The Eric Cartman Principle of Foreign Policy

[Brown]

For those who don't know much about South Park, Eric Cartman is the heavy-set kid who has grandiose ideas, a smart mouth, and a blatantly self-centered attitude. He is greatly offended by the criticism of others, but carelessly or viciously insults others without regard to their feelings. He generally does not listen, does not empathize and does not see past his own self-interest.

And when he starts on a project and it turns sour on him, he resolves to wash his hands of the affair with the words:

"Screw you guys; I'm going home."

Cartman has no shame when he says this, and he does not admit defeat. On the contrary, his attitude is that of defiance, as if he is trying to preserve his dignity.

The USA is on the road toward the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy. The other allies, particularly Great Britain, may already be there. The Iraq endeavor has gone very sour, and the locals don't seem to be resolved to solve the problem. Already, some politicians in the USA are saying that the nation ought to adopt the equivalent of the Cartman principle. If the Iraqis aren't interested in making things better, then screw 'em; we're goin' home.

The reason I mention this is not to debate the wisdom--or lack thereof--of the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy. I merely want to coin the phrase "the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy," so that when we see it, we can say, "Ah! There's the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy!"

[ceo_esq]

I think you may be on to something here. Recall the first stage of the strategy: "You will respect my authoritah!"

[Thunder]

It was foolish for us to believe that we could create a democracy without a thorough understanding of the existing cultural and political dichotomy. Iraq was really three nations held together by the force of a dictator. The only way to ensure its continued survival as one state is through either another dictatorship or dictatorship like central governmant. No one in Iraq wants such a system nor would they bow down to one. I believe that the nation's devolution is bound to happen, sooner or later. Perhaps the best thing to do is pre-empt this situation by peacefully dividing the country in a way that moderately satisfies all parties and shares resources so that all entities have a reasonable change of success. Or we can just wait for a full blown civil war which will see the Shiites and Sunnis conquer land and kick out those they dont like, reminiscent of the Bosnia situation.

[Solus]

But Cartman is funny where is the humor in this situation? My favorite is the one where Cartman starts a Christian rock band. :D

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If we simply leave Iraq with it in this situation of civil war and pervasive religious violence and crime and corruption all we'll be doing is opening the door to things much much worse. Genocide, Ethnic cleansing, Religious massacres on scales not seen in decades, not to mention creating a basic "vacuum" for countries like Iran and Syria to fill with their despotic policies. All of this would actually be a hard blow to our foreign diplomacy across the world. We started this with Iraq. We went in with a stick and hit the bee's nest over and over and now we're mad that we're getting stung. Leaving now would be the worst thing for our foreign policy since Vietnam. We need to follow the Iraq study group immediately and start working to fix this problem.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Being a long-time South Park fan, I felt your description of Cartman was spot on. You forget to include Cartman's total self-delusion as well, but I guess it was implied. Your term "Eric Cartman Principle of Foreign Policy" certainly applies.

As pathetic that is as current policy, the truly sad and scary aspect is that the rest of the world sees the foreign policy as it as well. Last week, that wonderful Prime Minister of Iran basically described the US as having no credibility. Well they (rest of world) ever trust Eric again?

Charlie (fat and bloated in the US) Monoxide

[andyandy]

But Cartman is funny where is the humor in this situation? My favorite is the one where Cartman starts a Christian rock band. :D

Cartman: Token, how many times do we have to go through this? You're black, you can play bass.
Token: I'm gettin' sick of your stereotypes.
Cartman: Be as sick as you want, just gimme a goddamn bass line.
Token: (Playng a bass melody) Goddammit.

:D

[Mercutio]

Cartman is not heavy-set.


He's big-boned.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

And festively plump.

[Upchurch]

I thought it was going to be along the lines of:

"I'm going to kick you squah in the nuts!"

[MajorOrgan]

Any chance we can get Cesar Millan into the White House?

[WildCat]

Iraq was really three nations held together by the force of a dictator.
Actually, it's much worse than that. It's more like hundreds of nations, w/ tribal loyalty trumping all else.

But I'm all for saying screw 'em. The Sunnis started the whole insurgency thing, welcoming al Qaeda and their ilk. Al Qaeda did their best to fan the flames of sectarian violence, and succeeded. Now our presence is the only thing keeping the Shia from going on a genocidal rampage against the Sunni, let them reap what they sowed after we're gone. I'm all for letting the place go to hell, at least they're no threat to anyone then and the chaos will be all Iran can handle, keeping them in check also. And if oil prices rise to the point where alternatives and conservation take hold so much the better.

