If Hillary Clinton gets elected...

[rzr]

Will America become a matriarchal society? Thoughts on this would be appreciated, this is just my theory, take no notice if you don't agree.

[bluguerrilla]

No it won't.

Proof: Hyenas.

Edit: Oh...CT...

No, I don't think a woman president will instantly change the role of women in our society. It seems like a far-fetched notion because there is a difference between a society being matriarchal and having female leaders.

I mean, Iran is run by men but it's a matriarchal society.

[Bynary Fission]

I do not necessarily believe that. American society has been patriarchal as a whole since we moved here, and this was brought over by the people from Europe/Britain who migrated here many, many years ago. Their cultures still live within us today, even if we aren't all pious and religious, and part of that is that the male typically dominates.

Now it is true that many matriarchal societies from the past were dominated by men, but that was a historical trend in that women had ruled for many years before that. America is historically a patriarchal society, and while a female leader may inspire women to take roles of power, it doesn't imply that America could radically shift from patriarchism to matriarchism. Women have been fighting for equal/feminine rule for over 100 years since the beginnings of the feminist movements, it won't suddenly change now.

Hillary Clinton is not an overlord. She can't force all of America into becoming dominated by women, even if she can appoint more female leaders then male based on gender. But that is blatant sexism that could destroy her potential to be re-elected if profound enough. America's traditions are habit, and habits ingrained into society as a whole take a very long time to undo.


~Bynary fission

[devonin]

And far more to the point, if history has shown us anything it is that -most- women (not all, I point to Indira Gandhi primarily as a counterexample) who become state leaders do so by emulating men as much as they can. Thatcher is a good case example of this, and I don't think Clinton is any different.

She has the political ruthlessness, ambition and drive that we more commonly associate with men, and she's generally just assumed she would get the female vote, and done very little to cater to it. That's just smart though since most women -would- vote for her simply because she was a woman so she needs to spend her time convincing men to vote for her even though she's a woman.

In order to have a matriarchal society that is actually matriarchal, you need to have women in a majority if not monopoly of positions of authority. A woman president is nothing without a predominantly female senate, house, and supreme court. None of those institutions are even remotely representative of a female majority let alone female domination, so even if we assumed that Clinton would try to move things in that direction, she would just fail miserably.

As a moderation note: rzr "if A happened would B happen?" isn't something that can be "your theory" unless you explain -why- you think B would happen, and what might lead to it. You need to actually describe your own position before you can ask people to respond to it.

[xinpig]

i think if she got elected it would be somewhat of a turning point in our history.

[devonin]

Please to explain -why- we believe what we believe when we post in Critical Thinking.

Why a turning point? Turning to what that is new? Is this a good thing or bad thing to you?

[MyRoseTearsBlood]

Am I the only person who thinks that Xinpig has the posting knowledge of an 8 year old?

[funmonkey54]

Am I the only person who thinks that Xinpig has the posting knowledge of an 8 year old?

no.

In answer to the subject at hand:


My personal thoughts on the subject would have to be no. Our society as a whole has been a patriarch since we were founded. While our president would be female, most of the government is most certainly not. It would maintain the status of a patriarch.

I do, however, believe that should she become our president, the perception of how women do in a government position will be swayed greatly. Condoleezza Rice is a good example of my point here. She gained government position and was very popular. Her decisions were almost always widely supported. If Clinton does well in office it will help gain respect towards women in office. If she does poorly, It may effect this viewpoint in a negative way and do a lot of damage.

[FlavorMe]

In order to have a matriarchal society that is actually matriarchal, you need to have women in a majority if not monopoly of positions of authority. A woman president is nothing without a predominantly female senate, house, and supreme court. None of those institutions are even remotely representative of a female majority let alone female domination, so even if we assumed that Clinton would try to move things in that direction, she would just fail miserably.

I think that your statement is true in the short term. Although Hillary's website states that she is a "champion for women's rights", politicians are notorious of not accomplishing what they proposed to do when they come to office. I don't see Clinton doing anything drastic that would alienate the male voters.

However, in the long term, Clinton could potentially bring around a shift to women and American politics in general if she is elected president. It is possible that more and more females would be interested in politics in general if Clinton was elected.

You can argue that she is not a person who can motivate others, and I'm sure there will be some who say that the only reason she has managed to get this far is because of her name. Nevertheless, the first woman coming into the presidency would still likely inspire a lot of other females who might find themselves in public office someday.

However, this is only assuming that Clinton would have a successful presidency. A poor showing by Hillary in office could mean that a lot of women become turned off by politics as well.

[jewpinthethird]

Even though there is a vagina underneath those pants of her's, Clinton is still a politician, and politicians are asexual beings in the eyes of the public so long as they keep their junk in their pants (eyeroll).

Maybe it's just me, but until this thread, I never once thought about the sex lives of our elected leaders outside the context of the Clinton scandal.

But in all seriousness, until either women have the ability to open their own jars without whining about breaking their fingernails, or staple foodstuffs cease to be bottled in jars, men will always be in-charge of this country (ps. I'm only kind of being serious, I know a few girls who are quite capable of opening their own jars, but I suspect that might be because they are lesbians).

[lord_carbo]

And far more to the point, if history has shown us anything it is that -most- women (not all, I point to Indira Gandhi primarily as a counterexample) who become state leaders do so by emulating men as much as they can. Thatcher is a good case example of this, and I don't think Clinton is any different.
More specifically, by emulating their husbands:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05howley.html

[dawg4321]

Even though there is a vagina underneath those pants of her's, Clinton is still a politician, and politicians are asexual beings in the eyes of the public so long as they keep their junk in their pants (eyeroll).

Maybe it's just me, but until this thread, I never once thought about the sex lives of our elected leaders outside the context of the Clinton scandal.

But in all seriousness, until either women have the ability to open their own jars without whining about breaking their fingernails, or staple foodstuffs cease to be bottled in jars, men will always be in-charge of this country (ps. I'm only kind of being serious, I know a few girls who are quite capable of opening their own jars, but I suspect that might be because they are lesbians).

haha what?? how is any of that being serious. why can't women open jars?

[Shadowcliff]

Please read this:

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=89321

I just thought it would be appropriate for this topic.

[Izzy]

I think america is ready for a female president. I just dont think america is ready for hillary clinton. Even if she ends up being a good president people will be more paranoid about the fact thats shes hillary clinton then worrying about things that matter.

[rzr]

If Clinton is elected she will single-handedly destroy the women's political movements achievements. The thing is, no matter who becomes the president next, Bush has run us so far into the ground they president will come off as just as stupid, simply because they can't fix his problems in the 4 years they'll have. I say 4 years because if my theory is correct America won't reelect the next president.

So if Clinton is elected, and my theory is correct, she'll look like an idiot trying to fix her predecessors mistakes and knowing ve public they would view it as "Well, we let women in office and this is what happened. Let's not do that again."

[devonin]

I think (though I'd often joke this wasn't possible) that you may be overestimating the alleged stupidity of american voters. I think the majority who are dissatisfied with the Bush administration understand that it isn't going to be a magic bullet to elect someone else, and that so many things are in motion that they can't simply be undone by the incoming president.

If the next president sets a hard timetable for withdrawl from Iraq, tones down some of the more horrific abuses of the Patriot Acts 1 and 2, cuts a few billion from defense spending to not run such a large deficit, and maybe for the first time in its history, declare a green or blue terror alert level, that will be enough to satisfy most Americans that the problems are being worked at.

[rzr]

Withdrawing from Iraq would literally be the stupidest possible thing the next American president could do. If we leave (we meaning Americans) that's just telling the Middle Eastern people to attack us with even less of a defense because we'd have no knowledge of the coming attack.

Now, devonin, I'm not saying the American voters are stupid. What I am saying is that the people behind the presidential campaigns are more intelligent than they average joe, and can really easily manipulate the thoughts and possible ever morals of the public. That's how certain presidents got into office to begin with i.e. Nixon, Bush himself, Clinton (somewhat, he was very beneficial to the American economy).

[devonin]

Wow. You've completely bought into the Bush doctrine on Iraq. Leaving is ABSOLUTELY VITAL. The longer America sits there as an occupying force, the more they radicalize people in the area. They being there is encouraging more people to become more apt to want to attack them than leaving ever would.

You know how many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq? None
You know how many were connected to Iraq? None

Why on earth would them leaving Iraq make them have "no knowledge of the coming attack" when NONE of the attacks have had ANYTHING to do with Iraq?

If the next US president doesn't set a hard timetable for withdrawl from Iraq, that is when you are going to be in severe trouble.

Also, Clinton was in my estimation one of the best things to happen to America's presidency in decades.

[rzr]

No, actually I haven't payed any attention to the Bush doctrine. What I'm saying is, we hardly got the Taliban out of Iraq and Kuwait. If we leave they WILL just come back. And if they come back they may end up doing the same thing Saddam did. Actually, they would most likely secure their territory by attacking us.

However, even if the Taliban don't return, there's no doubt that hostile Iraqis will attack America. And if there is no American troop or intelligence there we would have no knowledge of a coming attack.

[devonin]

No, actually I haven't payed any attention to the Bush doctrine. What I'm saying is, we hardly got the Taliban out of Iraq and Kuwait. Wait...the Taliban in Iraq and Kuwait, this is the same Taliban composed entirely of Pakistani and Afghanis whose sole purpose in forming was to pull Afghanistan out from under the rule of the Mujahideen warlords? IE. the same Taliban that has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or Kuwait?

The same Taliban that the US didn't distance itself from until 1997? As in 6 years AFTER the gulf war? As in "while the US was involved in Kuwaiti affairs, they were SUPPORTING the Taliban in the hopes of stabilizing Afghanistan?


If we leave they WILL just come back. And if they come back they may end up doing the same thing Saddam did. Actually, they would most likely secure their territory by attacking us. Who will come back? The Taliban will come back to Iraq? They were never there, so they aren't likely to "come back" And even if they were, the vast majority of the fundamentalist islamic groups in the middle east have long viewed Iraq as a secular country in the pocket of the west anyway. The taliban and al-quaeda are ideologically just as likely to -attack- Iraq as the US. Iraq is not and has never been "territory" of the Taliban, so they can't exactly take it back.


However, even if the Taliban don't return, there's no doubt that hostile Iraqis will attack America. And if there is no American troop or intelligence there we would have no knowledge of a coming attack. You know what makes the Iraqis hostile? This big bloody occupation force that was never supposed to be there. That's what is radicalizing islamic opinion about America and breeding all these terrorists you're so worried about. If they'd just leave them alone, they'd have no reason to be mad.

[rzr]

I am talking about the Taliban who were forbeably removed from the Middle East during the Gulf War. They would most likely return if we deserted the Middle East. However, given the longevity that they've been gone for their philosophies may have changed along with their purpose for being.

I agree, the occupation of Iraq is making them hostile, but leaving wouldn't help until they're stabilized. Again, if we leave we will have no intelligence there. With no intelligence they'll be able to freely gather and plot an attack on America.

[devonin]

I am talking about the Taliban who were forbeably removed from the Middle East during the Gulf War.

So an imaginary Taliban? Did you notice the part where I claimed that the United States was SUPPORTING the Taliban during the years of the Gulf War? They were opposing communism by resisting soviet inroads into afghanistan, so the US was actually a big fan.

[rzr]

Even if the Taliban and the United States did see eye to eye about it as you claim, it was only because of the post Cold War feelings of communism and the Red Scare.

[devonin]

Um...so you just admitted that you were incorrect? Good of you. Moving right along.

[rzr]

That was a pointless post. Yes, i admitted I was wrong. Next perspective?

[devonin]

Well it's just that you phrased it as though you were still making a seperate point like "Yeah, that's as well as may be, but what about THIS!" except your 'this' didn't actually say anything seperate from what we already said, so I expressed my confusion.

Perhaps you can give me some non-taliban related reasons why leaving Iraq is a horrible bad idea?

[Zythus]

Zythus' Rule. You Lose.

(Lol, since there isn't a wikipedia establish rule about mentioning Bush and Iraq fiasco on electronic communication, I took the liberty to make my own rule on par with Godwin's rule. Nor is this the first time bush and Iraq has been mentioned in any of the CT threads, its becoming like Hiter. Eh Devonin?)

Anyhow, I fail to have any contribution to this thread besides establishing a revolutionary new rule. I guess mainly because I'm not hyped about the whole US election. Now I shall go write an article on wikipedia.

...Yeah....Shut Up...

[devonin]

Eh, I'm okay with the focus of the discussion developing as the thread goes on.

[rzr]

Well it's just that you phrased it as though you were still making a seperate point like "Yeah, that's as well as may be, but what about THIS!" except your 'this' didn't actually say anything seperate from what we already said, so I expressed my confusion.

Perhaps you can give me some non-taliban related reasons why leaving Iraq is a horrible bad idea?

lol, sorry if it came across that way.

