lol.

- 80% of the troops coming back are suffering from mental disorders.
- Unprecedented rate of terrorism?
- http://www.lies.com/images/first_four_years.gif
- No hope yet of political restoration.

mental disorders - this is true of all wars. Vietnam was the first where they started looking at that. It happened during the first gulf war and it's happening during this one. Where are you getting 80% from? I'd like a reputable source.

unprecedented terrorism - unprecedented? How? Compared to what? Look at the war that raged in Lebanon, or Serbia, or Chechnya. Or the Iran-Iraq war. Or any of the wars raging in Africa. Lots of terrorism, yes...unprecedented? No.

Your lies.com image...is a lie. It implies that we have 400 people a month dying at this point. How about some hard facts? http://icasualties.org/oif/ 84 casualities last month. The highest number of casualties in 1 month is 137 in november 2004. That lies.com graph is made up...it has no basis in fact. Kind of funny considering its souce.

Political restoration.... no hope of political restoration? The Iraqi people have a constitution. They have a democratically elected government. They have a police force and military that aren't the tyrranical arm of a totalitarian govenrment. I'd say they have more hope than they've had in the last 20 years.

I saw it on BBC TV. It said that vietnam has like half as much.



Unprecedented in the sense that it was totally unpredicted.



??? How's that?



A constitution based on 63% turnout promises little political stability.

Guerilla / terrorist warfare needs no army. It just needs to kill people, and it's doing that quite well.
During his last speach on Iraq, Bush seemed most pleased with the fact that Iraqi security forces don't immedeately turn and run when seeing an enemy anymore. If you call that a succes then when do you think the US will be ready to pull out?

Yeah Arathorn is right, if the Iraqi military has that much fear of terrorists it will take a lot of work. To be honest tho if anyone expected a quick in and out war then they must have some serious mental problems. Despite what the initial reaction may have been, it takes a lot of time and work to change a country from one type of political consititution to another.

He didnt say it is a 'success'.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but come on man, you don't really believe the current constitution is 'legal'? Or the elections real? Or anything, really. The only thing that's keeping things together there atm is the mass military presence of the US and the UK, as soon as they're gone everything will fold faster than you can say, erh, "pancake".

What we have in Iraq now is nothing more than a puppet 'government' supported by organizations/ethnic groups that have been smooth-talked by the West. There is absolutely no way that will be able to survive in a few years....if anything it will get overthrown by a bunch of nationalistic freaks with a fundamentalistic streak. I'm willing to bet that within ten years, provided the Western forces have pulled out, Iraq is some sort of Islamic theocracy. In the whole "war against terror" scheme, the question really rises if it wouldn't actually have been better to have Saddam in power; in terms of stopping terrorism and fundamentalism. Saddam sucks, sure, but religious fanatics probably suck even harder.

Anyway, I don't necessarily disagree with you other pov's, but the idea that there is anything happening spontaneously there (ie, not created by the occupying forces) is a bit much for me.

Look at Afghanistan. Place looks a wreck now and that was quick in and quick out. Perhaps America should learn to try and use more subtle manipulation and think more in the long term of the effects of the manipulation afterall partly to blame for the situation now is America's stance in the Cold War by supporting anti-communists.

Is the current governmental setup forced? Probably. But imo it's better than have democracy forced on you than a dictatorship. With the former you can always go to the latter...the other way around is alot harder.

Bleh, there probably isn't much point in argueing. I think Iraq is better off, over all. Sure, Saddam wasn't a major threat to the west, but neither is any middle eastern nation. However, he sure slaughtered alot of civilians. Other than a Somalia-like anarchist state, I think any change from Saddam is probably an improvement.

However, only time will tell. In 10 years I'll laugh at you. Let me set my calendar.

Or not if its in a situation worse than Afghanistan

These seem pretty real to me.



Iraq, Jan. 30, 2005: Women waiting to vote in elections. (Photo courtesy U.S. Embassy Baghdad.)


Iraq, Jan. 30, 2005: A Kurdish Iraqi woman casts her vote at a polling station in the northern Kurdish city of Suleimaniya. Iraqi Kurds flocked to polling stations in northern Iraq to take part in elections. (AP Wide World Photo/Patrick Baz, Pool).


Iraq, Jan. 30, 2005: Disabled Mohammed Karim Khader, 80, is carried on the shoulder of a man on his way to cast his vote in the northern Kurdish city of Suleimaniya. Iraqi Kurds flocked to polling stations in northern Iraq to take part in elections.(AP Wide World Photo/Patrick Baz, Pool.)

But even if there were elections don't forget these are only photos and other, unseen circumstances may have influenced the election, vote rigging for example?

Welcome to democracy. I mean look at the 2000 elections in the US.

I think when Saddam is executed it will finally set in Iraq's heads what has happened to their country. But as long as Saddam is alive and in trial, his name is looming over that countries head.

The problem with the Iraqi constitution and elections is that most Sunnis didn't vote. And that is also the most troubling group. They are the wankers who suddenly lost controll after Saddam, so they are angry.

Are the sunni's the powerful minority? And the Shi'ites the majority. We really did screw up this area badly