Since we've solved religion, let's take a whack at politics!

I haven't seen either of the debates, although I plan on checking out the transcripts soon.  Beyond that, feel free to begin discussing!

I know far less then many people about this but here's my thoughts anyways.

The US needs to stay where they are in Iraq.  Pulling out now would convince the psychopathic islamics that they have won and we would see a level of violence and destruction from them that would be incredibly high and frightening.

What needs to happen is a step up in what is going on to include Iran and maybe a couple other countries so that the job of destroying those who hate freedom is finished properly.

Only by completely decimating and demoralising an enemy can you win a war (see Hiroshima)  It's not pretty, it usually comes at extraordinary civilian loss, but it's the only way.

The only other option is to say that we are ok with the atrocities that are happening in certain countries around the world and to pull out.  I am not ok with that option.

All of that being said I am a Canadian - but I just fully support what is going on in the USA right now.

I think we need to do the opposite retreat to our borders, secure them and focus on what made America great trade and commerce, science and most importantly being an EXAMPLE of a democratic republic others could choose to take on. What right do we have on forcing our system on others after all they tried that in the region during the Crusades and you know what happened there?

Let these people fight it out and take our people out of harms way. If they think they can reach us let them try we are surrounded by oceans and we have a large population. Even if we have another 9/11 we can take it we have over 300 million people short of a large scale bio-weapon attack or several large nuclear devices it is not worth worrying about. So they car bomb here or take out a subway tunnel there we won't cease to exist. And its not worth spending time worrying about spending so much money.

So let them declare a victory if they wish and retreat from the field the United States as a whole is unlikely to be harmed seriously by a handful of relgious nutcases. We should focus only on serious WMD's to keep them contained an area all the nations agree on that are our allies.

I would agree.  I don't think getting into the war in the first place was a good idea, but now that we're in it, we need to clean up the mess we made.  It WILL get easier with time, but like you said, running away is just going to let the pot boil over.

I dont' understand why we went in the first place.  (Well, I do.  I just don't understand the reasons we've been given officially  ;P)  I also don't understand why there are so many troops.  I don't think we should bring them home tomorrow or something silly, but a unit at a time every few months?  I think it sound sreasonable, and would be a good negotiating point.  Be all like, "Hey, these guys will leave provided we see X reduction in violence."  That kind of thing.

Of course, I have a problem with waltzing into another country and completely smashing every shred of sovereignty.  For some reason, that seems to cheese folks off  ;P  BY removing some aspects of the offense, people may begin to calm down.

And why should we stomp out Iran and such?  Nutjobs exist in every country.  Oklahoma City?  Homegrown idiot.  Branch Davidians?  Homegrown idiots.  GW Bush?  Ho...well, you get the point  ^_~  Where does the American government get off thinking it's not only the right but the responsibility of our nation to police the planet and wipe out the "bad guys."  Hubris and empire-building has destroyed every single major...well, empire throughout history.  China, Rome, Incans, Mayans, all of them.  Unless the US gets its act together, we're going to be left friendless and weak.  Easy pickings, basically.

We actually smashed Iraq's sovereignty when we installed Hussein, but that's a subject for another post.

But most certainly, in about ten years, the US is going to be facing some of its greatest challenges ever.  We do need to start saving.  We're going to see huge numbers of retirees in the near future trying to live off social security.  The economy is going to hit a real speed bump, and if we're sunk in debt, well we're just sunk.  Fortunately we have about ten years to prepare before it gets to its worst.

Ruby,

The problem with retreating is that Radical Islam has made it very clear that they intend to enforce their system on Western Culture.  Hence 9/11.

And the type of violence witnessed at 9/11 is only the start.  If the USA simply withdrew and stayed within their own borders then we start discussing things like nuclear weapons being brought across.  That's more then a car bomb.  I hear things like "It's not worth the time and money" and then I look at the family's of the people that were killed at 9/11 and beg to differ.

