Iraqi's vote for a radical Islamic Iraq: what do we do?

[The Consigliere]

Art I don't think this is liberal hyperventilating going on. I think it's a case where we try to figure out what actually can, and will likely happen. Could we place a strong military presence in Iraq, Sure, would it be wise? Depends upon what you mean by wise. It certainly seems as if Syria, and Iran, at least in the short term, are quite dedicated to the idea of destroying Iraq via a Lebanonization of the country (if our presence continues and/or the government that is elected is not to their liking). The question is, will setting up a base their make things infinitely worse? Or make them realize that we aren't going to sit on our hands and make arses of ourselves as we did not only during the Clinton era, but also during the Bush 1 and Reagan and Carter era's. There has even been strong arguments suggesting that Libya came into line much more due to sanctions and Qaddafi growing older, than ever because of the bombing of '86 so acting tough doesn't necessairly work either.

The truth is, I don't know what the wise course is. I think playing with 'kid gloves' in the region simply does not work. But I also do not think much in the way of positives would come from building a military presence in Iraq for several years and/or a decade+. We could certainly expect plenty of terrorist acts, suicide bombings and the like, although that may be expected whether we stay or go. I'm just not sure what is the wisest course, I can't stand the thought that 130 American troops could have died simply for nothing. It already seems clear that these idiots are dead set on forcing a religious imprint on their new state (the only good thing about the Baathist was the lack of religious interference in high level government). If nothing else we should work our butts off to force on them a modern economic system under the capitalist model, and an education system that is Western in model, and bears no resemblance to the Wahabist/Madrasas cr@p that in technical terms were even worse than Hitler Youth education systems (The Hitler Youth may have been trained to become unthinking monsters, but the madrasas teach the same cr@p, and unlike in Nazi Germany, it doesn't teach much else. One of the main reasons the Nazi's could take over a modernist Europe, while the Pakistani's and Saudi's couldn't even take over Vera Cruz, let alone San Antonio, was because of the countries grounding in Science, mathematics, physics, and rationalism (to a point before they imploded with Hitlerian Aryan non-sense). If we can help them rebuild their education system, their economic system, and the infrastructure, we could get out and they might just be fine. While they don't have a history of democracy, it also hasn't been a fundamentalist country either, by and large it's been secular for a long time. So at least they have some secular tradition.

I don't know what's right Art, I just don't think your as right as you may think either. Building a base might be wise, but it also might put you in the same situation Israel is in right now (and I am thoroughly and completely on Israel's side in that cause). If you take the soft tact they think you're weak, if you take the hard tact, they don't come at you w/reason, or non-violent civil disobediance a la MLK and Ghandi (gee, wonder why there aren't any Ghandi's or MLK's to be found around the Palestinians?), they come at you strapped w/explosives, and try to kill you. There seems to be no sure answer. Maybe my radical Israel policy is the course-give them the carrort-Here is your homeland and your freedom, but if you f--- with us ever again in anyway, we'll make Gulf War II, seem like at worst, a bad visit to the therapist. Total war will be the answer, w/gloves off, and anyone who screws with us will get theirs, and not the sweetness and light keep the civilian casualties down and risk our troops lives in the process nonsense either (I believe in attempting to keep civilian casualties down, but not at the expense of the safety of troops, or at the expense of the grand strategy involved).

There are no clear answers, the only clear feeling I have is that we absolutely must MUST be free of our dependance on oil sooner rather than later. It makes me sick to know that we haven't done nearly enough since 9/11. The second we require nothing from these nit-wits is the second we can deal with them w/gloves off and total honesty. After all, if we were truly honest in following Bushes initial post 9/11 strategy, we'd already be kicking the cr@p out of Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia just to name a few countries, as well as the Palestinians. But we aren't truly honest, because unfortunately the world and real politick does not work that way, it's pragmatic, frustrating short term thinking non-sense far too often . Anyway, what could possibly be more funny than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran, and even Iraq following the invention, refinement, and total production of fuel cell and/or other alternative, fully effective and cost-efficient alternative energy. I mean you take away oil, and these guys produce less than freaking Fiji, than the freaking Dominican Republic, than freaking Belize in terms of actual GNP, and GDP. They make nothing, produce nothing of consequence, and exist on the bare bones reality they do strictly because of oil. Without that production those goverments and cultures will collapse quicker than the Caps after a 2 games to 0 lead. The sooner they realize they are the reason they are f--ked, rather than due to American or Zionist conspiracies (I mean hell, they still pass around the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a noted Forgery that was found out more than 100 years ago, freaking idiots) is the sooner they can actually rebuild a culture, that once, ever so briefly held more promise than any in the West. That is until they screwed themselves, corrupted themselves, ruined themselves, and then the Mongol Hordes stomped out the Caliph in Baghdad for good measure, as a sort of proverbial metaphor for the future of Islam in the Modern World (if it's true that they put the Caliph in a bag, and then had horses stomp him to death, that has got to be the most ruthless execution method I've come across in a long time).