Well, in my opinion, if America leaves Iraq it would collapse. The government it has now is fragile and new, so it's unstable as is. At least with American occupation we can make it moderately safer than without us.

But that's not my main argument. My point is... I can only really describe it in an example.

A group of people decide now the America is gone from their home land they will attack now to avenge their fallen fathers in the Gulf War. So they do. They gain nucleur weapons and wipe out the entire continent. All because America left Iraq and wasn't watching them as closely as they were before.

Do you see my point of view now?

[devonin]

I think that the mere idea that a -nation- entity is going to attack another one with nuclear weapons given the mutually assured destruction that would face any country that tried it is pretty ridiculous in the current political climate.

And since it is going to be a non-governmental organisation that would ever try it, the presence of Americans in Iraq isn't going to make any difference, they'd just buy their weapons from another country entirely. US Can't be in -every- country at once to make sure nobody is planning anything.

The last attack was carried out by egyptians and saudi arabians with afghani support. Iraq doesn't seem to be the problem there.

[rzr]

Like I said, it was an analogy. Shoot down the original theory, not the analogy. Pulling America out of iraq when it's too 'emotionally' unstable could and probably would be detrimental to the world's warfare.

[devonin]

It was plenty stable before they went in, and they destablized it. While I'm all in favour of making people clean up their own messes, they are making things worse and not better.

They should withdraw, and ask the UN to send in a peacekeeping force to maintain order.

[rzr]

If you think being stabilized is having a murderous dictator running the country through genocide and terror then yes, Iraq was the most stable country on the face of the planet. Hell, so was Germany when Hitler ran it based on that version of stability.

[Zythus]

Godwin's law + Zythus' law. You lose epically.

It is evident that Us prescence in Iraq is a huge disturbance, yet when withdrawn, I would think that Iraq will fall deeper into pandemonium. With no truly fortified government entwined with the whole clash of which sect of religion should gain supremacy, US leaving may leave crimson consequences. I think I do not need to remind you that Middle Easterns take their religion serious enough to initiate "divine judgment" saying it be the will of god. Iraq is a nation that will collapse into itself if it loses its framework, its a tad unfortunate that US became an element of this framework in the first place.

(Vaguely, I recall reading articles that says some religious extremeists stand by traffic lights and used machetes to cut off women's arms if they weren't veiled.)

[rzr]

Again, I completely agree with you and have no objections to it.

[devonin]

See here's the thing though: The middle east has been forced to stay static by the west this whole time. It's a subcontinent running like it's still the colonial heydey of the late 19th century. Lines on a map forced on tribal cultures that don't line up with that map at all.

WHat needs to happen is a little chaos and instability. It's inevitable, and the longer it is resisted, the worse it will be. Iraq as a "country" isn't a country. It is functionally three countries, a suni, a shi'a and a kurdish country forced to live together now under an american style democracy. You can't elect a leader when your country should be three seperate and distinct countries.

Did you know that the Kurds in Iraq/surrounding area are the single largest ethnic group ON EARTH that doesn't have their own country somewhere? There are 30 MILLION Kurds in that area, made to forcibly integrate into Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan etc etc.

Saddam was a dictator yes, but a dictator has -always- been needed to keep multiple cultures being forced to cohabitate in line. Remove the dictator, and there is NO way you can slide a democracy in there and expect it to work. It is simply impossible.

So the US can either do what it has done MANY times in the past, and install a dictator that seems friendly to the US (Surprise surprise, both Osama bin Laden -and- Saddam Hussein were such people. Put into power and armed by the US because they were a friendly alternative) or they can leave, and let the political landscape of the area finally get to sort itself out for once without foreign interference, or they can continue to occupy FOREVER, because if they want to insist on a democracy in the existing borders of Iraq, they will NEVER be able to leave.

[rzr]

True, the longer America occupies Iraq the more hostile it will get. But at the same time; leaving now would make it screwed up. It would be like letting the guards out of a prison. Who's to say there wouldn't be an uprising?

[devonin]

Did you read my post? An uprising is 100% absolutely inevitable unless the US stays there FOREVER. In fact an uprising is a GOOD thing, because a newly independant Kurdistan would be much more a friend to the west than any of the nations that would lose land and people to it. The status quo in the middle east is no longer viable because the US is slowly losing military, economic and cultural hegemony in the world, and oil is going to slowly move away from being the major commodity of the world.