Historically running away and hiding behind our own borders has been a very bad idea (World War II) so why repeat the mistakes of our past?

Zephyr,

The difference between Iran or North Korea and Oklahoma city is that Iran and North Korea are LED by nutjobs and RUN by nutjobs.  They hold the trigger on weapons that can obliterate entire cities.  If we care about our people, our culture and our safety then the only choice is to do something about it.

There would be no need to deal with other countries if time and time again history didn't prove that when left alone these other messed up countries come along wanting to impose their evil on the rest of us.  Better to deal with it now at a lower loss of life (though great still) then put it off until the last possible moment when our countries have been ravaged by radical islamics.

Overall I think military isolationism is an EXCELLENT idea, although in this case we have a moral obligation to clean up our mess.  Yes, WWII is an example where isolationism would have failed (although it's hard to be sure if it would have failed the US specifically, or just our allies), however WWII was caused by WWI, and what caused WWI?  Elaborate defensive treaties, the opposite of isolationism.  Look also at how many wars we've fought, oftentimes erroneously, because we have not pursued isolationism; Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf (as a result of our installing a dictator there in the first place) and so on.

We have put ourselves in the role of the policemen of the world, which is funny because the world doesn't seem to feel a policeman is necessary.  We've followed the foolish logic that if Vietnam becomes communist, the US would soon follow.  I would ask anyone here, really, why are we fighting in Iraq?  Why did we fight in Vietnam?

Well, the Cold War is over. Time to start reversing our policy. To explain, in that particular stretch of time, the US had a way of pretending petty dictators had anything to do with "the free world." I'd say kabolishing Saddam was a pretty good start in that direction.

For the most part, I'm a war hawk. I agree with Doulos in that the best solution to the insurgency in Iraq would be to backtrack the insurgency supplies and funding, and demolish them at the source. The insurgency funded by internal elements can be crushed by a stable government, be it democratic or other. If necessary, use nukes. That's what it took to stop suicide bombers when Japan used them, and it worked. Who am I do defy the results of history?

As for why we are in Iraq, I don't know. My best guess is that it is a ground in which we can draw out all of our enemies in the Middle Eastern region. I don't like this idea, though, because it is a very cold investment of lives. I hope for the sake of Bush's soul it pays off.

The insurgents will use SUVs and fertilizer if they have to.  A determined killer will always find a way.  Cutting off all supplies and funding would be impossible without a totalitarian world government, which I think would be a turn for the worst.

One of the candidates in the Republican debate had the right idea.  Set up a balance of power.  The insurgents feel threatened because they think they will have no voice, they feel that we are pursuing their livelihood.  I believe it was Churchill who asked, in a chase between a fox and a rabbit, who will win?  The answer is the rabbit, because the fox is running for his dinner, the rabbit is running for his life.  Churchill was right, these insurgents aren't fighting for the same reason we are, they're the 1778 revolutionaries fighting for what they believe are God-given rights.  They aren't boogeymen, they aren't men in sheets, they're fathers and brothers and sons who were raised knowing right from wrong and a pretty sure they're going to be wiped out for it.

So no, war will never successfully end the bogeyman threat.  What war WILL do is create a sense of security that will enable democracy, and democracy, if done properly, will give those 'insurgents' other tools to fight for what they believe in.  We need to enable the insurgents, not kill them, especially since, strictly speaking, the only real insurgents are the US forces.  Iraq needs three things; security (this is where US troops come in), education (which we've lost ground on), and tools of empowerment (which the insurgents have, but which we've been trying to cut them off from).  Once you have those three pillars, you can build a balanced democracy.

So keep funding the Iraqi defense groups.  Get a cheap device to sniff out bombs.  Teach Iraqis to defend themselves.  Meanwhile, start building schools!  Until we get people educated, we'll never be able to leave Iraq in better condition than it was in before.

Response accepted. I concur.

