BF2S Forums For those who believe that the war in Iraq is going badly.

CameronPoe wrote:

I hold to my view that Bush is a religious zealot. He never misses an opportunity to mention 'God', despite being the head of a secular nation. His support base is the bible belt and for good reason. Personally I don't think religion should play any part whatsoever in politics.

The fact to you hold this view calls into question your grasp of the English language. Never have I witnessed or even heard remotely rumored Mr. Bush forcing anyone to convert to his faith. I don't see him proposing any legislation along these lines establishing the "Church of America". Actually, more often, I see the reverse to be true. I see far more non-believers trying to force their views on religion upon humanity under just such a guise that you are using. Professing belief in God does not make one a zealot. What I see from you, Cameron, is an utter lack of respect for other peoples faith and you trying to exploit that faith for political gain. Come back on that one when you have a little more tangible evidence other than saying the word God and when you understand fully the meaning of the word, zealot.

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't quite get what you're driving at here (pardon the pun). Your comment doesn't seem to have any connection to the comment I made.

It was in reaction to this..

CameronPoe wrote:

so we can scoot around in some 6 litre behemoth

It was directed at the backhand slap you took in regards to our propensity to drive large vehicles.

CameronPoe wrote:

Zealous? You are equally as zealous in defending a needless war in Iraq initiated in an unjust manner, without the backing of the international community.

You bandy about the word 'unjust', just what is your basis for comparison? Are you somehow of the mind that the regime of Saddam was more just? As far as not having the backing of the international community, I must point out to you that France, Russia and China in and of themselves are not the international community. I left out Germany because they have since jumped on board and are now providing training for the security forces of the new Iraqi government.

Original Members of the International Coalition
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Hardly a lack of international support.

The population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people.
Coalition countries have a combined GDP of approximately $22 trillion.
Every major race, religion, ethnicity in the world is represented.
The Coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe.

Even the French are coming around..

BBC wrote:

France's Le Monde believes transatlantic relations have "improved considerably" over the past year or so.

"The main points of disagreement... following the diplomatic breakdown in 2003 over Iraq have either been resolved or brushed under the carpet"

Again I point out your willingness to make statements not grounded in fact, but on your own personal feeling.

Now, I have read in other threads you making statements to the effect that the U.N. resolutions were vague and open to multiple interpretations, apparently you have not read them yourself and have relied on what we agree is an unreliable media. This is language taken straight from the source...

U.N Security Council, Resolution 1441 wrote:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,....

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular
through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA,
and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687
(1991);...
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ … penElement

Resolution 1441 specifically stated:

1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, continually firing on coalition forces in the 'No-Fly' zones and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

2) That the ceasefire granted under Resolution 687 was binding only insofar as Iraq was willing to hew to the terms of that ceasefire.

3) That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.

This resolution was passed unanimously, 7-0. We both know why a second resolution was never passed and it is because certain countries that we have already agreed upon were also in material breach of the the aforementioned resolutions and did not want that to come to light.

Now, as we all know, WMDs have never been found. This has proven to be a major fiasco I admit, but does not excuse the other points to which Iraq was in material breach. As I did then, I fault the Bush administration for building so much on that aspect and not focusing upon the other breaches as well. I also point to this report.

The Washington Times wrote:

Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national … -6257r.htm

Mention of this is even in Wikipedia

wikipedia wrote:

Former senior Iraqi general, Georges Sada, has said that in late 2002, Saddam ordered that all the stockpiles of WMD were to be moved to Syria. On January 25, 2006 on Hannity & Colmes on Fox News, the former number 2 officer in the Iraqi Air Force made clear that he had used them against Kurds and marsh arabs. He also stated that up till the summer of 2002 they were in Iraq, and when Saddam realized the Americans were coming and the inspectors would arrive on November 1st, he took the occasion of Syria's broken dam and announced he would make an "air bridge".

They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria....

