So what happens after Bush wins with Iraq?

1. There will be free democratic elections in January in Iraq, just like we just had in Afganistan.
2. Saddam will go on trial.
3. There will be a major operation in Fallujah. Non-terrorists are already leaving that area in prep for that. The Coalition is already prepping for it.
4. There will be somewhere about 120,000 Iraqi troops and security forces trained and they will start taking over some of these operations. This is key for 3 reasons: * It will relieve the Americans of some of these duties. * Since they will be protecting their own land, they will know the terrain, the people, etc... better and be able to better deal with some cultural, etc... situations there. and * They are not necessarily bound by the same liberal laws of how to treat terrorists and prisoners...
5. We will stay for the long haul until things are more calm there.
6. Things will continue to get worse before they get better because the terrorists are desparately holding on to the power they have had for so long. They will not give up very easily. But, they will be defeated if we stick with it and not flee like cowards. George Bush will stick with it. As tough as Kerry would like to sound in the final days of an election, I think most Americans see right through that.

Joseph Botwinick

 

What happens next you ask. Well, for starters there is Iran. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha.

Pax Americana

 

I thought the hallmark of terrorists was that they did NOT have power; weapons yes (amazing what they did with mere boxcutters), but no real power except through terror. In a way, this is an advantage for them because they have nothing to lose except their earthly lives (and some consider it a trade up).

editted to add - you're thinking of the PLO leadership and you're right - they do have power and status compared to their followers, but not compared to Israelis and most Westerners who can come and go and pretty much do as they please.

 

I thought the hallmark of terrorists was that they did NOT have power; weapons yes (amazing what they did with mere boxcutters), but no real power except through terror. In a way, this is an advantage for them because they have nothing to lose except their earthly lives (and some consider it a trade up).

editted to add - you're thinking of the PLO leadership and you're right - they do have power and status compared to their followers, but not compared to Israelis and most Westerners who can come and go and pretty much do as they please. </font>[/QUOTE]Daisy,

I think if you look at the last several decades of terrorists rule in Iraq and Afganistan, you know that isn't true. Take a look at the mass graves of the millions who have been brutally tortured and murdered by Saddam. Take a look at the violation of women's rights under the Taliban (just watch the movie Osama and I think you will get a good picture of what I am talking about). Yes, they have had power over the people and we are now doing something about it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I was actually talking about Iraq and Afganistan. I would say that not even Arafat had as much power as Saddam and the Taliban because he is has been kept more or less under house arrest for the last several years. But yes, in a sense, he has had some semblance of power and has been able to use it to terrorize Israelis and even some moderate Palestinians for many years. But, certainly, he has not had as much unchecked power as Saddam and the Taliban.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Saddam and the Taliban weren't terrorists, they were the government of the time.

 

Saddam and the Taliban weren't terrorists, they were the government of the time. </font>[/QUOTE]They were terrorists who doubled as the government. They rained terror on their own people. Don't confuse Saddam and the Taliban with proper benevolent government. That seems to be the fundamental misunderstanding of liberals.

 

They were at war. How does that compare to Hiroshima?

He was our good buddy until Kuwait; he has not threatened us. So are we terrorist to him?

 

To establish a Socialist, Islamic State. No wait, we've already done that.

How about right here at home? Any idea how many unborn babies have died on American soil in the last four years?

 

How about from '92 to 2000? Any idea Monergist?

 

I'd like abortion to be banned too, but can a President on his own ban a practice? Just wondering.

 

How about from '92 to 2000? Any idea Monergist? </font>[/QUOTE]It's running approximately 4000 per day, the same as killed in the 9/11 attacks. But it's not even on Bush's official agenda...you can see it on his website. Check out the Constitution Party website to see what the president can do.

 

In a way a president can ban abortion. He selects who sits on the Supreme Court. And those people seem to last forever!! So those that are chosen to sit on the court will influence things at least for the next generation.

 

Too bad Bush refuses to consider "pro-life" to be a requirement for his appointees.

But, there are other ways that the President can fight for the unborn. He could urge Congress to pass legislation, such as he did when he wanted socialized medicine and federal control of local education. But he won't do that, because, IMO, he doesn't care about the unborn. Why else would he omit them entirely from his official agenda?

 

Preborn humans don't vote Pa Jim.

 

The Kurds wanted independence and many in Iraq fought on Iran's side (for convenience, enemy of my enemy). Neither the Kurds nor Hussein considered them to be "his own people"; they were just stuck in that country after the region got divvied up.

One of Turkey's provisions for helping us in the current war was that the Kurds of Iraq not be granted independence lest the Kurds of Turkey get ideas.

I have no idea.

BTW, about the title of this thread, do you mean "what happens after Bush wins the election" or "what happens after Bush wins the war on Iraq"?