GUEST 01 Dec 03 - 02:19 PM

In answer to your first point, I will transpose what you wrote slightly, then ask you a question, the year is 1945, the month is December:

"The people of Germany are currently being governed by an occupying army, Teribus, hardly self-governing now and as to when they might be self-governing is anyone's guess."

The question: Was that particular exercise (lasted more than five years) a success or not?

Regarding your second:
Period Iran/Iraq War - the end of what was known as the "Cold War". The US helped both Iraq and Iran. The aim behind it was to keep those two countries intact because it was fully realised by the US and quite a few other countries (USSR; France; Japan; Germany; UK) that that was in the best interests of that region in particular and the world in general.

Regarding your third:
I have no way of knowing whether or not you are an American, but I will take what you state at face value. As such I have no doubt that that you think you know what you perceive to be the history of your own government's misdeeds. As a non-American, from experience, my perception is that for the major part, in general, successive governments of the United States of America, have proved to have been of benefit to the world.

Regarding your fourth statement:
There are more countries actively involved in Iraq today than last March, or last May. The withdrawal by the United Nations humanitarian organisations is temporary, something they themselves stated at the time.

Regarding your fifth point:
As to the WMD, well--what WMD exactly? The ones that the UNSCOM inspection teams reported as existing to the United Nations in January 1999. Yes, THOSE WMD - but one thing Guest we can now be 100% sure of is this. That nowhere in Iraq today are there any ongoing programmes into their development, or into the development of weapons systems that can deliver them. And that is definitely a "Good Thing".

Bobert's furthermores - 01 Dec 03 - 05:47 PM

I refer you to the point regarding Germany in the aftermath of WWII. If memory serves me right the same two countries hung about for quite some time after the event, without any major negative effect.

"Back in the 1020's (1920's) the Brits tried to get the Iraqis to set up an elected government and we all know what happened. This is deja vu all over again... These folks ain't wired that way..."

Did we really Bobert? Or did we talk to those we recognised as being the leaders of those people? I believe it was the latter. The result was that Iraq was ruled (fairly briefly) by the British, then by the Hashemite rulers Britain had previously been allied to and negotiated with. Well it worked in Jordan, didn't in Iraq - you win some, you lose some - can't win 'em all. As to your patronising remark relating to your opinion that, "These folks ain't wired that way", how do you know Bobert if they haven't been given the chance? - after all way back in 1215, us Brits weren't exectly wired for the Magna Carta - biut we did end up benefiting from it.

"Plus, if domocracy is so great, why isn't it pracriced in the US?" - HUH???

Bobert are you, or are you not about to have an election in the United States of America next year? In that election who is entitled to vote? Who is entitled to stand?