...
In February 2006, Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, a former Iraqi general who defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991, gave an interview to Ryan Mauro, author of Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq (ISBN: 1413774733) and founder of WorldThreats.com. In the interview, al-Tikriti, who was once known as the "Butcher of Basra", told Mauro:
I know Saddam's weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980's that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation. Not to mention I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew. At this point Saddam knew that the United States were eventually going to come for his weapons and the United States wasn't going to just let this go like they did in the original Gulf War. He knew that he had lied for this many years and wanted to maintain legitimacy with the pan Arab nationalists. He also has wanted since he took power to embarrass the West and this was the perfect opportunity to do so. After Saddam denied he had such weapons why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against. What we are witnessing now is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted.[44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w … estruction

Now, we can argue about this until the cows come home, but at this moment I think that the jury is still out on this one. Also, I point out again that the lack of WMDs does in no way abrogate the other material breaches that Saddam's regime committed.

CameronPoe wrote:

I have no hatred, Darth. You mistake me for some kind of an extremist. Just because I hold views that are at odds with yours don't try and 'demonise' me!

I rest my case. I suggest you also lay off the demonization tactics as well, I think that those tactics should be beneath you.

As for the zealousness, I freely admit that I zealously defend it against misinformation, mistruths and egregious demonizing.

Do you realize Cameron that you and the millions that think like you are indirectly supporting these monsters? You point out 'human rights' abuses allegedly committed by our side but ignore the butchers with whom we are fighting. First, I would point you to the video link in this post... http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=444099#p444099 . I do warn you that it is VERY graphic. I also point out the two troops that were found tortured and murdered. I may not be as squeamish as you, but I see a great difference between being forced to pose naked for photographs and brutal beatings and throat cutting. Not to mention that, but apparently the bodies of the two soldiers were also booby-trapped. Imagine world wide reaction if we were to start employing their methods. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3988204.html
Now, saying that if we weren't in there to begin with these wouldn't be happening would be a cop out on your part, Cameron. We are there, and no amount of debate that we are having will change that fact. The fact does remain that as long as your sympathies are being tugged you remain in support of what these people are doing. They realize that and are waging the war accordingly. You do realize you are being their tool, right? I have chosen a little more carefully what I choose to defend.

Believe you me, Cameron, my love of war does not extend beyond the game to which this forum is dedicated to but I also did not let my political differences with Bill Clinton cause me to support the cause those in support of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Again I point out that you seem to be an otherwise intelligent young man, you might think a little harder on who and what your opposition to the war supports.

CameronPoe wrote:

I could use the same exact argument to say that many people who hold my point of view have looked in and seen that I have the situation more than well in hand. 

You could, but then it wouldn't be quite true.

In case it hasn't been posted yet:

Brookings Institution Statistics on Iraq

The available .pdf is updated every month.  No opinions, just numbers and the facts.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Come back on that one when you have a little more tangible evidence other than saying the word God and when you understand fully the meaning of the word, zealot.

zeal·ot Pronunciation (zlt)
n.
1.
a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.

Religion should play no part in politics. Everyone should be free to practice their religion on their own time however.

When reading the following please bear in mind the constitutional mandate of govenment neutrality towards religion.

Bush God-related Quotes:

'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.'

'This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.'

'The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.'

'Tyrants and dictators will accept no other gods before them. They require disobedience to the First Commandment. They seek absolute control and are threatened by faith in God. They fear only the power they cannot possess -- the power of truth. So they resent the living example of the devout, especially the devotion of a unique people chosen by God.'

'It is fitting that we have a National Prayer Breakfast. It is the right thing to do, because this is a nation of prayer. I know, from firsthand knowledge, that this is a nation of prayer.'

'We should fund the armies of compassion, we should not discriminate against faith-based programs.'

'In time, we will find healing and recovery; and, in the face of all this evil, we remain strong and united, "one Nation under God.'

'The days of discriminating against religious institutions simply because they are religious must come to an end.'

'And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves who creates us equal in His image.'

'I ask Americans to bow our heads in humility before our Heavenly Father, a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors, but to love them, to ask His guidance upon our nation and its leaders in every level of government.'

'In every instance when my administration sees a responsibility to help people, we will look first to faith-based institutions, to charities and to community groups that have shown their ability to save and change lives.'

'Our priorities is our faith.'  (LOL)

'We will allow private and religious groups to compete to provide services in every federal, state and local social program.'

'Our new faith-based laws have removed government as a roadblock to people of faith who hear the call.'

'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.'

'Do I think faith will be an important part of being a good president? Yes, I do.'

