Right.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

@fatboy & aether

The US didn't really learn from the USSR failure, did it. Otherwise what are you guys on about? Who has the least short dick?

__________________

No, no, no. You say: ah, but this means that if you want the americans to win, like you have said on several occations, you do revel in their pointless misery. Right?

And there's the fart in the elevator. What on Earth are you talking about, marlin? What's your evidence to show that the US did not learn from the USSR failure in Afghanistan?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

No, I say "ah" because I don't believe your sentiment. I think you're praying for America to fail and to fail spectacularly.

Most would define failure in either lives lost (and certainly one life lost is some sort of failure) or goals unattained. Since we've accomplished pretty much every goal we've set for ourselves in Iraq (reconstruction started and progressing, hand power over to the Iraqis) you're only source of joy comes from each US soldier killed. If a few civilians die in the mix then that's just more ammunition for your moral cannon. Nothing would please you more than to see America lose a few more thousand soldiers; have the fires of discontent stoked in the US like for the Vietnam war (a connection you like to draw); and for America to pull out with her tail between her legs. That is nirvana to you and the only acceptable outcome.

If the election happens in January, it will be one more milestone that will come and go without your dream being realized. But you’ll continue to hold out hope that Iraq will someday, somehow, devolve into a civil war and millions of civilians can be killed. In the meantime, you’ll be happy with the two or three Americans killed every day, and you’ll rub your hands with glee when the “insurgents” can actually take out a dozen or more.

It's interesting to see how interested Europe was in ensuring that Ukrainians got the leadership they chose, but aren’t willing to do anything to make sure Iraqis get the leadership they choose.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I stand corrected, i do not know if they haven't learned anything, but obviously they haven't learned enough.

__________________

And, again, I'll ask for something, anything, that supports your belief. Or is it simply your anti-American bias? That's okay if it is, I don't consider it a copout. In fact, I would much rather you use this excuse than waste my time with a bunch of silly shit that you know to be false.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Well the US have not learned to stay out of other peoples countries, unless they are very welcome. Maybe you want me to prove that it isn't a good idea to invade countries in general, but to me that seems very obvious at this point, both from a moral and a practical point of view, unless if you are of the opinion that oil is really more important than human lives (both US and arab).

__________________

Of course. No, if I wanted an underequipped and undermanned army to get thrown into the worst possible situation and took satisfaction in knowing that they would have a harder time than they could have had, I would simply cheer on Rumsfeld.
*groan* What about the appointment of the interrim council, the constitution draft which included no such thing as loss of souvereignity for the Kurds. All of which barely could be seen as something else than an attempt from the shiite to "legitimately" claim the rule of Iraq with a little help from the americans. This would also, if I would follow your logic, crush my dreams. But these things have unfortunately been revised to "accommodate" the rising problem of "insurgencies". The problem, fatboy, is that the Bush- administration will end up with getting another strong hand rule. And the Iraqi will accept it because there isn't an alternative. And you will never convince me, in the same way that you will never cease to parrot the stupidisms from washington, that this is something the Bush- administration was not prepared to do, or even had planned from the very outset. Unless, of course, there are only brainwashed idealists in the administration and noone who has any sense of survival at all or a way with twirling american sentiment around their fingertips.

Of course, the situation is always better than under Saddam, so I guess you have me there. Yes, truly it is a feat to barely avoid the casualty figure the ruthless dictator managed on his own people. Indeed it is an achievement to exchange illegitimate murders for legitimate ones. My god, yes, I must admit that they do probably feel much better for being murdered by a legitimate ruling body, no doubt.
Is that how you see Iraq? A country slightly divided in two by those who feel they identify more with the "commonwealth" than their countrymen's nationalism? Alternatively, how do you actually see Ukraine? Understand that I'm asking with the curiosity usually reserved for watching a root- canal operation. I'd rather it all just stopped and went away, so don't feel too obliged to answer.

I am not sure the situation will be better then under Saddam. Time will tell, maybe, since Saddam is gone.

__________________