The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I mean 'Coalition' policy.
Apparantly, the US wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner than was planned; handing over authority and holding elections soon. This seems to have been prompted by futher attacks.
My views: there goes Iraq. The US feels the heat and it can't take it, especially with an 'election' coming up for Bushez. The only way to realistically get a proper democracy going (whatever that means) is to stay there, probably a decade or more and set the plans in motion. Nothing good will come of this. If the US pulls out a democracy will almost certainly fail in the Emperors opinion. Whatever you think of the war once they are in they should see it through.
Who is going to re-build the infastructure? The Iraqi tribal councils?
What even is Iraq? A Western invention, I predict succesion in Iraq or possibly the formation of a theocracy.
The terroists and loyalists will still be there. Nothing will have been achieved.
In any event, by withdrawing the aid workers may be able to return. But it will make the whole escapade seem a farce, even if the coalition of the willing doesn't pull out right away and completely. Maybe it is doomed to failure. Or maybe I am just a pessimistic git who can't spell to save his life?
I suppose this puts the whole oil thing into perspective, personally I would rather the US use Iraq for some of its oil but at least re-build it and set up a stable representative government. And no WOMD. WTF.
Now maybe the coalition thinks that they will keep troops there but if Iraqi's get their 'own' government the attacks will stop and they can get on with rebuilding. However, if so this is a very dangerous game. It reeks of ''hey...rebuilding a nation from scratch is harder than we thought it would be...screw it lets get the hell out of here.''
My summary:
-US and UK get attacked. Death toll rises amoung coalition.
-US gets edgy since Bush may actually have to fight an election this time round.
-Coalition wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner. OK, technically they want to HAND OVER power much sooner but it can only logically be so that they can pull out quicker.
-None of the coalitions aims have been acheived. The nation is still in ruins, no real government and no Saddam. WOMD.
My main point is that this is a real 'knee-jerk' reaction that is irresponsible.
Oh, and I have not posted any links because it has made national news so I would assume you can all look up the evidence yourselves. If you cannot then tell me and I will find a link.
Your views?
Apparantly, the US wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner than was planned; handing over authority and holding elections soon. This seems to have been prompted by futher attacks.
My views: there goes Iraq. The US feels the heat and it can't take it, especially with an 'election' coming up for Bushez. The only way to realistically get a proper democracy going (whatever that means) is to stay there, probably a decade or more and set the plans in motion. Nothing good will come of this. If the US pulls out a democracy will almost certainly fail in the Emperors opinion. Whatever you think of the war once they are in they should see it through.
Who is going to re-build the infastructure? The Iraqi tribal councils?
What even is Iraq? A Western invention, I predict succesion in Iraq or possibly the formation of a theocracy.
The terroists and loyalists will still be there. Nothing will have been achieved.
In any event, by withdrawing the aid workers may be able to return. But it will make the whole escapade seem a farce, even if the coalition of the willing doesn't pull out right away and completely. Maybe it is doomed to failure. Or maybe I am just a pessimistic git who can't spell to save his life?
I suppose this puts the whole oil thing into perspective, personally I would rather the US use Iraq for some of its oil but at least re-build it and set up a stable representative government. And no WOMD. WTF.
Now maybe the coalition thinks that they will keep troops there but if Iraqi's get their 'own' government the attacks will stop and they can get on with rebuilding. However, if so this is a very dangerous game. It reeks of ''hey...rebuilding a nation from scratch is harder than we thought it would be...screw it lets get the hell out of here.''
My summary:
-US and UK get attacked. Death toll rises amoung coalition.
-US gets edgy since Bush may actually have to fight an election this time round.
-Coalition wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner. OK, technically they want to HAND OVER power much sooner but it can only logically be so that they can pull out quicker.
-None of the coalitions aims have been acheived. The nation is still in ruins, no real government and no Saddam. WOMD.
My main point is that this is a real 'knee-jerk' reaction that is irresponsible.
Oh, and I have not posted any links because it has made national news so I would assume you can all look up the evidence yourselves. If you cannot then tell me and I will find a link.
Your views?
Page:
A major problem is also Iraq's neighbors. Iran will most likely try to get an Islamic Republic going (if most Iraqi's want this you may disagree that it is a bad thing)and as you say there is the Kurdish situation. But the Turks hate the Kurds, and around half of Turkey is actually populated by Kurds. This could precipitate a regional war in itself.
Regardless, its a classic rush job that will fail if it continues in this mannor. It just gets under my skin that no one in the international world is capable of keeping to a stable policy.
Japan was not rebuilt in two years. Then again Japan didn't have the attacks and the nation really had bee flattened, even in comparison to Iraq. Ah well.
Regardless, its a classic rush job that will fail if it continues in this mannor. It just gets under my skin that no one in the international world is capable of keeping to a stable policy.
Japan was not rebuilt in two years. Then again Japan didn't have the attacks and the nation really had bee flattened, even in comparison to Iraq. Ah well.
Personally, I think it's fairly clear that the US government have made a complete pigs ear of the situation. They could have gathered no end of international support if for no other reason than sympathy about 9/11. But instead, dumb old Dubya rode roughshod over any objections raised because they insisted on doing things their way.
And now that they have, they're starting to find just how many of the initial objections were valid. Amusingly, the US Govt and their apologists are retorting to this by chanting "Saddam is gone, the war was worth it" like some sort of mantra, but when senior members of the US Govt have gone on record as saying that removing Saddam is not, on it's own, justification for war, they just make themselves look even more ignorant and stupid than they actually are.