Anyway it's all about the rambling . That's enough spew from me for one night.

[Sarge]

Anyone that thinks we are going to pull out of there is deluded. As we speak, the Air Force is transforming three major airfields/bases over to USAF airfield standards. We ain't doing that to pass the time of day. We are going to be there a long time, and they are going to like it.

[JimboDaMan]

Sarge, I'm sure it makes you feel good to say that. But of course they won't like it. Establish that base on foreign, certain to be somewhat hostile, soil if you wish. To the victor, etc. etc. But please don't be shocked! shocked! and fuss about those murderous scum when the resulting inevitable terrorist attacks take place.

[Sarge]

One would also hope there would be a little thinking involved on the part of the iraqis on whom to vote into government. Afterall, the last "government" brought death and destruction to the area, and ultimately even more destruction from the US military. Were I muslim, right about now I would be wanting to both be kicking bin ladens a$$ and be questioning my faith. Look at the Middle East before 9/11. We were in Saudi Arabia, to protect oil. And we give aid to Isreal. That was about it. Now we occupy ( and yes, I'll use that word) Afganistan, Iraq and to a point, Pakistan. And, we are not done yet if certain governments don't get their acts together. I would also be thinking, "What has allah done for me lately?" What has allah done for the middle east for the past thousand years of so? Kept then from becoming a contributing part of civilization for one thing. What has anyone from the Middle East contributed to society since the time of Christ? Not much. Were it not for oil and the money derived from that, I seriouly doubt anyone would even pay much attention to them. They have gone from a society that lead the world in art and science to what they are today, thanks mostly to religious teachings. I know indipendant thought on thesse matters won't come easy, but if I were an iraqi, I might eventually think, "Maybe there is a better way"

[Sarge]

Sarge, I'm sure it makes you feel good to say that. But of course they won't like it. Establish that base on foreign, certain to be somewhat hostile, soil if you wish. To the victor, etc. etc. But please don't be shocked! shocked! and fuss about those murderous scum when the resulting inevitable terrorist attacks take place.

Feel good? Nope. It's just another sh!thole that either me or one of my fellow airmen will end up going to man for a year, and they'l make it a "remote", meaning you can't take the family. Not that I would want to anyway. Of course we will expect attacks, we've come to expect no less, but at least if they are busy bothering us over there, they'll hopefully have less time to do stuff here.

[TennesseeCarl]

I liked Consigliere's notion of finding some way to dis-enfranchise the Middle East by finding alternative energy sources.

For years the Middle Eastern nations have taken their oil wealth and converted it into palaces for its rulers and third-rate (at best) military forces. They produce none of their own armor...none of their own aircraft...in fact, none of their own firearms.

Imagine not having to purchase a drop of oil from these wretches.

[Art]

TC,

I liked Consig's notion of utilizing alternative energy as well. Still, we do not have to purchase a drop of oil from the Middle East. As a nation we can produce our own or buy exclusively from Russia or Argentina or any where else. We can't, and shouldn't, prevent our businesses from buying from the Middle East if they want, but, as with all things, you, as the consumer, can drive to a gas station that doesn't use Middle Eastern oil. I do this. Do you?

On a trip I might not do this because you take gas where you can get it. But for normal car use, I know which stations are owned by companies that use Middle Eastern oil and which are not. And while I also like the idea of alternate energy cars, how many people do you know actually leased the electric cars GM came out with? There are only 1,000 in the country that did and that billion dollar program is being scrapped, so my guess is you don't know many .

Perhaps fuel cell cars will prove to be the way.

Though, please consider this. Should we develop a way to make it illegal for gas or oil to be used in this country for anything, meaning all combustion machines are replaced by something else, wouldn't this simply FURTHER increase our danger and the resentment against us in this region?

Their lives would get worse. They would have less money trickling down than they do now. They'd probably hate us more because we made it harder for them to survive. That may not be the case, and, personally, I wouldn't care if it did make them hate us more, but, I think we may not know that going away from oil would actually improve our situation there.

As it is now we can at least buy off certain governments. We can at least keep some leadership of these nations on our side because we are over there and we're buying their oil. Absent that we'd have no leverage on the leadership to ignore the passions of their populations and perhaps they'd more openly embrace the hatred that grips some of these idiots.

Consig,

I also wanted to point out to you that a military base such as there is in Cuba wouldn't in the slightest open us up to the types of attacks Israel suffers. We're not talking about co-mingling our people and theirs. We're not talking about occupying corners in cities. We're talking about a secure base at the tip of the nation. An area fenced and barricaded off. An area similar to our base in Cuba. One in which we could quickly launch attacks or stage troops. This is not at all the sort of thought that could project as you've projected it.

They may resent it, just as there has long been resentment in Cuba over our presense. But, so what.

[TennesseeCarl]

At this point, I'm convinced that Abdullah Muslim in the streets of Islamabad, Cairo, Damascus, Algiers, Tehran, or wherever is going to hate us intensely no matter what we do.

We're not going to cease supporting Israel (even if we did and the Arabs were able to massacre every Israeli, we'd find out there was some other grievance).

Oil's a odd commodity. You either have it or you don't. You don't develop it. I suspect it doesn't have much of a 'ripple effect' in an economy, despite it's obvious attraction. By that, I mean you pump it out of the ground and sell it as is. You don't refine it - the buyer does that. It doesn't seem to create other sorts of jobs.

If the Middle East were forced to look elsewhere for markets and not rely so much on oil, perhaps there'd be more jobs, more opportunity for advancement.

Your point about 'what are we willing to do for this' is well taken. While some of the hybrids are selling (Toyota's Prius e.g.) it appears that we aren't going to take electric cars seriously.

And no, I don't only support gas stations that use oil from sources other than the Middle East. Maybe I should. I tend to stop at little independent stations and I haven't a clue where their oil comes from.

[The Consigliere]

Driving up to the Sierra's so I can't write up a proper response now. But I've got to ask Art why he's so absolutely sure our base would be secure. I don't mean to say that we can't make it so, but I tend to follow Michael Corleone's take in The Godfather II, "If history has shown us anything, it's that any man can be killed." Or at least it was pretty close to that. That's how I feel about a base of operations in Iraq. We could make it pretty damn secure, but we can't make anything 100% secure, and eventually some wack job would be able to do damage. That being said, i like your strategy on where and how to build it. Its just judging by our terrorist experiences in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, and admittedly a short sighted and moronic use of Yemen, nothing is 100% secure .

Also, I agree on the oil take you have, and Russia of course could be a wonderland of oil, the problem is with dealing with them. How do we deal w/them honestly and effectively while taking into account the apparent unfriendly, active betrayal's they've engaged in regarding Iraq? Rewarding them with Oil deals seems to be extremely foolish, and as long as Venezeula is run by the current moron that place will be difficult, and you can also count me as one against exploring energy reserves in Alaska (I'm a big believer in T.R's take that our natural landmarks and wonders, unspoiled, are an inheritance for our children and grandchildren that we dare not interfere with, particularly in some short sited attempt to make money and reduce by a tiny percentage on foreign oil. I'd much rather put forward our great energy to developing, alternative energies, and I mean going at it in Twain's words, "Whole HOG," not in half measures. Nothing could be better than avoiding reliance on foreign enemies for our energy reserves. The same applies to technological development in regards to China, Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan and SE Asia, I like the improvements we've undergone here over the past decade in brining this under our own inventive umbrella (although Indian Tech workers have certainly played a huge role in recent years, they've increasingly become American Citizens and wish to stay here, at least based on my experience and understanding of Silicon Valley)...gotta go...

[Sarge]

These two thread are kinda running together, but I thought I'd post this here as well. I feel kinda slimey, being vindicated by this liberal rag, but here we go;

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&ncid=68&e=3&u=/nyt/20030419/ts_nyt/pentagon_expects_long_term_access_to_four_key_bases_in_iraq

By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT The New York Times

WASHINGTON, April 19 The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq (news - web sites), one that would grant the Pentagon (news - web sites) access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north.