'When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the savior, it changes your heart.'

OKAY, I'll stop now.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

You bandy about the word 'unjust', just what is your basis for comparison? Are you somehow of the mind that the regime of Saddam was more just? As far as not having the backing of the international community, I must point out to you that France, Russia and China in and of themselves are not the international community. I left out Germany because they have since jumped on board and are now providing training for the security forces of the new Iraqi government.

I use the word unjust because a) I believe pre-emptive action against any sovereign nation to be unjust (usually), b) I believe freedom cannot be 'brought' to nations rather nations must win it themselves and c) scroll down I've put reason c) after the UN resolution diatribe below.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Original Members of the International Coalition
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Hardly a lack of international support.

The population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people.
Coalition countries have a combined GDP of approximately $22 trillion.
Every major race, religion, ethnicity in the world is represented.
The Coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe.

The printed list of course constitutes a minority of the worlds countries and population.
Afghanistan had an army? Oh yeah! The US army!
Italy and Spain came to their senses and can no longer be counted on that list - they listened to the voice of the people.
A lot of those countries on the list are very dependent on US aid and trade and are effectively slaves to the US 'overlord'. They're not exactly going to bite the hand that feeds them. I prefer to call a lot of the nations the 'coalition of the coerced'. Here is analysis of memo leaked by a member or Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Katharine Gun, who was charged under the official secrets Act in connection with the leaking of the memo. She stated her intention to plead not guilty on the grounds that her actions were justified to prevent an illegal war. The prosecution declined to present any evidence at her trial...
"Many of the governments that had aligned themselves with the US, despite strong opposition among their constituencies, did so because of their own economic ties to the United States. The United States used strong pressure and threats against other nations to attempt to coerce nations on the Security Council to support them. For example, Mexican diplomats complained that talks with American officials had been "hostile in tone", and had shown little concern for the Mexican government's need to accommodate the overwhelmingly antiwar sentiment of its people. One Mexican diplomat reported that the US told them that "any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a very heavy price."

"The techniques used to pressure nations to support the United States included a variety of incentives including:

    * Promises of aid and loan guarantees to nations who support the U.S.
    * Promises of military assistance to nations who support the U.S.
    * Threats to veto NATO membership applications for countries who don't do what the U.S. asks
    * Leveraging the size of the U.S. export market and the U.S. influence over financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
    * Deciding which countries receive trade benefits under such laws as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which, as one of its conditions for eligibility for such benefits, requires that a country does "not engage in activities that undermine United States national security interests".
    * Deciding what countries it should buy oil from in stocking its strategic reserves. The U.S. has exerted such pressure on several oil-exporting nations, such as Mexico."

"At a press conference, the White House press corps broke out in laughter when Ari Fleischer denied that "the leaders of other nations are buyable.".

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Even the French are coming around..

I believe it when you show me 'tangible evidence'!

On the resolution: point (c) from above

The resolution was used by the US as a means of getting a foot into the heart of the middle east for strategic reasons as we have discussed already. The actions taken by the US and the 'coalition of the drilling/coerced' were not sanctioned by the UN security council, as you stated, and as such could be deemed to be illegal, in other words - not justified in the eyes of the body representing the international community of nations. Of course we know why certain countries were willing to veto the resolution but that is just a fortunate side effect of their underhand dealings. Not for one moment have I ever believed that the USA feared Iraq, viewed Iraq as a clear and present threat to the US or wished to 'emancipate' the people of Iraq for altruistic reasons. That is my position. I viewed the resolution almost purely as a US tool to get into Iraq and was happy when the security council would not enforce it, even though the reason it was not enforced is rather unsavoury. You talk of international support for the invasion - well I can tell you that here in Europe anyway the majority of people on the ground were against this war. I guess democracy is just a myth.

On the Russia-Syria issue, an excerpt from the link you posted:

'John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

Note the highlighted words and the fact that this man would have had an agenda for saying such things. Note also that you berate me for 'relying' on 'unreliable media'. You appear to be equally guilty on this count.

On the Sada quote:

I take anything FOX news presents with a healthy dose of cynicism, especially with respect to Syria, as you might as well be watching Israeli national television. Again there appears to be no tangible proof of such an operation and I would have expected the US government to be making a song and dance about it if it had occurred and if they had hard evidence.