I just finished reading over the Democratic and Republican debates...  Woooh, that Gravel!  He really is a crazy old coot!  If anyone gets the chance, look up the transcripts and JUST read Gravel's responses.  They're pretty darn funny.  Beyond that, I really feel like the Daily show summed them up best.  Basically all the top runner democrats seem to be in more or less total agreement that Bush is wrong and they are right, get out of Iraq, socialized health care, etc., which is pretty boring.  A few of the lower ranking ones (including Gravel) have some more innovative ideas.  The Republicans are a little more scattered.  Some strong Consitutionalists, strong Libertarians, and even a Democrat in the mixed (don't tell me Giuliani is really a Republican.  An (R) behind his name a Republican does not make.)  I was amazed that I saw two Republican candidates talking about getting rid of income tax.

Surprisingly, I'm 100% in agreement with Doulos on this and not in agreement with katisara.  Usually, I agree with katisara.

Whether the intel was good or bad, we went to Iraq, not just to stop terrorism, and not just because of reported WMDs, but also because Hussein was committing genocide (had killed in the neighborhood of half a million or more) and refused to obey the UN, and also was shooting at our planes.  How much of that should we take?  How much risk of nuclear war or WMD's do we have to subject ourselves to in order to be nice?  If he had simply let the UN inspectors in to inspect and discover whether there really were WMD's, much could have been avoided.  If he had stopped invading restricted airspace and shooting at our planes, maybe it could have been avoided.  If he had not gone on a genocidal, tyrannical power trip that included extreme torture, rapine, and murder, then maybe it could have been avoided...

Frankly, I find the arguments against going into the war completely laughable.  Forget the terrorists; Saddam deserved it.  Now, his people are free.  The majority of Iraqi's support what the US did and its presence there.  The mainstream media, for its ratings, simply focuses on the bad things, not the renewed educational system, water and utilities, hope and, let's not forget, freedom we gave them.

Now, in the post-war war, it is becoming a haven for terrorists.  Better there than here.

Focusing on our domestic defense only is short sighted.  It sure didn't prevent 9/11.  Besides, we are focusing on that too.  Why focus on one and not the other?

Now, we just have to tighten the borders and get strict on immigration.

P.S. The video store clerk who stopped the terrorist plot at Fort Dix should be lauded as an American hero.

That brings up a very interesting question, though.

Do we have a responsibility to violate a nation's sovereignity to stop genocide, and how far should we go towards that ends?  I have no question that WWII was a good move.  I don't know that Iraq was a good move (I didn't totally believe the WMD argument when it came up because it was toted almost completely by politicians, I didn't hear enough people who would have an objective opinion to feel satisfied).  If we have an obligation to enter Iraq to stop genocide, do we have a responsibility to stay there solely to stop the same?  If the UN fails to act on Darfur, as it has been doing because the UN is generally useless, should we move troops into Darfur?  What about China, which has been committing humanitarian crimes for decades?  Are we, as a nation, really responsible for aggressively protecting other populations, even at the cost of our own security, and how far should we go?

I'll admit, this is a question I personally have no answer for (or more accurately, I have too many answers for).

I'm afraid, Heath, that I must respectfully disagree with many of your points.

Whether the intel was good or bad, we went to Iraq, not just to stop terrorism, and not just because of reported WMDs, but also because Hussein was committing genocide (had killed in the neighborhood of half a million or more)

We haven't exactly done the Iraqi population any favors either. The coalition forces have killed two hundred thousand civilians, and the civil war that the invasion started has killed another four hundred thousand.

also was shooting at our planes.  How much of that should we take?

The US has had over three thousand soldiers killed as a result of the invasion, I do believe that's more than would have been killed if we hadn't invaded, so the invasion can't exactly claim to have been protecting American military lives.

How much risk of nuclear war or WMD's do we have to subject ourselves to in order to be nice?