The military is already using these bases to support continuing operations against the remnants of the old government, to deliver supplies and relief aid, and for reconnaissance patrols. But as the invasion force withdraws in the months ahead, turning over control to a new Iraqi government, Pentagon officials expect to gain access to the bases in the event of some future crisis.

Whether that can be arranged depends on relations between Washington and whoever takes control in Baghdad. If the ties are close enough, the military relationship could become one of the most striking developments in a strategic revolution now playing out across the Middle East and Southwest Asia, from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean.

A military foothold in Iraq would be felt across the border in Syria, and, in combination with the continuing United States presence in Afghanistan (news - web sites), it would virtually surround Iran with a new web of American influence.

"There will be some kind of a long-term defense relationship with a new Iraq, similar to Afghanistan," said one senior administration official. "The scope of that has yet to be defined whether it will be full-up operational bases, smaller forward operating bases or just plain access."

These goals do not contradict the administration's official policy of rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and the United States is acutely aware that the growing American presence in the Middle East and Southwest Asia invites charges of empire-building and might create new targets for terrorists.

So without fanfare, the Pentagon has also begun to shrink its military footprint in the region, trying to ease domestic strains in Turkey and Jordan.

In a particularly important development, officials said the United States was likely to reduce American forces in Saudi Arabia, as well. The main reason for that presence, after all, was to protect the Saudi government from the threat Iraq has posed since its invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

Already, in Turkey, where a newly elected government bowed to domestic pressure and denied the Pentagon access to bases and supply lines for the war with Iraq, the United States has withdrawn nearly all of its 50 attack and support airplanes at the Incirlik air base, from which they flew patrols over Iraq's north for more than a decade.

Turkish officials say a new postwar security arrangement with Washington will emerge.

"These issues will define a new relationship and a new U.S. presence abroad," said Faruk Logoglu, Turkey's ambassador to the United States. "But the need for an American presence in the region will not be diminished."

Regardless of how quickly the Americans reverse the buildup of the last several months, it is plain that since Sept. 11, 2001, there has been a concerted diplomatic and military effort to win permission for United States forces to operate from the formerly Communist nations of Eastern Europe, across the Mediterranean, throughout the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, and across Central Asia, from the periphery of Russia to Pakistan's ports on the Indian Ocean.

It is a swath of Western influence not seen for generations.

These bases and access agreements have established an expanded American presence, or deepened alliance ties, throughout one of the world's most strategic regions.

"The attacks of Sept. 11 changed more than just the terrorism picture," said one senior administration official. "On Sept. 11, we woke up and found ourselves in Central Asia. We found ourselves in Eastern Europe as never before, as the gateway to Central Asia and the Middle East."

The newest security agreements will come in Iraq. Col. John Dobbins, commander of Tallil Forward Air Base, said the Air Force plan envisioned "probably two bases that will stay in Iraq for an amount of time."

"That amount of time, obviously, is an unknown," he added.

In addition to Tallil, the other base for the Air Force is at Bashur, in the north, Pentagon officials said. The Army currently holds the Baghdad airport. The H-1 base in the west has allowed Special Operations forces to move out of their secret bases in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and set up a forward headquarters.

The establishment of these bases follows the strategy used in Afghanistan, where the American military first seized Forward Operating Base Rhino in the desert south of Kandahar, before moving that headquarters into the city. The American military has its senior headquarters in Afghanistan at Bagram airfield outside of Kabul, and it has a number of regional civil affairs offices elsewhere in the nation.

In Afghanistan, and in Iraq, the American military will do all it can to minimize the size of its deployed forces, and there will probably never be an announcement of permanent stationing of troops.

Not permanent basing, but permanent access is all that is required, officials say.

For the Afghan conflict, the Pentagon negotiated new basing agreements with Pakistan and two former Soviet republics, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. But the arrangements also signaled a long-term commitment to the region and gave the military the ability to deploy forces there quickly.

Although the new bases in Iraq are primarily for mounting comprehensive postwar security operations, senior administration officials make no secret that the American presence at those bases near Syria and Iran and long-term access to them "will make them nervous."

Or as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell put it on Thursday: "We have been successful in Iraq. There is a new dynamic in that part of the world."

Even so, administration officials are quick to echo Mr. Powell's assertions that Washington has "no war plan right now" for Syria and Iran.