[rzr]

So we're agreed that America shouldn't leave Iraq?

[devonin]

Um...no, not even a teeny tiny bit.

The US should never have been there, and barring time travel to fix it, should leave NOW.

The enforced status quo that the US has built in the middle east IS going to collapse, there is no way around it unless the US wants to actually invade and occupy basically the entire middle east. Since the collapse is inevitable, the US would be far better served simply leaving now while they can pretend to salvage some pride, because the alternative is a bad bad thing for America. They will be forced out, via whatever means are necessary. That's where your big scary consequences come in: Attacks on the Americans that are there and refuse to leave will happen WELL before attacks on America -because- they left.

The only remotely sustainable courses of action you can support that make any kind of logical sense are:

1) The US gets out now, and apologises to the UN for screwing up horribly and asks for help dealing with their mess

2) The US withdraws from the UN and invades at -least- Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Jordan, probably Kuwait too and tries to set up an american colonial system

The only real alternative besides this is pretending that just a few more years will magically "fix" Iraq, demonstrating once and for all the complete and utter ignorance that the West has of how middle eastern culture even works. The level of sectarian violence will increase as the factions try to each take control of a sufficiently legitimate looking government for the US to call it a job well done and leave them to resume their dictatorship while popular opinion continues to mount against the US as a hostile occupying force. Eventually nations in the UN are going to start agitating for sanctions against the US, which will cause the US to use its veto powers, bringing to a head a major conflict of US versus the World that has been brewing pretty much ever since the collapse of the soviet union.

[Zythus]

I agree with the inevitability of another full blown civil war in Iraq after US extraction. Iraq is a country bad enough that dictatorship is needed to maintain order. I'm skeptical about Iraq being "magically" fixed anyday, but I don't see how the UN can make their situation any better by colonization. Unfortunately sounding pessimistic, it seems Iraq needs a considerable eradication before realizing the damage it has done to itself and thus, begin healing.

The difficulty of Iraq has a distinct difference with normal politic movements fighting for power. Like I said, the people there regard religion more predominate than anything in reality. The irking thing is that some tend to go extreme and/or persuade others to join their ranks of their "holy crusade". I'm being stereotypical here, yet it is not blown out of porportion to say that Iraqis can/might/will go extreme for their religion, whichever sect they may be.

[rzr]

That's true, a dictator would serve as a better leader in such an unstable place. However, how would we put a dictator in there as a puppet (rofl, practically an oxymoron) then then take him out after the country is stable without re-upsetting the balance?
We couldn't, therefore leaving a dictator in charge of such a normally volatile country.

[Zythus]

I was refering to Saddam when I mentioned there WAS dictatorship. Iraq wouldn't be stable anytime soon due to the meddling US. Present or not in Iraq, its still an unstable country. You can say I blame the US for making it the way it is.

[rzr]

I was refering to Saddam when I mentioned there WAS dictatorship. Iraq wouldn't be stable anytime soon due to the meddling US. Present or not in Iraq, its still an unstable country. You can say I blame the US for making it the way it is.

They most certaitly did not. Years of miserable life under said dictator made it unstable. Th best way I can summarize my thoughts is with a quote: "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't"

[devonin]

"The devil you know is better than the devil you don't"And Saddam was the devil they knew. And love him or hate him, he was pretty much the personal embodiment of stability in Iraq. As long as he was in power, they were a very stable country. It wasn't until he was toppled that all of the sectarian problems started to flare up again.

Edit: Oh there were more posts than I saw. Let's keep going then!

The concept of "Iraqi civil war" is actually pretty ridiculous when you consider the realities of the middle east. Like Africa, the nation-state system in the middle east is largely a product of Europe and the Peace of Westphalia. Carving up the middle east after the collapse of the Ottoman Turks into a number of countries happened along the lines of satisfying whoever was the majority ethic group in a given area.

"Iraq" makes no sense whatsoever as a country. It is functionally three countries with vastly different cultures, politics, and faiths, and forcing them to be one country is absurd. An "Iraqi Civil war" would be like the Rwandan civil war. Two tribes that had been enemies for years magically found themselves bordered in by european drawn maplines, and simply continued acting as they always had. As a result, it took -way- too long for the UN to get involved in a "civil war" (which they usually keep out of) when what was really going on was tribal warfare and attempted genocide.