What risk? Saddam didn't have any WMDs, and even if he did, he wouldn't have used them. He was a tyrant, not suicidal. He would not more deploy a nuclear/biological weapon or give it to a terrorist then he would stick a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger.

if he had simply let the UN inspectors in to inspect and discover whether there really were WMD's, much could have been avoided.

He did. They couldn't complete the inspection because somebody went and invaded Iraq before they were finished.

If he had not gone on a genocidal, tyrannical power trip that included extreme torture, rapine, and murder, then maybe it could have been avoided...

That didn't bother the United States during the Iran-Iraq war.

Now, his people are free.

No they're not. Iraq is in a state of anarchy, with no prospects of becoming anything else in the near future. You need a strong government for the populace to be free, as without one, anybody just come along a take away a person's freedom, including his freedom to live.

The majority of Iraqi's support what the US did and its presence there.

Actually, more than sixty percent of them want you out of the country immediately: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2006092701435.html

Now, in the post-war war, it is becoming a haven for terrorists.  Better there than here.

Actually, it's becoming a wonderful recruiting location for terrorists who are parts of international organizations

Did you know that every intelligence agency in the United States is in agreement that the Iraq war has only greatly increased the risk of terrorism against American civilians at home and abroad?

Focusing on our domestic defense only is short sighted.  It sure didn't prevent 9/11.  Besides, we are focusing on that too.  Why focus on one and not the other?

Because
A) Iraq was the one nation (apart from Israel) in the Middle East that had virtually nothing to do with terrorism against the United States
B) Invading Iraq has only increased the risk of terrorism, by providing terrorist groups with loads of propaganda, and a large population to recruit from, many of whom have had relatives killed by the American military
This message was last edited by the player at 12:37, Thu 10 May 2007.

I will say, the Post is a pretty liberal rag.  If they say it's 60%, I wouldn't be surprised to hear it's a smidge lower.  Now that isn't to say that all Iraqis are delighted we're there, nor to say that they weren't delighted we were there when we first went in.  I'm just saying, we really don't have a reliable source of information on the topic one way or another.  Just like our reasons for going in, I'd sort of like something a little more thorough and objective before going out.

Hey Falkus,

Just to address a little of what you say.  Keep in mind I don't claim to be any sort of expert in this area at all.

"We haven't exactly done the Iraqi population any favors either. The coalition forces have killed two hundred thousand civilians, and the civil war that the invasion started has killed another four hundred thousand."

I do wonder though what those number of dead would have been had the US not gone /in to help this country.  It's something we'll never know.  The sad reality though is that in order to wipe out a completely ingrained radical islamic group like this will take civilian casualties.  Hiroshima killed so many people and was an awful destruction of civilian life, but stopped the war then and there.  So in my opinion anyways, that was well worth it.

<i>"The US has had over three thousand soldiers killed as a result of the invasion, I do believe that's more than would have been killed if we hadn't invaded, so the invasion can't exactly claim to have been protecting American military lives."

Perhaps.  Or maybe they would have struck even harder had the US not responded like they did.  We have no way of knowing.  For all we know, they have saved thousands and thousands of US lives as well *shrug*

"What risk? Saddam didn't have any WMDs, and even if he did, he wouldn't have used them. He was a tyrant, not suicidal. He would not more deploy a nuclear/biological weapon or give it to a terrorist then he would stick a gun in his mouth and pull the trigger."

I would say one of the biggest flaws with all of this is that it is limited to Iraq.  Bigger threats include Iran and North Korea - countries led by insane folks with access to nuclear weapons.  Uh oh not good!

"He did. They couldn't complete the inspection because somebody went and invaded Iraq before they were finished."

I don't know the timeline on all of this so I can't really comment.  I do think it is generally acknowledged that the UN is basically useless and spineless when it comes to situations like these.

"That didn't bother the United States during the Iran-Iraq war."

And that's a bad thing.  Thankfully they corrected their error and did something about it.