"So don't ask if our tanks are going to move right or left out of Iraq," said one senior administration official. "There are a lot of political weapons that can be unleashed to achieve our goals."

Among the pressures to be exerted against Syria will be a campaign to focus the world's attention on a new administration message. "Syria occupies Lebanon," one senior administration official said. "This is the repression of one Arab state by another. Plus there are terror training camps in the Bekaa Valley."

In addition to tamping down public anxiety over possible military action against Syria, or even Iran, officials are quick to argue that these two nations have the most significant vote as to whether the United States will ever apply the template of "regime change" in Iraq to them.

"This does not mean, necessarily, that other governments have to fall," one senior administration official said. "They can moderate their behavior."

Administration officials express keen awareness that they must show humility, and not hubris, in the aftermath of their quick victory in Iraq. "We need to be flexible, and modulate our actions according to the political interests of our allies," said one senior administration official.

The senior official predicted that the American military would "modulate our footprint" in Saudi Arabia, which was so concerned about its role in the air war against Iraq that it blocked Pentagon efforts to station correspondents there.

Lt. Gen. T. Michael Moseley, who directed the air war from a sophisticated command center outside of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, is expected to meet with senior Saudi officials in the next few days to continue discussions about the future of the American military presence there, a senior military official said.

But administration, Pentagon and military officials say it is unlikely that American forces will withdraw completely from the desert kingdom. Military officials are discussing a range of options.

In the Iraq war, American and British warplanes flew from 30 bases in about a dozen countries. In the postwar period, a senior military official said, "We will draw down from those 30 bases, but in a way that will allow us to flex or increase, when we need to."

The roles of many countries in support of the American war effort are only now coming to light.

Two Eastern European countries eager to join NATO (news - web sites) quickly offered logistics bases when Turkey blocked the Pentagon's request to base support planes on its soil.

Romania allowed the American military to fly troops, cargo, fuel and vehicles from Europe aboard C-130, C-141 and C-17 transport planes from an air base near the Black Sea port of Constanta. Eight to 10 planes fly missions to Iraq from the base.

About 200 miles to the south, in Burgas, Bulgaria, the authorities opened a training camp and adjacent airfield to 400 Air Force personnel and about six KC-10 refueling planes.

Before the war started, some 900 Army troops established a training camp for Iraqi exiles at Taszar in Hungary, a new NATO member. The Iraqis were dispatched to serve as guides, interpreters and scouts for American ground troops in Iraq.

In the Persian Gulf, the Pentagon struck a new agreement with Qatar to allow Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the allied commander in the region, to establish his wartime headquarters outside of Doha, the capital, and to send many combat aircraft to Al Udeid air base, after the Saudis would not allow missions to be flown from their territory.

Bahrain and especially Kuwait, the staging area for the ground invasion, provided essential bases for the Iraq war. But with Iraq occupied, the Pentagon will now review its long-term force and access requirements in the gulf states.

"The subject of a footprint for the United States post-Iraq is something that we're discussing and considering," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said this week. "But that will take some time to sort through."

[88Comrade2000]

We'll see what happens. If the worst happens, don't be shocked.

I'm not liberal nor am I conservative.

Though I am negative pessimistic person- always have been.

[jbooma]

Ok someone said that Iraq only has a few holy places unlike SA,

I hate to break it to you but the 3 major religions all were created in, yes you guessed it IRAQ. Christianity, Muslim, and Jewish religions all came from IRAQ. The garden of eden, civiliazation started in IRAQ. Babylon was Iraq, Mesotopia, was in Iraq. So I would say Iraq is a very holy and historic place.

That is why all these religous freaks believe this is the beginning of the end of the world. The battle of good vs evil between the Tigres and Euphrates, it is all in the scriptures. Very interesting reading to say the least.

[88Comrade2000]

Originally posted by jbooma

Ok someone said that Iraq only has a few holy places unlike SA,

I hate to break it to you but the 3 major religions all were created in, yes you guessed it IRAQ. Christianity, Muslim, and Jewish religions all came from IRAQ. The garden of eden, civiliazation started in IRAQ. Babylon was Iraq, Mesotopia, was in Iraq. So I would say Iraq is a very holy and historic place.

That is why all these religous freaks believe this is the beginning of the end of the world. The battle of good vs evil between the Tigres and Euphrates, it is all in the scriptures. Very interesting reading to say the least.