At some point they're just going to have to fight until they're tired of fighting.

[WildCat]

Any chance we can get Cesar Millan into the White House?
Nope, he was born in Mexico. I'd love to see him grab Chavez by the back of his neck and push him to the ground until he submits though! :D

[bigred]

At some point they're just going to have to fight until they're tired of fighting....which will be about 10 minutes after hell freezes over.

If our policy is cartman-like, the Middle East is loony tunes. Buncha Daffy Ducks bouncing around going "woo hoo! woo hoo! woo hoo!" and blowing up anything within reach. Sort of a tradition. Anyway....

So Brown, you're saying we shouldn't pull out of Iraq I take it? What do you suggest?

[geni]

But I'm all for saying screw 'em. The Sunnis started the whole insurgency thing, welcoming al Qaeda and their ilk. Al Qaeda did their best to fan the flames of sectarian violence, and succeeded. Now our presence is the only thing keeping the Shia from going on a genocidal rampage against the Sunni, let them reap what they sowed after we're gone. I'm all for letting the place go to hell, at least they're no threat to anyone then and the chaos will be all Iran can handle, keeping them in check also.

Doubtful Iran is pretty good a land warfare and has an iraqi shia buffer zone between them and any fighting.

Not the problem is that saudia arabia looks are Iran with it's growing power and nuclear ambitions and goes any buys some nukes off pakistan.

[Brown]

So Brown, you're saying we shouldn't pull out of Iraq I take it? What do you suggest?In this thread, I take no stand. I merely point out that what I call "the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy" is now being given serious consideration. It's being prettied up and presented with diplomatic language, but it's basically "Screw you guys; I'm going home."

It is worth noting that Cartman gets into a lot of fixes voluntarily, and he is often responsible (at least in part) for his own misery. But he doesn't care. Screw those guys; he's going home.

By the way, the most memorable response to Cartman's announcement came from Jennifer Aniston: "Good! You deserve to die, you little b@$+@rd!!"

[Zep]

The US Congress has just approved the money for the construction of some giant fence along the border with Mexico. It's going to be useless there.

But wouldn't that money-for-a-fence be better if a ten foot high razor-wire barrier were built around Iraq? Then you could keep them all on the inside, where they could fight it out among themselves, and keep everyone else out. Easier and cheaper to patrol the fence than try to solve the Iraqi woes for them. Fortress Iraq??



You KNOW it makes sense! ;)

[Tony]

Actually, it's much worse than that. It's more like hundreds of nations, w/ tribal loyalty trumping all else.

But I'm all for saying screw 'em. The Sunnis started the whole insurgency thing, welcoming al Qaeda and their ilk. Al Qaeda did their best to fan the flames of sectarian violence, and succeeded. Now our presence is the only thing keeping the Shia from going on a genocidal rampage against the Sunni, let them reap what they sowed after we're gone. I'm all for letting the place go to hell, at least they're no threat to anyone then and the chaos will be all Iran can handle, keeping them in check also. And if oil prices rise to the point where alternatives and conservation take hold so much the better.

At some point they're just going to have to fight until they're tired of fighting.

Regrettably, I agree. Iraq is like the loved one who can't get off drugs or straighten up their ****. There is only so much you can do to help them, eventually, they're going to have to learn the hard way.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Iraq just needs another psudo religious dictator.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For those who don't know much about South Park, Eric Cartman is the heavy-set kid who has grandiose ideas, a smart mouth, and a blatantly self-centered attitude.

He's not fat, he's big boned.


The reason I mention this is not to debate the wisdom--or lack thereof--of the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy. I merely want to coin the phrase "the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy," so that when we see it, we can say, "Ah! There's the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy!"

I suppose you'll be expecting a royalty check every time some one uses the term?

[Mephisto]

Iraq just needs another psudo religious dictator.