On the Al-Tikriti quote:

That's a particularly weak reference for obvious reasons - he's a pre Gulf War I defector for one. You criticise me for involving my 'agenda' too much in my responses yet this man obviously has an agenda that you wish to draw on so you choose to ignore the criticisms you have made against me. He could be getting even with Saddam, he could be in the pay of the US propaganda machine, he could be completely genuine, who knows? No hard facts are being presented in that piece.

PS I deplore the way in which Saddam Hussein treated the people of Iraq. TO say that I am rallying around him is insulting. I have no wish to have him glorified or justified or whatever you seem to think I wish. The fact that my stance IYO works in his favour is coincidental and not deliberate. Anyway, what good would criticism of the war do him anyway - it would only have helped pre-war. I think everyone but Baathists agree he was an evil man who deserves to be punished. He is now captured and standing trial and nothing will get in the way of him being brought to justice. A silver lining, if you like, arising from the 'unjust war' cloud.

BTW
It sounds from all this media hype that once Iran is dealt with Syria will be next! They'd better get enriching asap!!! North Korea certainly showed them how to get the US to pull their horns in.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

The fact does remain that as long as your sympathies are being tugged you remain in support of what these people are doing. They realize that and are waging the war accordingly. You do realize you are being their tool, right? I have chosen a little more carefully what I choose to defend.

1) You seem to be implying that 'This is what they do, so torturing them is justified*'. I say NO. Torture is NEVER justified. To stoop to a level even near the level of these deplorable barbarians in Iraq to me is deeply deeply shameful. Jefferson, Washington & Lincoln are probably rolling in their graves as we speak.
Just to clarify: I equally deplore the disgusting acts carried out by insurgents. In case anyone is under any illusions.

* Even when it is uncertain whether in fact they have anything to do with Al Qaeda or the insurgency.

2) Darth, if you think I support anything foreign insurgents are doing in Iraq then your wrong. They have about as much right to be meddling with Iraqi people and Iraqi politics as the US does, which incidentally equates to no rights.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Believe you me, Cameron, my love of war does not extend beyond the game to which this forum is dedicated to but I also did not let my political differences with Bill Clinton cause me to support the cause those in support of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

This is not some tirade of mine against Bush. It's a tirade against injustice and needless war. I couldn't care less who sanctioned it. Bush is just a mouthpiece for the lobby groups that put him in office.

Darth_Fleder wrote:

You could, but then it wouldn't be quite true.

That of course is just your opinion.

PS I am going on the beer until Saturday (work-related events, world cup, leaving do for colleague, birthday celebrations, etc.) and will not be able to make any further responses until then at the earliest.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-21 15:28:50)

slo5oh wrote:

we need to get rid of Karma or else force it to show who sent it because shit like this is unacceptable:

Yesterday 13:43:48      -1      For those who believe that the war in Iraq is going badly.      I hope of my boys rams a 747 into your fucking dead wannabe iraqi yankee swine home and cleans out you and your fucking family you motherfucking cunt

If his name were on it the crybaby that sent me that would never have done so.  Probably a stupid 15 year old kid being told by his parents how bad all wars are and that everyone should love their neighbor, smoke weed, be a hippy, etc, etc... but still.  I consider that an assult on me personally.

My response to the moron that wrote that:
Grow up, pay attention, read books NOT written by communists and hopefully open your eyes.

Private messgae a moderator, they can and will take action against such karma's.

Darth Fleder wrote:

Never have I witnessed or even heard remotely rumored Mr. Bush forcing anyone to convert to his faith. I don't see him proposing any legislation along these lines establishing the "Church of America". Actually, more often, I see the reverse to be true.

Not entirely true Darth, Bush has openly shown support to those who are trying to have creationism or "Intelligent Design" taught in schools, No mather what phrasing you use, Intelligent design is creationism and creationism is religion.

and to the one who posted the extremely hateful negative Karma, do what Darth said, it has worked in the past.

Last edited by Vampira_NB (2006-06-21 18:30:00)

One group says one thing, the other says another. So we can't believe the media, but can we believe this guy any more than the media?