Techinically you're wrong about the religions being created there. Mankind is said to come from there but the religions came later.

All three religions were formed in the Irsael/Palestine area. Even though most of Islams holy shrines are in Saudia Arabia or Iraq for the Shiites; the Quaran was said to be revealed to Mohammad at the dome of the rock/ site of 2nd temple in Jersualem. Bethleham is where Jesus came from and that area is where he taught christianity. Judiasm is from the same area.

Actually one of the key conflicts between Muslims and Jews is the fact the both claim the same spot for one the holiest religious sites.

==============================================

And what's wrong with the end of the world? If God wants the world to end, then he will end it. Only someone who's afraid where their immortal soul will end up, would be frighten that the end of world could be coming soon. SARS could be the beginning of God exacting his wrath and on mankind. I'm prepared for the end, if it's coming and will accept whatever judgement God passes on me. right now- it wouldn't be good.

[Jagsbch]

I Just want to know when is everyone going to wake to the true reality of Islam. A religion, not hardly. Though it manifests itself as a religion, in form with it's rigorous rituals, and the concept of a deity, it's all smoke and mirror's. I hear this crap of Holy site, while at the same time I see these leader's sending out their flock to the streets like soldiers into battle. Calling for Jihad, and the US who liberated them, to leave the country so the leaders can dominate the people with the tyranny of this hateful militant system, that suppresses Knowledge and virtually any other form of enlightenment for their people, other than Islam.

When you have religious leader's calling on their followers to war then this ought to automatically transform the reality of this religion to a Militant system. They want to dominate. the domination starts at home with the children and wives. I mean when a man can kill a woman for cooking a bad dinner and it be called an honorable killing, how in the hell can we keep condoning and calling this millitant system of rule, a religion; just because of the rituals, and deity they claim to be worshipping. Political correctness should not hinder our influence in this matter.

We out to give them a right to choose what government they will have by limiting their choices to include one that is separate from church and state. It's not a matter of them being dominated by another religious system, if that's what they are afraid of, it's a matter of the rest of the people in Iraq that don't want to be dominated by the different sect's stresses. We need to stress the reality that religion is a choice. A choice that need's to be separated from the ruling body of law. So all we have to do is give them options that do not include any form of religion, and let them choose their Government from the selections we offer. We have t9o keep it simple. It’s about freedom that should be argument enough. No body is saying you can’t worship, we are just saying no one has the right to impose their belief’s on another. It’s about choice.

[Riggo-toni]

For those of you so eager for a base, let me ask you this - if it were 1991 all over again, would you want to leave a base in Saudi Arabia as we did? I certainly would not. This was the primary motive for the formation of Al Quaeda (or reformation, if you want to simply consider it as a continuation of the mujiheddin). It ended up serving no real strategic value - the Saudis refused to let us use it to invade Iraq. Saudi citizens upset over it funneled millions to Bin Laden's boys. And we lost over 240 good soldier to a bombing of the barracks.

Have all of you forgotten our experiences in Lebanon? Or how about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon? What makes you people think Iraq will be any different, especially since nearly all of its citizens are now armed with assault rifles?

Yes, Bin laden thought he could take us on because he thought we were a paper tiger. Well, victories in Afghanistan and Iraq have put an end to that fallacy. Arab TV has been thoroughly discredited as well. We can end one more Arab stereotype, that of Colonialists, if we take our bases out of Arab lands. Do it soon, and Arabs will recognize it as a sign of respect, because we are doing it even though we have the strength to remain. Leave them there, and we will end up removing them years later when the public decides it isn't worth the hundreds of soldiers that die in suicide bombings to protect countries that don't like us anyway - and then it will be viewed as a weakness.

Put more forces in Afghanistan and Central Asia, and perhaps a base in the Kurdish enclave. There they will be welcome and will do more good. Take them out of Saudi Arabia asap, and out of the Arab areas of Iraq once we have restored order.

And Jag, I'd bet more people have been killed in the name of Christianity than any other religion, and I'm a Christian. Please focus your responses on the topic at hand, as opposed to venting against theologie you disagree with, or the usual outpouring of more apocalyptic babble.

[Kilmer17]

As long as they elect the government democratically and allow for the other democratic ideals of oppositon, elections, dissent, etc. We should allow them to establish whatever government they want.

Turkey is a perfect example of what I expect to see in Iraq.