Hmmmmm . . . I wonder where we could find a world leader who:

A. believes in torture,

B. doesn't respect the privacy of citizens,

C. thinks due process is detrimental,

D. would invade another country for no good reason,

E. likes dressing up in military uniforms,

F. doesn't care about the opinions or needs of his people,

G. goes through the members of his administration faster than a one year old goes through diapers,

H. doesn't support freedom of the press,

I. uses his military as pawns in a twisted game of dominance,

J. uses fear and paranoia to spread his policies

K. believes his religion is infallible,

L. and knows the oil business?

[Merko]

Now our presence is the only thing keeping the Shia from going on a genocidal rampage against the Sunni, let them reap what they sowed after we're gone.
No it is not. The without comparison most prominent and influential Shia authority, grand ayatollah al-Sistani, is even calling for his followers not to retaliate against Sunni violence. And this isn't because he wants to give himself some sort of jesus-like reputation, for example he is at the same time calling for the brutal killing of homosexuals. If he were to do the same for Sunnis, you'd get your wish no doubt. But he's not.

In this thread, I take no stand. I merely point out that what I call "the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy" is now being given serious consideration. It's being prettied up and presented with diplomatic language, but it's basically "Screw you guys; I'm going home."
I think it is rather "****, we really screwed this up! We'd better stop doing this."

[bigred]

In this thread, I take no stand. I merely point out that what I call "the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy" is now being given serious consideration. It's being prettied up and presented with diplomatic language, but it's basically "Screw you guys; I'm going home."If you mean Cartman when says that he leaves and we're also looking at leaving Iraq, yes there is a similarity.....but I hardly think that in itself means our foreign policy is generally "Cartman like" in general.

You guys; seriously. :cool:

[WildCat]

No it is not. The without comparison most prominent and influential Shia authority, grand ayatollah al-Sistani, is even calling for his followers not to retaliate against Sunni violence. And this isn't because he wants to give himself some sort of jesus-like reputation, for example he is at the same time calling for the brutal killing of homosexuals. If he were to do the same for Sunnis, you'd get your wish no doubt. But he's not.
I always hear how he's the most influential, yet it is Sadr who controls the Parliament, the executive, and has his own private army.

[Random]

If we simply leave Iraq with it in this situation of civil war and pervasive religious violence and crime and corruption all we'll be doing is opening the door to things much much worse. Genocide, Ethnic cleansing, Religious massacres on scales not seen in decades, not to mention creating a basic "vacuum" for countries like Iran and Syria to fill with their despotic policies. All of this would actually be a hard blow to our foreign diplomacy across the world. We started this with Iraq. We went in with a stick and hit the bee's nest over and over and now we're mad that we're getting stung. Leaving now would be the worst thing for our foreign policy since Vietnam. We need to follow the Iraq study group immediately and start working to fix this problem.
I read this post, and I agreed with pretty much everything in it (except the Iraq Study Group, that was never anything more than an excuse to let Bush run another six months off the clock). The problem is that you completely miss the problems with the US staying in Iraq. Frankly, we are one of the things destabilizing it.

First off, our mere presence in Iraq is an incredibly effective recruitment tool for Al Queda and similar terrorist groups. The number of terrorists that we capture or kill is meaningless if they can recruit new terrorists faster.

Next, we are antagonizing Iraqs neighbors. They see us building massive permanent military bases in the heart of the middle-east, our leadership is spouting anti-muslim rhetoric, and generally (rule 8)ing all over the place, and suddenly building a nuclear stockpile for self-defense starts looking rational to them.

Finally, we are enraging the Iraqis who we are supposed to be protecting. We have invaded their country and have occupied it for four years now. It is not a matter of rationality, they hate us. This makes them more likely to support insurgent attacks against the US.

The Iraqi on Iraqi violence seems to be happening with or without us. Indeed, many of the Iraqi forces that we are training are taking this information and usuing against other Iraqis. We simply do not have the resources to police the whole country.

There will be problems if we leave, but there will be problems if we stay. If there will more more problems if we stay, then we should leave. It's that simple.

[Oliver]

Actually, it's much worse than that. It's more like hundreds of nations, w/ tribal loyalty trumping all else.

But I'm all for saying screw 'em. The Sunnis started the whole insurgency thing, welcoming al Qaeda and their ilk. Al Qaeda did their best to fan the flames of sectarian violence, and succeeded. Now our presence is the only thing keeping the Shia from going on a genocidal rampage against the Sunni, let them reap what they sowed after we're gone. I'm all for letting the place go to hell, at least they're no threat to anyone then and the chaos will be all Iran can handle, keeping them in check also. And if oil prices rise to the point where alternatives and conservation take hold so much the better.