"No they're not. Iraq is in a state of anarchy, with no prospects of becoming anything else in the near future. You need a strong government for the populace to be free, as without one, anybody just come along a take away a person's freedom, including his freedom to live."

That's a pretty bleak view.  Things are still bad to be sure but we have to realise that we're trying to move an entire country from the dark ages and towards a system of living that is at least somewhat compatible with the modern world.  IT can and should be done in a way that fits the people's culture still and that's the challenge.  But there are good things happening in Iraq that the bad press forgets about (people actually got to vote in an election, all of the major groups (Kurds, Shiites etc) all were able to agree on a constitution which was then approved despite huge threats from terrorist organizations.  Huge steps towards democracy and things that are often lost in the bad press.  There are so many challenges still to be faced but this is a long term solution, not a quick fix and it is going to take a huge cost in terms of time and life - some people think it is not worth it - but I am on the side of the ledger that says it is more then worth it.

"Actually, more than sixty percent of them want you out of the country immediately: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2006092701435.html

Actually, it's becoming a wonderful recruiting location for terrorists who are parts of international organizations

Did you know that every intelligence agency in the United States is in agreement that the Iraq war has only greatly increased the risk of terrorism against American civilians at home and abroad?"

This shouldn't be surprising at all.  The bigger the ship, the longer it takes to turn it around.  It's not surprising at all that the terrorist threat is worse - right now.  But this is a long term plan, and sticking it out in the long run will eventually cause that to drastically drop.

"A) Iraq was the one nation (apart from Israel) in the Middle East that had virtually nothing to do with terrorism against the United States
B) Invading Iraq has only increased the risk of terrorism, by providing terrorist groups with loads of propaganda, and a large population to recruit from, many of whom have had relatives killed by the American military"

I do agree that Iraq might have been the wrong place to start and that there very likely could have been other motivations as well (oil or whatever) for invading there.  Iran and North Korea are far more threatening to the US then Iraq.  But at the end of the day this is a plan of action that the US should be committed to for the long haul and a backing out now would be incredibly bad for the people of the USA and it's allies.

It's something we'll never know.  The sad reality though is that in order to wipe out a completely ingrained radical islamic group like this will take civilian casualties.

Ingrained radical Islamic group? What the hell are you talking about? Saddam was a secular dictator. His rule was the least religious in the entire middle east.

Perhaps.  Or maybe they would have struck even harder had the US not responded like they did.  We have no way of knowing.  For all we know, they have saved thousands and thousands of US lives as well *shrug*

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Iraq was a military threat to the United States? That Iraq was secretly plotting some sort of invasion of the United States?

I would say one of the biggest flaws with all of this is that it is limited to Iraq.  Bigger threats include Iran and North Korea - countries led by insane folks with access to nuclear weapons.  Uh oh not good!

Oh please, using a nuclear weapon is tantamount to suicide. Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons for the same reason everybody else does. As a deterrent, not as an offensive weapon. I've studied this, governments and nations are entities that act rationally. And national suicide is not rational.

I don't know the timeline on all of this so I can't really comment.  I do think it is generally acknowledged that the UN is basically useless and spineless when it comes to situations like these.

Actually, it isn't generally acknowledged. And, FYI, insults against an organization do not a rebuttal make.

And that's a bad thing.  Thankfully they corrected their error and did something about it.

My point is that US foreign policy has not, in the past, praticularly cared about the moral righteousness of the dictators they support or fight, and I don't have any reason to believe that this is has changed.

That's a pretty bleak view.

It's an accurate view, the nation is in a low grade civil war, with no real hope of ending it any time soon.

people actually got to vote in an election,

And the government they voted for is continuing Saddam's legacy of torture and murder of innocent people or people who politically disagree with the government. Seems to me that it would have been more efficient to leave Saddam in power in the first place.