Why can't everything be black & white with no grey area, it would be oh so much simpler

Why wouldn't the Military be a source of news, they are out in front and the first people to encounter anything. Thats why they sometimes get it wrong. If the Guy is a Squad leader Light Infantry, He may mistake a Chemical tanker truck for something else, Especially if he can't read the Written language. I don't see any intentional subterfuge here. Try and relax.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-06-22 06:34:27)

Darth_Fleder wrote:

slo5oh wrote:

we need to get rid of Karma or else force it to show who sent it because shit like this is unacceptable:

Yesterday 13:43:48      -1      For those who believe that the war in Iraq is going badly.      I hope of my boys rams a 747 into your fucking dead wannabe iraqi yankee swine home and cleans out you and your fucking family you motherfucking cunt

If his name were on it the crybaby that sent me that would never have done so.  Probably a stupid 15 year old kid being told by his parents how bad all wars are and that everyone should love their neighbor, smoke weed, be a hippy, etc, etc... but still.  I consider that an assult on me personally.

My response to the moron that wrote that:
Grow up, pay attention, read books NOT written by communists and hopefully open your eyes.

Private messgae a moderator, they can and will take action against such karma's.

we will indeed...

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I like to read the news and see what's going on, but our media is definatly bias because it is a corporation and we don't have any non profit news outlits which we do need to get untainted facts.

www.indymedia.org

Available in more than one language, based in more than one country.

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

dirty bombs are just a big fat lie, the effect of a "dirty bomb" are negligeble the explosion are the real cause of destruction, NOT the radiation. http://hps.org/hsc/documents/factsheet.pdf

this is what wikipedia wrote
The term dirty bomb is most often used to refer to a Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), a radiological weapon which combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. Though an RDD is designed to disperse radioactive material over a large area, the conventional explosive would likely have more immediate lethal effect than the radioactive material. At levels created from most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present to cause severe illness or death. A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for 1 year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high". However, recent analysis of the Chernobyl fallout seems to show that many people are hardly affected over 5 years and more.

I realise that the whole idea may sound far fetched... hell i didnt bevieve my ears when i heard it! But if you think about it, isn't the government's story equally alienating? This attack on america is, from the beginning, a truly unique and extaordinary sequence of events. As far as evidence is concerned, Bush provided no more evidence for his side of the story than i did for mine. Up till now, two wars have been carried out based only on the president's word. And there's a third one coming.

I'll try to come up with some links on the Cuba story for those who've never heard of it before.

Darth, Cameron got you, didn't he?

+1 for Cam and Darth for keeping the debate "clean".

As far as I am concerned, I really don't know if the war in Iraq is going badly. Most news agencies have an agenda of some sort, and it is obvious that blood and tears sell. Wether that is an intentional move of the news media or simply a nature of the system, I cannot tell.

The problem in Iraq is the insurgency ( sp? ) and as long as that is not under control, there will be no peace in Iraq. But the insurgency is a local problem that cannot be solved with military presence only. As soon as the insurgents lose the support of the local population, its impact should decrease radically.
But will it ever ? at the moment, it seems like for every insurgent killed by coalition forces, two more come up.

I have long stopped debating wether the war in Iraq was "justified" or not. Personally, I think it wasn't and I tend to follow Cameron's view of the situation. But even if we agreed on that, the US forces would still be in Iraq now and we would still need a solution for the problem.
Discussing who exactly is to blame for the current situation is typical for the media-hyped environment we live in, but it won't help in resolving it.

I share Cameron's view that values like freedom and democracy cannot be forced upon people. They need to develop from inside and it sure doesn't happen in a year or two. In other words: if the Iraqi's will for freedom and democracy is not so strong that it will allow them to handle the insurgency on their own, 130,000 coalition troops won't do the trick either.
You can help them to rebuild the infrastructure and provide support for their police forces, but in the end, the Iraqis will have to cope with their country's struggles alone.
History will show wether democracy is a concept that is of particular interest to the Iraqi people.
More precisely: History will show wether the implementation of a working democracy in Iraq will put the "right" people in power ( you know, the moderate, compassionate, freedom-loving muslims ).

Remember, Iran is also a democracy, and they voted a religious nuthead into power....oh wait, bad comparison....