At some point they're just going to have to fight until they're tired of fighting.


I'm all for the "Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy"-Term.

And in reply to Wildcat's hilarious example of this "ignorant Cartman attitude", I suggest that we also introduce phrases like: "Sorry, your Post was a typical Cartman", "LMFAO, that was funny, you Cartman", "Cartman couldn't have said it any better", "Are you Cartman's mentor?" or simply: "Cartman!" (Like in case of "Strawman!").

[Oliver]

Hmmmmm . . . I wonder where we could find a world leader who:

A. believes in torture,

B. doesn't respect the privacy of citizens,

C. thinks due process is detrimental,

D. would invade another country for no good reason,

E. likes dressing up in military uniforms,

F. doesn't care about the opinions or needs of his people,

G. goes through the members of his administration faster than a one year old goes through diapers,

H. doesn't support freedom of the press,

I. uses his military as pawns in a twisted game of dominance,

J. uses fear and paranoia to spread his policies

K. believes his religion is infallible,

L. and knows the oil business?


Uhm, there is a little, maybe insignificant, but nevertheless MAJOR! problem:

http://www.250kb.de/u/070708/j/5cad86cb.jpg

Hotlinking allowed, supported and provided by Imagehoster: www.250kb.de


Saddam was believed to be intelligent. :boxedin:

[Ziggurat]

I always hear how he's the most influential, yet it is Sadr who controls the Parliament, the executive, and has his own private army.

Uh... no, he doesn't control Parliament or the executive, and his militia is hardly an army. Here's what an Iraqi had to say about Sadr recently:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2007/06/sadr-bites-hand-that-feeds-him.html
In our last post we briefly mentioned a statement in which Sadr’s office accused Iran of hosting and assisting al-Qaeda, today I’ll talk about that statement in more detail.

The claim itself is not strange. What’s strange is whom it came from.
...
It was the result of factors that accumulated over time, and matured during his visit to Tehran. Sadr finally realized that his role was only second or third to that of the SIIC of Hakim, or the Dawa Party. A situation that a young revolutionary leader who won all his fame and clout in just a few short years couldn’t tolerate. In those years his name, and his army, rocketed upward in the media headlines and proved a powerful presence on the ground. Realizing that he’s being treated as a #2 made the ambitious, poorly educated youngster lose his balance. And he had little balance to give, compared to the older big-names who have extensive experience in the political world.

Sadr is trouble, but he's hardly in charge.

Edit to add: but it isn't clear at all that Sistani could actually stop ethnic cleansing against the Sunnis on his own if we left, on that larger point Merko is mistaken. There are a lot more people than just Sadr who would like to engage in such a project, and it's actually the response Al Qaeda in Iraq is unwittingly encouraging (I say unwittingly because they stupidly think the Sunnis can win).

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, it's much worse than that. It's more like hundreds of nations, w/ tribal loyalty trumping all else.

But I'm all for saying screw 'em. The Sunnis started the whole insurgency thing, welcoming al Qaeda and their ilk.
Think about the movie, Red Dawn, in Arabic, with the 'Merikuns as the invaders, and it rather makes sense from the Sunni point of view. What's Arabic for "Wolverine?" :(
Al Qaeda did their best to fan the flames of sectarian violence, and succeeded.
That's their schtick, creating chaos.
Now our presence is the only thing keeping the Shia from going on a genocidal rampage against the Sunni, let them reap what they sowed after we're gone.
Perhaps, and perhaps not. I think the Syrians and the Saudis have a vote.
I'm all for letting the place go to hell, at least they're no threat to anyone then and the chaos will be all Iran can handle, keeping them in check also. And if oil prices rise to the point where alternatives and conservation take hold so much the better.
No threat to anyone else? Look at the land locked Afghanistan, which became a haven for terrorists. Look at where Iraq sits, somewhat in the middle of the world's trade lanes, or at least access to them.

Think of Iraq as a simmering stew pot, slow cooking Salafist, or Shia, terrorists who export their product globally. Perhaps this is paranoid thinking, but it is a possible outcome of the US pulling the plug abruptly. We went in on a worst case (the one percent rule Cheney referenced) premise, the worst case for the pullout option is perhaps a greater than one percent deal.