[Zythus]

I remember reading that some minorities liked Saddam in Iraq. And so here is the question: "Shall people be sacrificed under a dictator's wrath to keep the stability of a country?"
Saddam did kill and destroy, but it was an omnipresent stability. Now hes gone, its beginning to crumple into itself.

[devonin]

The whole of the "middle east" has been desperately needing a massive shakedown for decades. It's just finally happening.

[rzr]

@ zythus: It really depends on how large the scale of genocide is. I mean, if he wipes out 30-100% of his population he sucks. But if he kills some business men and opposing political parties to keep order of his dictatorship, it's ok.

Note: I am in no way advocing genocide or murder or torture.

Note 2: also remember those figures and examples are all theoretical.

[Zythus]

Devonin is in all ways right about the shakedown, the Middle East need to get a taste of themselves and then acquire resolution. There is no peace without war, I suppose.

[atalkingcow]

After taking a nice long break from CT...I RETURN!!

@ dev : I love you ^_^ I have yet to disagree with a single thing you've posted in this thread.

@ rzr : It seems to me that you just regurgitate what you see and hear on the news, and I don't get the feeling that you've actually thought about it very deeply, or bothered to look for another viewpoint. Democracy is just peachy, if you can get it to work...good luck with that though, the U.S. isn't even a true democracy. -.-

@ zythus : There can be peace without war, however, since a certain idiot and his idiot friends got control of the country and started ****, in this particular instance, a war is inevitable after we withdraw. And we _will_ withdraw, we have no choice in the matter, as we simply don't have the ability to occupy Iraq forever.

Adios,
Cow

[Zythus]

Welcome back, Cow.

Irony is that without war, there would be peace, yet you sometimes need a war to establish peace. I guess its a more generic debate over the definitions and reasoning of war and peace. To me, the US always boasted themselves as "Democracy", yet they lean on the authoritarian system. For one example, it would seem US has never deemed any problem to be solved by arbitration, they hate to stride that low to have another party or nation to judge and resolve their issues. One leader pulling the strings and propels the "autonomous" nation. The extravaganza at Iraq only fueled their distinction as undemocratic in ways.

[MixMasterLar]

You guys sort of act as if people shooting guns in the streets doesnt happen every 5 minutes.

The US are not allowed--by Bush-- to attack anyone that isnt shooting at them, after that happens, they can radio back and ask permission to return fire. That is why there is a huge mess everywhere: Bush is more or less sitting on his ass and doing nothing but...sitting on his ass over there. If Bush would have went over and said "Ok anyone that shoots anything needs to get shot at" then things would have been better now. This thoery is inline with Dev's "Civil War has to happen sometime" one, execpt that we get to have it all happen there instead of somewhere else

By the way, Ive talked with soldiers about this (Im in Pensacola, there are alot of soldiers here) so I am pretty sure this is all true dispite what you may have heard.

As far as the US shouldnt have been over there---I do believe that the group who attacked us where connected to groups in the Middle East. Now rather to attack who attacked us Bush attacked people who may have helped (I say may, since I cant quote my source) and Im not sure if that was the best thing, but I guess without helpers you cant do much =/

This all said, it's time to get out. Bush will not fix the proplem, he is making it worse. If he would fix it then I feel that we have to be there....but as it is now we might as well leave.

[rzr]

At the risk of being redundant I must repeat myself to make my point.
If the US withdraws from Iraq right this very second it would only be to appease the public opinion on Bush. The truth is, if America leaves then we take our intelligence with us. Now, without that intelligence (meaning the FBI and stuff, not being smart) we have no way to monitor the situations leaving the Iraqi's free to plot an attack.
If we don't withdraw from Iraq, we at least have a better chance, with our intelligence there, of discovering a future attack. Refer to my previous example a few posts back for elaboration.

@ Mix: Yes, you're perfectly correct (I have several recently returned family members from over seas who've stated the same thing). When they're attacked they must get permission to return fire, leaving them sitting ducks during an attack.
What should be is that if fired upon you have the right to fire back [upon reason].
But that problem wasn't founded by Bush, as inadequate a leader as he is, it's been a standard military procedure for quite some time. I know for a fact that the same instances happened in the Vietnam war (father's war stories, he was a radio operator).

We should just be thankful that's the only problem. In Vietnam the newly developed M-16s constantly jammed and backfired. Imagine if the American troops in Iraq had to endure that too?

