I think it is more likely to plunge the country further into civil war as opposed to taming the insurgency.

http://one.revver.com/watch/130549

this came from a witness'* cell phone

Not working right now....

works here

x2

hanging FTW!!!!!!!!!!!

Link worked for me Travis.
Gave him too much rope imo. Died from a broken neck not choking.

A thin 1/8" steel cable and a 2" drop would have been about PERFECT.

Hmmm, I think not. Seeing Sadam dead is probably one of the few things most of Iraq'* population can agree on. He was already discredited in the eye'* of the militants when he gave up meekly after swearing to fight to the death. The Baath party was always a small minority within the Sunni population, who themselves are a small minority within the area.

Partitioning the country into three chunks is probably the only way to end it. It has always been three ethnic areas for centuries. "Iraq" as a nation was the artificial creation of the British under the post WWI mandate. Before that, it was strictly tribal area under the Ottoman-Turk empire. (As was Persia..now known as Iran.)

I have been expressing the opinion from day one that once we kicked over that ant-hill, we were under no obligation to stay and help them sort it out. I admit that this is a very old-school and harsh way of looking at it, but it'* a pretty harsh world. As a nation, we have got to stop trying to recreate the Marshall Plan everywhere we go. Just because it worked in Europe and Japan after WWII does not mean it will work everywhere. Democracy cannot be imposed on a group by force of arms, they have to want it in the first place.

That is utterly ridiculous. If you think the US should not be so involved elsewhere in the world, what justified US intervention to begin with? If democracy cannot be imposed on a group by military action, why did the US go there to begin with (now that the issue of WMDs is known to be fallacious at best, manufactured at worst)?

I do agree that democracy is not something to be realized overnight, and that it is not the job of US forces to bring about its rise (nor are they capable of it). However, due mostly in part to US intervention, Iraq is in a state of civil war (to a varying degree, depending on your definition), and you think that there is no responsibility required in this situation? The fact of the matter is that a complete withdrawal now would plunge the state (whether it should exist as a state or not) and its people into a horrendous reality, with little chance of recovering.

We already went into Iraq and left, prematurely, years ago. It clearly didn't do any good then. A lot of the hatred towards the US in this war stemmed from our previous abandonment of Iraq. While I don't completely agree with this war in the least bit, we (Bush) started it. Leaving after we "disturbed the ant-hill" would be pretty irresponsible.

Just my own opinion.