By the way, it will take 6 - 10 months to execute the retrograde movement south out of Iraq via Kuwait in anything resembling an orderly fashion, and preserving the bulk of the equipment. That's logistics.

At some point they're just going to have to fight until they're tired of fighting.
Sure. Why not?. :rolleyes: Look how well things went in Rwanda, when the "let 'em play" policy was chosen. :( :( :(

DR

[Ladewig]

If we simply leave Iraq with it in this situation of civil war and pervasive religious violence and crime and corruption all we'll be doing is opening the door to things much much worse. Genocide, Ethnic cleansing, Religious massacres on scales not seen in decades, not to mention creating a basic "vacuum" for countries like Iran and Syria to fill with their despotic policies.

Yes, if we leave Iraq now everything you said will happen. The catch is that if we leave 5 years from now or 50 years from now, the same things will happen. These people have been fighting and killing each other for centuries. Before the U.S. was even a British colony, these folks were fighting each other.

All of this would actually be a hard blow to our foreign diplomacy across the world. We started this with Iraq. We went in with a stick and hit the bee's nest over and over and now we're mad that we're getting stung. Leaving now would be the worst thing for our foreign policy since Vietnam. We need to follow the Iraq study group immediately and start working to fix this problem.

Why do you think this problem is fixable?

[Brown]

With this closing of this chapter of history, we can finally depart in peace, leaving a more stable Iraq, an Iraq more committed to progress in technology, progress in culture, progress in education, and progress in human rights.

There are those who say that Iraq is not ready for the US to leave. There are those who say that the country is not stable, that it can be taken over by those who wish us ill above all else. There are those--some of them Iraqi citizens--who say that much more needs to be done to heal the nation of Iraq and set it up on its feet. There are those who say that our departure should be more gradual, and should take place over several more years. And there are those who hold that the US ought never to depart from Iraq, ever, regardless of the circumstances.

To them I say, "Screw you guys. We're going home."No, this speech isn't real, at least not yet.

[Trakar]

For those who don't know much about South Park, Eric Cartman is the heavy-set kid who has grandiose ideas, a smart mouth, and a blatantly self-centered attitude. He is greatly offended by the criticism of others, but carelessly or viciously insults others without regard to their feelings. He generally does not listen, does not empathize and does not see past his own self-interest.

And when he starts on a project and it turns sour on him, he resolves to wash his hands of the affair with the words:

"Screw you guys; I'm going home."

Cartman has no shame when he says this, and he does not admit defeat. On the contrary, his attitude is that of defiance, as if he is trying to preserve his dignity.

The USA is on the road toward the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy. The other allies, particularly Great Britain, may already be there. The Iraq endeavor has gone very sour, and the locals don't seem to be resolved to solve the problem. Already, some politicians in the USA are saying that the nation ought to adopt the equivalent of the Cartman principle. If the Iraqis aren't interested in making things better, then screw 'em; we're goin' home.

The reason I mention this is not to debate the wisdom--or lack thereof--of the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy. I merely want to coin the phrase "the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy," so that when we see it, we can say, "Ah! There's the Eric Cartman principle of foreign policy!"

rather putting the horse before the carriage here, no?

the reason Cartman is funny is because he epitomizes the characteristics that are already an aspect of much of the national character. Cartman was modelled upon these American traits, its a little redundant to turn around and call America "Cartman."

[Trakar]

...Perhaps the best thing to do is pre-empt this situation by peacefully dividing the country in a way that moderately satisfies all parties and shares resources so that all entities have a reasonable change of success...

What makes you believe that this potential is viable? None of the three factions want to divide and share the limited resources of the nation and none will acquiesce to giving others what they desire for themselves.

[Trakar]

If we simply leave Iraq with it in this situation of civil war and pervasive religious violence and crime and corruption all we'll be doing is opening the door to things much much worse. Genocide, Ethnic cleansing, Religious massacres on scales not seen in decades, not to mention creating a basic "vacuum" for countries like Iran and Syria to fill with their despotic policies. All of this would actually be a hard blow to our foreign diplomacy across the world. We started this with Iraq. We went in with a stick and hit the bee's nest over and over and now we're mad that we're getting stung. Leaving now would be the worst thing for our foreign policy since Vietnam. We need to follow the Iraq study group immediately and start working to fix this problem.

should have thought of all this before all the foriegn adventurism BS began. Humpty dumpty is already broken and all the kings men and all the kings horses will never put humpty back together again.

