MonteZuma

Do you realise how small Belgium is/was? They didn't stand a chance. That is really easy to say at arms length. Fortifying a border with an ally is stupid. It sends all the wrong signals.

Anti-government riots in France is hardly evidence that Europe is full of whackos. Europe is one of the most peaceful, tolerant and safest places in the world. It is totally wrong to say that Europeans disrespect authority. The fact that the US president is coddled compared to most other leaders in long-established democracies is not something that demonstrates US superiority. The US is the backward exception. Most of the world thinks that the US is too far right wing. You are in the minority. Politicians aren't all serial altruists and most can't be trusted. Intense public scrutiny is a good thing. You are demonstrating cultural bias. Your examples are selective and not representative. There have been planty of riots in the US, but how many are you aware of in Norway, Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, etc, etc, etc. There is nothing wrong with secondary or tertiary education in Europe. Although health care is more readily available in Europe, and much cheaper, the US has, in some ways, better health care. Any country would have had a big problem managing the aftermath of a Katrina style disaster. It depends on what indicators you use. Your examples are meaningless. There is no centre. You are culturally biased and out of touch with the rest of the world.

I think even people in Quebec hate the French.

I don't think they shake things up per se. But they do make doing business with Europe much easier. Travelling around the EU countries, especially those countries with the Euro, is a breeze. They do seem to have an increasingly strong voice on the world stage, and I think the poorer nations in the EU will benefit a lot - economically. It'll take time to see the economic and other rewards, but the EU is a great thing for Europe.

Where are you getting these ideas from? What is your definition of empire? The British Empire (for example) did not have freedom of immigration or a single currency? Nor did the soviet 'empire', if you can call it that. In any case, this whole discussion about 'empires' seems irrelevant to me. This is patently wrong. At this point, it seems to me that you would argue that black is blue. WTF? In that case, I must be really dumb, coz I don't have any idea what you are talking about. glasses of water? A bowl? Someone must pick it up? Point being?

The advancing troops encountered a stronger-than-expected civilian guerilla force. The insurgents are not just outsiders. It isn't that simple. Are they races or are they religious groups? If the leaders are elected, it won't be a dictatorship. If it isn't majority-ruled, it won't be a democracy. That sounds good in theory. Nobody's stated purpose is genocide. If Iraq turns even uglier, I doubt that it will be because of the elected government. They already hold power and will want to legitimise their position. Any disruption will more than likely be caused by insurgents and political groups or individuals that didn't win the elections or didnt participate in the elections.

No. I expected Iraq to become a mess. I was right. I thought the invasion was a bad idea. My views on Iraq have been consistent. There is nothing wrong with shooting out opinions. The commitment and resilience of the insurgency was not expected by the war planners before the invasion. The only historic example of an invading and occupying force successfully installing a stable democracy in a large country that I can think of is Japan. But culturally, Iraq and Japan are completely different. I can't see any evidence or indication anywhere that makes me think Iraqi democracy will be successful. And how can we talk about the future without stating an opinion?

No. The European parliament is elected. The EU is a democratic ins!@#$%^&*ution. The EU controls a lot. The Soviet Union may have been an empire, but the European Union is not. It is more like a commonwealth.

This doesn't make sense. Minority rule is not democracy. A democracy can exist in a racist society. What do you mean by 'true' democracy? One that is like the US? The proof is not in the statement. It is in the situatoin that exists in present day Iraq. I can. The comprehensive defeat of Saddam Hussein and his supporters has not produced stability. The opposite has occured. The worst case scenario is anarchy. The worst likely scenario is civil disruption for many tears and the emergence of a new dictatorship from the ashes.

Yes. Then the instability will not be perceived as the fault of 'the west' and we may not be such an obvious target for terrorism. It isn't so much what the media says that convinces me of what GWBs intentions were. It is what GWB says to the media (and to the UN etc!) that counts. It was all about WMDs.

True. When I said we, I didn't necessarilly mean me or you or every westerner. 'We' is the wrong word. I guess I mean 'many people in the west'. Well. Here you are generalising as well. Not every muslim believes that non-muslims should convert or be killed. Very few believe that. Its not quite the same. I've necer supported radical, fundamentalist Islam and I don't support radical or fundamentalist christianity either. I don't think anyone in the west should support that kind of narrow-minded and barbaric at!@#$%^&*ude. I don't think Islam (or branches of Islam) should be protected from critical analysis. I concede though that it sometimes is, because people are afraid of being labelled as bigoted. It probably doesn't happen much these days, but it did in the past. Fwiw, muslims can't get away with murder either. Imo, nobody should be killed for drawing cartoons.

You've got me on side now SeVeR. I agree with pretty much all you've been saying.