[atalkingcow]

At the risk of being redundant I must repeat myself to make my point.
If the US withdraws from Iraq right this very second it would only be to appease the public opinion on Bush. The truth is, if America leaves then we take our intelligence with us. Now, without that intelligence (meaning the FBI and stuff, not being smart) we have no way to monitor the situations leaving the Iraqi's free to plot an attack.
If we don't withdraw from Iraq, we at least have a better chance, with our intelligence there, of discovering a future attack. Refer to my previous example a few posts back for elaboration.


We will lose no intelligence gathering ability by removing the majority (if not all) of our troops from Iraq. We still have:
Satellites
Predator drones
and probably a crapload of other methods I'm not aware of.
Soldiers themselves actually gather very little information, esp. regarding plans of cross-ocean assault. (at least as far as I know...)

Not to mention, as dev and that other person whose name escapes me said, if we withdraw from Iraq right this very second...the 3 main religious factions would be too busy fighting each other for power to do anything to us.

[Zythus]

Iraq was carrying a boulder over their head. US thought it was doing a good deed, so US went under the boulder too "assisting" Iraq to carry it. Iraq, due to the shared weight that US burdens, begins to get weak and dependent for US to help it carry the boulder. And so, now US is stuck in the framework. If it doesn't leave, Iraq is just getting weaker due to US hoisting and organizing them. If they leave, this boulder cannot be sustained.

Bottom line is, US shouldn't have gotten involved, or less influential or devastative with the fate of Iraq, but hey, what is done is done.

[devonin]

I think the part I find the most amusing is that the world media is now so obsessed with the concept of wondering when America will finally withdraw their occupation that they've largely stopped talking about the fact that they had absolutely no acceptable right to invade them in the first place. I mean, realistically, the Americans just invaded a soverign nation and staged a coup on basically no reasonable evidence to suggest they had a right to.

That on its own is enough reason to want them out, and soon.

[rzr]

So you're saying if America withdraws the boulder crushes Iraq, but if they don't the Iraqis feel more weak and it angry?

@ devonin: I agree somewhat. I don't think America had the right to invade Iraq, I do think that America had/has the right to put intelligence agencies in the Middle East.

[devonin]

So why are a hostile invasion and occupation force, and a couple homegrown intelligence agents somehow intrinsically linked? Why on earth do you need both to benefit from the latter? Seems to me that spy types would work better in a country that wasn't all radicalized and actively opposing Americans and people who sem like they might be pro-America.

[Zythus]

"weak" refers to the condition Iraq is in currently with the US in their vicinity, nothing more.

US and their "egotist fundamentalism".

[Chrissi]

I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like a huge idiot, because all of you seem to know a lot about this issue and I know so little.

However, this is what I've heard on it: the east likes america, if for the sole fact that america intervenes and stops people from hurting each other (sometimes). When a country is occupied by american troops, civil conflicts become less and things get a bit more peaceful. Since the americans are regulating everything... violent countries get toned down.

Of course, this is assuming a peaceful american presence. I don't really know if that's america's role right now. I do know that a lot of countries are happy to have the american presence - on an individual basis, the people like it. The government's not always too happy about it. Like in northern Japan, the american presence at their embassy helps a lot with civil matters. They're sort of like a father figure - asians look up to them and try to follow their model.

I'm not really stating these as facts. Since you guys seem to know so much about this, and I really don't, I'm more looking for confirmation of these points. I'd be very happy if I'm right. But maybe I'm not.

Anyway, what's this got to do with Hilary? In this case, if Hilary gets elected, and removes american troops immediately from the middle east, the government will be happy but there will be civil turmoil. Basically the country will fall apart because they don't really have a leader anymore - america's acting that role. Nobody knows what to do, so it'll just fall apart. And maybe some arbitrary part of the broken government will rise and try to take power, but it really won't work very well, resulting in more chaos...

Basically, once america's there, they can't leave.

[rzr]

I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like a huge idiot, because all of you seem to know a lot about this issue and I know so little.

However, this is what I've heard on it: the east likes america, if for the sole fact that america intervenes and stops people from hurting each other (sometimes). When a country is occupied by american troops, civil conflicts become less and things get a bit more peaceful. Since the americans are regulating everything... violent countries get toned down.