[Crossbow]

'Trakar' AKA 'TShaitanaku':

Have you noticed that the posts you are responding to are about five years old?

[Trakar]

'Trakar' AKA 'TShaitanaku':

Have you noticed that the posts you are responding to are about five years old?

not at all, is such relevent to my comments?

[Brainster]

not at all, is such relevent to my comments?

Well, Thunder is unlikely to respond to your questions.:D

[Crossbow]

not at all, is such relevent to my comments?

So you did not notice that detail, eh? Well that sure explains alot.

In the meantime, however, I would say that having someone respond to a five year posting is quite relevant.

[Trakar]

Well, Thunder is unlikely to respond to your questions.:D

The question "asked" of him was rhetorical.

[Mark6]

Being a long-time South Park fan, I felt your description of Cartman was spot on. You forget to include Cartman's total self-delusion as well, but I guess it was implied.
That may be a bit off-topic, but I do not think Eric Cartman is self-delusional. He always comes out on top, or at least no worse than others. So his superior attitude is somewhat justified.

[Virus]

If we simply leave Iraq with it in this situation of civil war and pervasive religious violence and crime and corruption all we'll be doing is opening the door to things much much worse. Genocide, Ethnic cleansing, Religious massacres on scales not seen in decades, not to mention creating a basic "vacuum" for countries like Iran and Syria to fill with their despotic policies. All of this would actually be a hard blow to our foreign diplomacy across the world. We started this with Iraq. We went in with a stick and hit the bee's nest over and over and now we're mad that we're getting stung. Leaving now would be the worst thing for our foreign policy since Vietnam. We need to follow the Iraq study group immediately and start working to fix this problem.

Iraq has mostly calmed down now.

[Ziggurat]

That may be a bit off-topic, but I do not think Eric Cartman is self-delusional. He always comes out on top, or at least no worse than others. So his superior attitude is somewhat justified.

I disagree. I would say he's worse off after some of his misadventures, like when he bought a theme park but then lost it:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152828/there-is-a-god
Or when he started a top-selling Christian Rock band in order to win a bet, but spent all his money and lost the bet on a technicality, then Token beats him up:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103763/myrrh-album

[Puppycow]

No, this speech isn't real, at least not yet.

Are you saying that we are leaving Iraq too abruptly?

You are aware of the reasons, I hope?

Iraq is a sovereign country, and this is what they have decided. They want our troops to leave by the end of this year. We offered to stay longer. They rejected that offer.

BTW, I recently read an article in the NY Times about what we are leaving behind. It's worth a read:

Premier’s Actions in Iraq Raise U.S. Concerns (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/world/middleeast/arrests-in-iraq-raise-concerns-about-maliki.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=maliki&st=cse)

BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has moved swiftly to consolidate power in advance of the American military withdrawal, offering a glimpse of how Iraq’s post-American identity may take shape, by rounding up hundreds of former Baath Party members and evicting Western companies from the heavily fortified Green Zone.

As Mr. Maliki met with President Obama in Washington on Monday to discuss Iraq’s future after the end of a painful nearly nine-year war, his aggressive actions back home raised new concerns in the West, where officials have long been uneasy with the prime minister’s authoritarian tendencies.

The actions also underscored the many lingering questions about America’s uncertain ally, a prime minister who once found refuge in Syria and Iran and who will now help write the epitaph to the American invasion.

So the evictions include not only the US military, but also "Western companies." Sounds like we're not going to have much influence on the future of Iraq.

Personally, I don't care about that, unless Iraq becomes a threat to us or other people. These wars have to end eventually.

"Our work here is done."

[leftysergeant]

So the evictions include not only the US military, but also "Western companies." Sounds like we're not going to have much influence on the future of Iraq.

Sounds like they may also take back some of what Bremer handed off to his capitalist cronies. Maybe it will b ecome apparent that all those private security contractors are no longer needed and we can cut them off the dole.

[Crossbow]

The question "asked" of him was rhetorical.

Thanks much for clearing that up! I had thought that you were actually addresing a five year post by a banned member of JREF and that you were expecting a reply from that person.

But it turns out that you were speaking rhetorically, so how very clever of you.