>Hi Walter, I agree with you completely. The problem remains that the U.S., no matter her intentions or goals, created the current mess. If military presence is not the answer, what is? The U.S. has to take responsibility. At some point the U.S. has to let go as well.

That is the difficult question. If military presence is not the answer, then it should be something else. In europe we are much more reluctant to pick up the arms and fight than in the US. Anyone who suffered the consequences of WWII knows why. Europe was bombed flat back to the 18th century. With all respect to the allied forces outside of europe, they did not suffer the consequences as much as here in europe.

Don't get me wrong: Napoleon, the german kaiser wilhelm and hitler could not have been stopped with passivity, but nowerdays we should not prematurely invade a country (as was done in Iraq and also afghanistan) without a plan how to win that war beyond military victory.

Some way you have to win the citizens. It is no use when you liberate them from an evil dictator and make every day life worse for the people, and are stealing their resources (oil in this case). The dutch are fighting a loosing battle in the south of afghanistan. Everything they build up is broken down by the taliban and they people that were helping the allied forces are killed in a horrible way. It is giving a message to the locals not to welcome the dutch, no matter what they do to win their sympathy.

Education is amongst the strongest weapons one could use. Educate and help people to build up their economy, but that is incredible difficult when there is a significant group that chooses to live according ancient books way back in the stone age. However, if we can find a way to improve their lives on one way or another, you might win that war.




>
>>Im not disagreeing with you tracy. Just adding my pov.
>>it is a reaction on the following:
>>
>>>It makes me wonder how success can ever be achieved there and at what point do we step aside? When the government asks us to? When the people of Iraq ask us to? When our own citizens of this country ask us to? Will the government and the people of Iraq ever be ready to govern themselves in a democracy?
>>
>>IOW,we have to realise that those people might not aiming for a democracy... they just want to have a secure life with peace. All democracy has brought them so far is terror. It seems like the crusades in the 11th century. We are going there in thinking we are liberating them, but instead we bring death and terror. Look at the statistics and how do you think the people of iraq draw conclusions?
>>
>>
>>Bottom line. Democracy seems to be working for us in the western world, but it does not mean it is working for all people on the world and we should not be naive to think that we have all wisdom to force our definition of 'democracy' upon the world and expect it to work there as well. There needs to be a basis for democracy to be working. The people of a country have to realise that their past has shown they have to move to democracy to work. The napolean wars, WWI and WWII has brought that realism to europe. The civilian war has brought that to the US, but many countries still have to fight that war. The point of the message is that democracy cannot be forced upon people who do not have a desire for it. It has to come from within.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't understand your post in response to what I posted Walter. It reads more like a regurgitation of prior stuff and not at all related to what I posted? You even claim I disagreed with you but this is my first response to you in this post...
>>>
>>>
>>>>This thing about bringing democracy is a joke... What definition of democracy are we taking here? With all that is happening in the US in regards to respecting the rights of POW's and geneva convention, the definition of torture... I really doubt the world is waiting on that definition of democracy?
>>>>
>>>>I know we in the western world do value democracy a lot, but seeing how the values of democracy have been broken down the last decade or so, I can't blame countries to choose for anything else than a 'democracy'.... Too many countries are not up to the time to have a democracy installed. They need a strong leader, one with a vision to keep all faces pointing into the same direction and bridge the difference in ethnicity and religion. After those gaps have been closed you can think of gradually implementing democracy. I think poetin in russia has choosen the right way..... Sure it is not ideal, but implementing a 'democracy' (for what ever that means) from one day to another is deemed to fail if people do not know what it means.
>>>>
>>>>You can disagree with me as much as you like, but I don't see the sudden implementation of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan as an overwhelming success and IMO, they will never be without a strong man that will be able to unite the people, even if that means he has to use impopular and undemocratic instruments. Take a look at all great leaders in the past, and measure how democratic they were...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I watched her interview on BBC America. It was very interesting. I haven't been able to locate a video clip or written transcript of it yet. She was asked of the three candidates, whose Iraq plan had the greatest possiblity of success. She pointed out the merits and faults of each. In the end, she stated that it really determines how we measure success. If it is for the longterm stability and democracy in Iraq, then Obama's plan would have the most success because his goal of a drawdown of troops and replacing those troops with UN soldiers would benefit Iraq the most. Granted, Bush has asked for the same thing from other countries, but the same request coming from a new cabinet would allow other countries to participate and save face in doing so. They can provide the support without an agreement with the current cabinet's policies being attached to it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I watched an interview with students of the Baghad university today. It was very interesting. The students were as divided as our country as to which candidate would be best for Iraq. I heard one push for McCain, one for Clinton (an Arab man which was interesting), and one for Obama. The last girl who spoke seemed to echo her fellow students' view on the situation in general (aside from which candidate she would like to see win) -- she stated that it doesn't matter how successful the surge is or how secure Iraq is, what will change her country and what is needed most is unity in her government and her people. The discussion should not be about security but unity. Until they can unite, they will fail. They think the sectarian violence comes from outside Iraq (she said that none of the students or her family or friends discussed any type of separatism or racism - it was only on the news and in the bombings) and is the fault of a country whose goal is instability in Iraq - she
>>>did
>>>>>not say which country and the journalist did not ask (interesting). Also, she stated that there is so much corruption in the government, the police, and the Iraqi security forces that no one has faith in anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>It makes me wonder how success can ever be achieved there and at what point do we step aside? When the government asks us to? When the people of Iraq ask us to? When our own citizens of this country ask us to? Will the government and the people of Iraq ever be ready to govern themselves in a democracy?
>>>>>
>>>>>>No I haven't but it looks very worthwhile. I'll make sure to watch them this week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks for the heads up Perry. Have you by any chance seen any of the videos or papers by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm?fa=eventDetail&id=1107&&prog=zgp&proj=zme,zusr
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This should be excellent. Presented in 2 parts over tonite and tomorrow nite:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/