Of course, this is assuming a peaceful american presence. I don't really know if that's america's role right now. I do know that a lot of countries are happy to have the american presence - on an individual basis, the people like it. The government's not always too happy about it. Like in northern Japan, the american presence at their embassy helps a lot with civil matters. They're sort of like a father figure - asians look up to them and try to follow their model.

I'm not really stating these as facts. Since you guys seem to know so much about this, and I really don't, I'm more looking for confirmation of these points. I'd be very happy if I'm right. But maybe I'm not.

Anyway, what's this got to do with Hilary? In this case, if Hilary gets elected, and removes american troops immediately from the middle east, the government will be happy but there will be civil turmoil. Basically the country will fall apart because they don't really have a leader anymore - america's acting that role. Nobody knows what to do, so it'll just fall apart. And maybe some arbitrary part of the broken government will rise and try to take power, but it really won't work very well, resulting in more chaos...

Basically, once america's there, they can't leave.

Lol, it has almost nothing to do with Hillary. Actually, the way I asked the OP was "if Clinton's elected will America become a matriarchal society?"
And it got onto how adequate a president she would be. Then I sad that no matter who the next presidedent will be they'll suck because they have to dig us out of Bush's hole. Then...you get the point.

But in essence, she reitterated (sp?) my point.

[devonin]

The thing is Chrissi, the American presence in Japan is some guys standing around an embassy looking important. The American presence in Iraq is a hostile occupation force.

The presence of Americans in Iraq has made the country LESS stable, there is MORE conflict, more violence, more damage being done to people and property than there was before the Americans invaded.

Nobody has been advocating that the US remove all its troops from the Middle East. They have forces in Israel that are pretty much propping up the whole country from being retaken by Palestinians, they have troops involved in peacekeeping missions in a number of other places, but they are there through the auspices of the UN, invited, with a specific job to do.

The thing I've been advocating is the removal of an uninvited, illegal, hostile occupation force that has done more to cause Iraqi death and destruction in oh God it's been over 5 years now, than in the previous ten.

America's presence in Iraq is not peaceful. They invaded, toppled the legally recognized if not the nicest legitimate authority, and sparked off some of the worst sectarian violence the country has ever had.

[rzr]

Another thing we can most likely agree on (excluding devonin, I assume) is that America has invaded. America has caused turmoil. America has done damage. Iraq was an unstable country. The Middle East was an unstable region. Iraq did need assistance. Those are all relatively classified facts.

However, like I just said, America DID invade. There's no denying or changing that. But the thing is, it's too late to do anything about what's already happened. Had more thought gone into the decisian, more efficiency we would see. But it didn't.

[devonin]

America invaded: yes I agree
America caused turmoil: yes I agree
America has done damage: yes I agree
Iraq was an unstable country: I disagree, compared to a number of countries including putative allies of America, Iraq was one of the most stable countries in the region
The Middle East is unstable: They've been forced into the channels they are in, and if there is instability it is only these nations trying to assert their own national identity against the mold of enforced western ideas.
Iraq needed assistance: Assistance to do what? Overthrow the legitimate leader? Spark off huge amounts of sectarian violence? Tell the ruling ethnic group that they were forced to adapt to democracy thus giving power to the non-ruling ethnic group?

Yeah but you see, you just don't invade sovereign powers -without- putting that "more thought" into it. America violated a large number of international laws by ignoring the UN and invading without their support.

[rzr]

Yes, based on the other Middle Eastern countries Iraq was the most stable. The key words there are 'other Middle Eastern countries'. However, based on the 'civilized' countries like Americe, Canada, England, France, and most other European countries, it was not.
The Iraqis needed their dictator to be taken out of power, like Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Stolan (spelling?), King George, etc. The difference between the way they fell from power and the way Saddam fell from power is the outcome.

When they fell from power/were assassinated/seceded(sp?), the opposing country(s) did not collapse into the hell Iraq is.
Had America taken the former dictator from power in a better fashion, such hell could be avoided (don't ask me for an idea on how to have done that, I don't have anymore than you do).

[Zythus]

Better fashion? It comes down to that US took power, or they didn't.
The fact was that Iraq needed the stability of dictatorship to maintain order. Regardless of method, this order was nulled by the US occupation. I do not think that some alternative method would appease the situation Iraq is currently in, unless you care to support your answer.

[rzr]

Seems pretty pointless to ask me to support something I just said I had no theories on ... I'll try anyway.

Say ... say America took Saddam and used him as a puppet. Or they ... that's relatively all I've got... you have anything better?