them get to paradise. It's a public service that the US military provides free of charge to the Jihadist on the go.

Syria produces no oil.

Gee, if Syria produces no oil, then my whole goddamn point is not valid anymore! Burn Iraq and Iran to the ground, nothing will happen, BECAUSE SYRIA PRODUCE NO OIL

In what way would terrorism be increaesd in an exponential factor? Provide evidence to support this. All the US has to do is disrupt any sort of terrorist infrastructure (like training camps

Ever heard of the Hydra?

Point me 1 event in the world's history, where there was an effective military solution to terrorism. Just 1.

Terrorism will never stop because of military actions.

Why should we care if the Arab (or Persian which Iran is) population is more resentful? The "Arab street" doesn't seem to care about our resentment when they murder people over cartoons or books.

There is a difference between 40% approval rating and 10%. You will win peace when you will win the Arab and Persian street. And there are more ways to do that than to adopt an Islamic theocratic rule. You said in another post that "what Islamic Nations should do is....", why would they care about what you want if you don't care about what they want? What is their interest of doing America's bidding, if America simply screw them with its policies?

The present growing of Islamic Radicals in politics is a simple result of our support of secular dictatorships. No wonder muslims often see us as ennemies, we supported their ennemies with weapon and money!