This shouldn't be surprising at all.  The bigger the ship, the longer it takes to turn it around.  It's not surprising at all that the terrorist threat is worse - right now.  But this is a long term plan, and sticking it out in the long run will eventually cause that to drastically drop.

I disagree, I see no indication that the plan is working or will work. Stopping terrorism requires alleviating the social problems in the Middle East, not removing various dictators from power through acts of massive destruction on civilian populace.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:22, Thu 10 May 2007.

Sorry I stopped reading after 'What the hell are you saying', 'Are you seriously trying to suggest' and 'Oh Please' were included in your first three statements.


I think democracy and freedom is worth taking these kinds of actions for.  Many people disagree.

Political and religious discussions are naturally very charged, even if carefully worded.  That said, let's make sure we keep it carefully worded.  Personal attacks won't be tolerated.  Keep it cool, fellows.

Political and religious discussions are naturally very charged, even if carefully worded.  That said, let's make sure we keep it carefully worded.  Personal attacks won't be tolerated.  Keep it cool, fellows.

My apologies.

Here's my view on the whole matter of Iraq: It was a mistake. The US went in without a plan for what would happen after removing Saddam from power, and made numerous false assumptions about the Iraq. They were also highly negligent in securing the Iraq military weapons depots, allowing unprecedented amounts of explosives to fall into the hands of insurgents and terrorists. Finally, the new government of Iraq has yet to prove itself to be any better than the old government.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:32, Thu 10 May 2007.

Apparently, the facts you guys reported on Al Sharpton might be wrong about him recanting what he said about Mormons:



Considering that this is factually flawed to begin with and filled with bigotry as well, the guy should lose his job.  If I said "traditionally Blacks..." [insert stereotype of your choice], what would you call me?  I've never seen such hypocracy.

As for Iraq, Falkus' points are your basic liberal bashing on the war, which I believe is full of factual flaws.  To say we haven't done them any favors when we brought them freedom is wrong.  "Any" favors?  You seriously can't be suggesting we have done nothing good for them.

I don't really have any other comments.  I'm not here to have a conservative-liberal hack-n-slash.  I believe my facts speak for themselves.  The media has done a good job of supporting the liberal hack job against Bush and the war.  The problem is that this discussion (no matter who's involved) is too much tainted with partial facts and rhetorical connotations to be of much value practicallly.  I could say that they are no longer afraid of being killed, tortured and/or raped by a tyrannical leader, and you could say that, yes, they're free, but now they have insurgents to be afraid of.  Given the extent of harm, fear, damage the insurgents do as compared to what Saddam did, I think they're in a far better place now...and America is far safer as well.

To say we haven't done them any favors when we brought them freedom is wrong.

Can you have freedom in a nation where the government abducts, tortures and executes political dissidents?

Also, you cannot be free without a strong government capable of protecting your freedom for you from those who would take it from you. Given that Iraq is engaged in a low-scale civil war, these conditions do not exist. Freedom is not a natural state of being, it requires sacrifice and a good society in order to exist.

I believe my facts speak for themselves.

Likewise. Six hundred thousand civilians have died to put in a government that's the moral equivalent of Saddam.

I could say that they are no longer afraid of being killed, tortured and/or raped by a tyrannical leader

Now they can just be afraid of being killed, tortured and/or raped by a democratically elected leader.

and America is far safer as well.

The CIA and the FBI and every other western intelligence agency on the planet disagree with this statement.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:05, Fri 11 May 2007.

Ack!  Strong government is the enemy of freedom, not its requirement!  Are you saying that between 1778 and 1950, America was not free because it didn't have a strong government or a strong military?  Freedom is an individual right, and therefore it must be protected first and foremost at the individual level.  This is why the 'insurgents' are doing as well as they are.  They understand this.  The Joe Shmoes are getting run over because they're waiting for strong government instead of making a strong populace.

Ack!  Strong government is the enemy of freedom, not its requirement!

