In light of today's bomb attack, the most devastating since the invasion in 2003, can anyone actually say they would rather live in Baghdad today than under Saddam?

The point I'm trying to make is that while Saddam was at best a tinpot dictator with a heavy hand, it's clear that the situation in the middle-east is "complicated" at best.
The Iraqi's don't want "freedom and democracy" they're dominated by fundamentalist violence against imperialism/zionism/the west.
The saving grace of the more secular regimes is that they keep these nutjobs in order. Look at Tito's Yugoslavia, as soon as communism fell the entire region exploded into divisions along ethnic/religious lines and ended in genocide. You can't expect the whole world to have the same ideals and attitudes as the west, while i'm not suggesting that they are inherent "savages", it seems that heavy handed, strong government is by far the lesser of two evils when it comes to turbulent regions.

im not an expert on it, but i heard that the whole "genocide" thing in Yugoslavia was PC bullshit! And right now Russia is sticking up for the christians saying that the muslims were the problem! something like that but i do know the whole situation as we were told was bull!!!

Hmmm i'd be a little suspicious of that, seems to coincide with the anti-muslim trend, the fact is NATO went into Kosovo because of what Milosovic was doing and he was tried on war crimes for it.
But let's not de-rail the thread, the fact is Tito did a good job at repressing any form of ethnic/national rivalry, when he died shit hit the fan.

Russians hate Muslims and niggers anyway and Christianity (orthodox or whatever) has been a religious staple in Russia for some time. So whats the deal? I was talking to a guy on totse IRC that said he gets satellite from Russia and they air kid's cartoon that depict blacks in grossly stereotypical and racist ways.

It was an orthodox minister that came up with the Cyrillic alphabet.

I dont think that America's justice is capable of solving rank anarchy like what Iraq has. We cant keep trying to apply due process to Iraqi captives.

You know, it has been said many times that setting a date for pullout will give the insurgents time to sit it out. However, if thats true, than Iraqi security forces rapidly building up would also be the case. That is, if there is any hope for Iraq.

Applying this to the Vtech massacre, you cannot reason with a mad man. You must either kill him, or he will kill you. There is no justice other than vigilance. I would love to see Iraqis airing beheadings of insurgents.

__________________
In the correct dosage, violence solves anything.

Yeah, a few people setting off huge bombs in crowded areas is proof that Iraqis don't want democracy even though 60% of them voted....

You're right though. There is sort of a power vacuum, there isn't enough security. Terrorism has been able to take hold...I wonder what will happen if the US leaves before the Iraqis can take care of it themselves???

No intelligent person is making the claim that the Iraqis don't want Democracy, we're saying this democracy isn't worth a fucking thing if every day hundreds of civilians are being killed.

The issue isn't what the Iraqis want or don't want, it's the complete lack of stability and progress in the country.

I'd guess that the majority Shia would take control, and they're not aligned with Al Qaeda.

The Shia majority isn't alligned with Al Qaeda, no, but is the Mahdi Army(Iran) going to be better?

How is anarchy then an radical islamic state going to be beneficial to anyone?

War sucks, but defeat, in this case, is not an option.

Better than what? Their current situation? The answer would most likely be yes. The Medhi army isn't terror affiliated, which is your biggest concern, so what's the problem.

The state wouldn't necessarily be radical. You just assume that. Regardless, stability and stopping the bloodshed(which will ONLY happen when we leave) is beneficial for everyone(except maybe the Republicans).

Defeat is an option. It's the most realistic option. Saying otherwise just shows you don't read the news. Every day things are getting worse. If that isn't defeat, then what is?

If the outcome is stability than the Mehdi army, as Napoleon has stated, is better than the current one. My original point was that stability in the form of tinpot dictators seems preferable to the vacuums which foreign policy has created, the west is unable to inforce it's own ideologies on these countries, the lesson = leave well alone.

We can own the shit out of them anyway if they get too rowdy.

__________________
In the correct dosage, violence solves anything.