Yeah. And look what happened there? Then end result was Taliban rule. In any case, unification isn't happening in Iraq. Defeating the enemy in battle does not result in stability or democracy. The proof of that pudding is present-day Iraq. In any case, what we want more than a stable democracy in Iraq is the defeat of terrorism and better global security. A civil war won't help on that score. I disagree. I suspect that the sectarian fighting could very easily lead to the emergence of a new military strongman as soon as the US pulls out. If it was as simple as that, the government in Iraq would not adequately represent the people and peace would never come. Why do you think this is better? Not if one third of the population feels marginalised. That is a recipe for disaster.

Then you don't understand the EU. When you give up your currency and give up the right to control immigration, and voluntarily submit to a multi-national legislature and court you are giving up a lot of sovreignty.

They can't unify because they live in a sectarian society with a lot of anamosity - and individuals/groups that don't want to share power. The problem is the 'victory' would be temporary if the underlying problems are not resolved. The US doesn't want to stay in Iraq forever. I don't think that it is possible to say that Iraq will never become a dictatorship again. The insurgents and suicide bombers do not simply want to raise the cost of victory. Civil war most definitely does not increase the chances of a successful and independant democracy emerging in Iraq. This is a contradiction in terms. If they are "harming others for its own sake" then there is no need for 'motivation'. Pride may be a factor, especially for the grunts that carry out the dirty work. Hatred is a product of some other motivating force, probably insecurity and fear. I suspect that some people in Iraq are whipping up hatred to advance their aims to secure more power. And if you are so sure that your hypothesis is correct, then you should call it a law.

Exactly. That is my point.

Sure you can. In fact we must speculate, otherwise we learn nothing. We enquire about nothing. The best journalists speculate all the time. I agree. That is why I don't support SeVeR's conclusions. But to assume that we peons have access to facts that can tell us what was in GWBs mind when he said 'ok boys, lets kick some Iraqi !@#$%^&*', is fantasy. All we can do is look at the available facts and formulate our own opinions. Most of us find SeVeR's conclusions to be codswallop, but he is en!@#$%^&*led to his opinion.

Nice post learjett, but this part is just plain wrong.... The main reason was WMDs.

Yeah. While I disagree with SeVeR about some of his conclusions, we are never going to have access to all of the facts, including many facts that might be said to cons!@#$%^&*ute 'proof'. We can all analyse the available facts and formulate opinions with varying degrees of certainty !@#$%^&*ociated with those opinions. Makes sense to me. Sorta.

There is an apparently inexplicable double-standard. I agree.

Afghanistan and Iraq are in the Middle East. That's all i was referring to; either definition is valid. Invading "parts" of the Middle East is still invading the Middle East.Not realy, but it doesn't matter. Partly He was base in Afghanistan. No doubt about it. That is enough of a reason to want to get rid of the taliban. Is that a question or a statement? An Iranian Muslim in America drove an SUV into a crowd of students at a popular campus gathering point at some university in America i can't remember the name of. He has told the police that he used the SUV to inflict maximum damage, he had been planning the attack for months, and had carried out the attack in revenge for Western policies and the Muslims who have perished. The incredible thing is this wasn't called a terrorist attack (to hush up the media who will catch on to the keyword: terrorist) when this is no different to 9/11, except he used a car instead of a plane here.A statement. I can't remember the story at all. Humpf. It probably was because Afghanistan was an easy target and it probably was a matter of vengeance. Another word for it though might be justice. Al Qaida needed to be eliminated - or at least damaged as much as possible. That happened. I have no compassion or sympathy for people that think its great to fly planes full of innocent people into buildings full of innocent people. Retribution needed to be swift and effective. Things might not have turned out perfectly and Bin laden might have escaped, but that's life. US intelligence seems to suck and the US military isn't a perfect tool. No.

I don't understand why this is relevant? Evidence? Society is more advanced than ever and I believe that religion in the west is probably less organised than ever. I suspect that your definition of 'advanced' is culturally biased. One of the reasons that some muslims hate the west is because we assume that they should have the same values that we hold. This is wrong.

Not really. The European Union works. Australia was comprised of 6 different colonies that each decided, by referenda, to federate. I'm sure there are other examples.

I agree on one level SeveR, but nationalism isn't just about birth place. At least to some extent it is about culture. US culture and British culture are different and the people in each country aspire to different things. Diversity causes problems but it isn't all bad. Europeans, like everyone else, have their own interests at heart, but they also think that the invasion of Iraq was bad for the US too.

Well. He didn't invade the 'Middle East'. He invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree that any muppet should have seen that invading Iraq was a bad idea, but Afghanistan was necessary. Yes. The US has been lucky. I've not heard anything about this? Yes. But the leader of Al Qaida was in Afghanistan. He had to go after Al Qaida. The US public would have demanded it.