I disagree. A right that is not protected does not exist. The individual cannot protect his own rights all the time, so someone must protect them for him.

You cannot have freedom in an anarchy, because anybody who stronger, faster, smarter, etc. than you can take away your rights at his pleasure.

Are you saying that between 1778 and 1950, America was not free because it didn't have a strong government or a strong military?

It could protect its citizens well enough.

Freedom is an individual right, and therefore it must be protected first and foremost at the individual level.

A government can set up a rudimentary law enforcement system, and establish laws and punish those who violate the rights of others, thus both removing and reeducating those who violate the rights of others and deterring other people who would violate rights. Can an individual do this?

But a government, and really, any organization, is going to protect its own interests first, and those of its constituents second.  A strong government is then a slippery slope.  This is the single greatest failing of communism that we've seen so far; it depends on a strong government being truly altruistic.  The result is generally closer to fascism.  Democracy is unusual because by it's nature it's a WEAK government.  The US government especially is unusual because it was built on the concept of the government being afraid of the people.



Any social group can lend security.  That isn't solely a function of government.  It's a function of people.  To think that security is lent solely from the government isn't simply wrong, it's dangerous, because it tells people when stuff goes wrong, just run away or wait around until the government comes to sort it out.  I can name two or three tragedies in just the last three or four years (and, in fact, just about any tragedy during our lifetime) where the 'sit and wait for the government' plan turned out to be the worst possible course of action.

Security is not a function of government, it is a function of people banding together to enforce it on their own.  Government is, sometimes, a group of people banding together for that purpose, but only too soon that group of people realizes once THEY are safe, they really don't have a lot of reason to make sure anyone else is safe.  Hence, the basis behind the US government being of [all] the people.  Everyone is part of the government.



You mean its citizens could?  'America' was not much of an 'it'.  There was barely a standing army for most of that time, weak police forces.  I'm sure you're not referring to the physical land itself!  History has shown us that the great experiment that is the US worked, even though it was built upon the odd belief that we don't need some overlord to wipe our butts for us.



Like I said, any group of individuals can do this, and, in my opinion, is ethically bound to do this (not to say that people should form lynch mobs, but they must have a say in how law enforcement works, and a hand in helping that.  Law enforcement isn'g done by 'them', it's done by us.  It's just some of us are specialists who get paid for it.

On the flip side, government is not required to form a law enforcement system, and may find that a just and effective law enforcement system is contrary to its best interests.  DC police don't do such a hot job in SE because the people who live there aren't government workers, don't pay as much in taxes, and don't push their political views as much.  Those closer to the mall get protection because the cops know that's where their money comes from.  Find me a city where its poor are protected as well as its rich and maybe you've found a city where the government is truly servings its purpose and not just protecting its own interests.

Actually, to expect the ones who want to rule to provide a law enforcement system of some kind IS necessary. Don't get me wrong; it is possible to do without one, but only if the area being governed is small. Otherwise, it is necessary. Theory: the point of law is to protect its citizenry. Government's sole reason for existence is to provide law. Hence, the govenrment's duty is to protect its people, if only because government becomes pointless if everyone it rules over is dead or scattered.

On the flip side of that coin, I do see where you are coming from. No, the government shouldn't have to hold your hand every step of the way. Government should only become a factor in law enforcement if the citizenry is incapable of obtaining justice through their own means. (That's justice, not vengeance. Justice ensures the right person is being nailed and usually closes the issue. Vengeance has a much greater margin for error and tends to cause a great deal more trouble.) Most civil disputes shouldn't require government.

As for Iraq, if they don't get a stable government, civil waar will be the least of the concerns. The entire Middle East will become destabilized, and likely undergo a very brutal sectarian conflict divided between Sunni and Shiite. More so than usual, I mean, this is a centuries-old conflict that has come up. It just wasn't an issue in Iraq until we Americans came in.

I'm not sure how it turned into one.