[Art]

RT,

Your question is not appropriate for the conversation. In fact, we've already mentioned the advantage to a base in Iraq is that we can LEAVE Saudi Arabia. If it was 1991 and we could do it over we should have taken down Saddam then and established a base in Iraq.

But, we didn't and that's too bad. You are right that the real driving force behind Al Queda has been Americans on holy ground like Saudi Arabia. Iraq is not the same. They have holy spots, but, as a nation they aren't really the hub of that religion because Mecca is west of Iraq.

Muslims stood by for years as symbols of the religion were oppressed. The leading Muslim in the country was under house arrest for 20 years. Over a million Muslims were killed. They did nothing largely because Iraq isn't the same as Saudi Arabia. If the same things were happening in Saudi Arabia there'd be hell to pay.

Simply put, a base in Iraq would actually serve to remove from the equation one of the key recruiting tools Al Queda has. That and the first pilgrimage in two decades within Iraq will make it difficult for Muslims to say they are being oppressed.

[Riggo-toni]

With all due respect Art, I believe you are seriously underestimating the importance of Karbalah and Najaf to Shiite Muslims, or the cultural significance of Baghad to Muslims in general. Our presence won'it infuriate the Sunnis the way our presence in Arabia has, but it will inflame Shiite fanatacism in very much the same way. A decade from now we might well be arguing over how to respond to a Shiite attack on US soil - and the largest Shiite nation is now only months away from having a nuclear arsenal.

Yes, we are giving Shiites newfound freedoms after decades of repression, but you are assuming that logic and reason will prevail among the masses in that area. History has shown that is not the case. At least up until the most recent uprisings, Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza has actually been far more benevolent than the previous Jordanian or Egyptian occupations. Yet, violence and uprisings have been fierce. Do you think the Syrian occupation of Lebanon is less oppressive than the Israeli one? Of course not. But you don't hear about suicide attacks on Syrian troops, because the Lebanese know that retaliation would be swift and ruthless.

It is our determination not to engage in savage, ruthless tactics that makes us more vulnerable to hatred, not less. In the 80s, you never heard about Russians being taken hostage. Why? Because Hezbollah tried that once, and after paying to get their people back, the KGB sent operatives into Lebanon to capture the terrorists and their family members, then cut them into pieces and mailed the body parts back to to their friends. A clear message - Fvck with us and we will kill you.

There was a study done recently by a conservative think tank - i can't remember if it was the Heriage foundation or the CATO institute. Anyway, it pointed out that we were spend more $$$ on security in the Middle East then we were on Middle Eastern oil. During the Soviet era, this would have been understandable since oil is such a critical resource, but I don't believe that is any longer the case. Again, bases in Afghanistan and Central Asia would suffice, though admittedly not quite as strategically viable as bases planted directly inside Gulf nations.

[Art]

RT,

I'm sorry, but, this is crazy. The big news, right now, is that Muslims in Iraq are making a massive pilgrimage to Karbala. Why is that big news? Because for 20 some years they haven't been allowed to do this under Saddam's rule. And you think I'm underestimating the importance of those sites? Sorry. You're overestimating it. You try to keep Muslims from heading to Mecca and the whole Arab world would unite -- and, of course, die.

But, it is simply NOT the same intensity with religious sites in Iraq. You are well off the mark to think it is. If they could go for DECADES without being able to express the importance of their religious sites then they aren't going to be up in arms when we're miles away in bases in the Western desert and southern port.

There's really no other way to look at it. Karbala's importance is likely there. And for the first time in decades the people in the area and region can visit these sites and express that importance. It's a completely different situation than Saudi Arabia is. Hell, the fact is the Muslims in Iraq will probably THANK us for opening the way for them to start seeing their holy sites again.

[Kilmer17]

If fanatical Islam is a rare form and the true Islam is a peaceful religion, why are we worried?

Or is the truth really that Islam is a religion of hatred and murder?

[luckydevil]

Islam is not the problem, religion is. I guess thats another debate for another day.

[Kilmer17]

Isnt Islam a religion? Im confused (not the first time).

[luckydevil]

What I should have said is, Islam is part of a bigger problem (Does that makes sense) Then again what the hell do I know, Im just another 19 year old kid with an opinion

[Kilmer17]

got it now. Not just Islam, but all religions are the problem. Dont know if I agree, but I see the point.

[88Comrade2000]

I think any religion can be twisted and suited the needs of those who follows it.