Speaking for myself, if there was a clearly defined timetable for a handover to power, then I'd be much happier about the coalition staying in Iraq and overseeing that handover. But they're only agreeing to hand over power now because of the hassle they're getting. In other words, it's going to be a rush job. I hope that the UN flood the country with aid and peacekeepers to help rebuilding the country. But I'm inclined to think that the US, thanks to the ignorance and arrogance of their government, have condemned Iraq to years of strife, civil war (as you rightly say, Iraq is a false construct anyway and the Kurds will assuredly want their own nation), and religious intolerance. Even I find that too high a price for the priveledge of saying "I told you so".
And now that they have, they're starting to find just how many of the initial objections were valid. Amusingly, the US Govt and their apologists are retorting to this by chanting "Saddam is gone, the war was worth it" like some sort of mantra, but when senior members of the US Govt have gone on record as saying that removing Saddam is not, on it's own, justification for war, they just make themselves look even more ignorant and stupid than they actually are.
Speaking for myself, if there was a clearly defined timetable for a handover to power, then I'd be much happier about the coalition staying in Iraq and overseeing that handover. But they're only agreeing to hand over power now because of the hassle they're getting. In other words, it's going to be a rush job. I hope that the UN flood the country with aid and peacekeepers to help rebuilding the country. But I'm inclined to think that the US, thanks to the ignorance and arrogance of their government, have condemned Iraq to years of strife, civil war (as you rightly say, Iraq is a false construct anyway and the Kurds will assuredly want their own nation), and religious intolerance. Even I find that too high a price for the priveledge of saying "I told you so".
*Ironing:
The proposals coming from the Bush administration are almost identical to those that France put forward about a month ago that the US discarded.
The proposals coming from the Bush administration are almost identical to those that France put forward about a month ago that the US discarded.
I mean 'Coalition' policy.
Apparantly, the US wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner than was planned; handing over authority and holding elections soon. This seems to have been prompted by futher attacks.
My views: there goes Iraq. The US feels the heat and it can't take it, especially with an 'election' coming up for Bushez. The only way to realistically get a proper democracy going (whatever that means) is to stay there, probably a decade or more and set the plans in motion. Nothing good will come of this. If the US pulls out a democracy will almost certainly fail in the Emperors opinion. Whatever you think of the war once they are in they should see it through.
Who is going to re-build the infastructure? The Iraqi tribal councils?
What even is Iraq? A Western invention, I predict succesion in Iraq or possibly the formation of a theocracy.
The terroists and loyalists will still be there. Nothing will have been achieved.
In any event, by withdrawing the aid workers may be able to return. But it will make the whole escapade seem a farce, even if the coalition of the willing doesn't pull out right away and completely. Maybe it is doomed to failure. Or maybe I am just a pessimistic git who can't spell to save his life?
I suppose this puts the whole oil thing into perspective, personally I would rather the US use Iraq for some of its oil but at least re-build it and set up a stable representative government. And no WOMD. WTF.
Now maybe the coalition thinks that they will keep troops there but if Iraqi's get their 'own' government the attacks will stop and they can get on with rebuilding. However, if so this is a very dangerous game. It reeks of ''hey...rebuilding a nation from scratch is harder than we thought it would be...screw it lets get the hell out of here.''
My summary:
-US and UK get attacked. Death toll rises amoung coalition.
-US gets edgy since Bush may actually have to fight an election this time round.
-Coalition wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner. OK, technically they want to HAND OVER power much sooner but it can only logically be so that they can pull out quicker.
-None of the coalitions aims have been acheived. The nation is still in ruins, no real government and no Saddam. WOMD.
My main point is that this is a real 'knee-jerk' reaction that is irresponsible.
Oh, and I have not posted any links because it has made national news so I would assume you can all look up the evidence yourselves. If you cannot then tell me and I will find a link.
Your views?
Apparantly, the US wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner than was planned; handing over authority and holding elections soon. This seems to have been prompted by futher attacks.
My views: there goes Iraq. The US feels the heat and it can't take it, especially with an 'election' coming up for Bushez. The only way to realistically get a proper democracy going (whatever that means) is to stay there, probably a decade or more and set the plans in motion. Nothing good will come of this. If the US pulls out a democracy will almost certainly fail in the Emperors opinion. Whatever you think of the war once they are in they should see it through.
Who is going to re-build the infastructure? The Iraqi tribal councils?
What even is Iraq? A Western invention, I predict succesion in Iraq or possibly the formation of a theocracy.
The terroists and loyalists will still be there. Nothing will have been achieved.
In any event, by withdrawing the aid workers may be able to return. But it will make the whole escapade seem a farce, even if the coalition of the willing doesn't pull out right away and completely. Maybe it is doomed to failure. Or maybe I am just a pessimistic git who can't spell to save his life?
I suppose this puts the whole oil thing into perspective, personally I would rather the US use Iraq for some of its oil but at least re-build it and set up a stable representative government. And no WOMD. WTF.
Now maybe the coalition thinks that they will keep troops there but if Iraqi's get their 'own' government the attacks will stop and they can get on with rebuilding. However, if so this is a very dangerous game. It reeks of ''hey...rebuilding a nation from scratch is harder than we thought it would be...screw it lets get the hell out of here.''
My summary:
-US and UK get attacked. Death toll rises amoung coalition.
-US gets edgy since Bush may actually have to fight an election this time round.
-Coalition wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner. OK, technically they want to HAND OVER power much sooner but it can only logically be so that they can pull out quicker.
-None of the coalitions aims have been acheived. The nation is still in ruins, no real government and no Saddam. WOMD.
My main point is that this is a real 'knee-jerk' reaction that is irresponsible.
Oh, and I have not posted any links because it has made national news so I would assume you can all look up the evidence yourselves. If you cannot then tell me and I will find a link.
Your views?
Page: