Bush, Iraqi leader co-host thank-you for coalition

Thursday 25th September, 06:29 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

13 Comments

Sarge at 08:07 AM JST - 25th September

Iraq is stabilizing. The terrorists are not going to be successful in turning Iraq into a haven for them. 28 countries have participated in the transformation of Iraq.
SezWho2 at 08:43 AM JST - 25th September

Iraq is stabilizing. Soon it may be as stable as it was before the invasion. Will we then need to invade again?
Alinsky4prez at 10:50 AM JST - 25th September

"Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Tonga, Turkey and the United Kingdom."

Whatever.
SuperLib at 11:39 AM JST - 25th September

the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq included 50,000 troops from more than three dozen countries other than the United States.

Wow, bigger than Afghanistan....
SuperLib at 11:40 AM JST - 25th September

Iraq is stabilizing. Soon it may be as stable as it was before the invasion. Will we then need to invade again?

What's the word you use? Snarky? ;)
SezWho2 at 11:55 AM JST - 25th September

SuperLib,

"Snarky" is the word I use, but then I go on to address the point. You seem only to want to throw things back in my face without engaging.

If Iraq is now stabilizing, it has not yet reached the level of stability that it had before we invaded. We might not have liked the form of that stability and we might prefer the form of our instability. However, can you or anyone else say that the ultimate stable government in Iraq--if there is one--will be a government in the form which we prefer? And if not, what then?

Of course, if it is just your pleasure to follow me around on message boards and snipe, then I wouldn't want to interfere with the free exercise of your happiness.
Nippon5 at 04:44 PM JST - 25th September

SezWho2 at 08:43 AM JST - 25th September

Iraq is stabilizing. Soon it may be as stable as it was before the invasion. Will we then need to invade again?

Killing 100k people to keep them from protesting or killing anyone who says anything you dont like is not stable its controlled. I cant believe you actually believe that it was stable..
SezWho2 at 10:23 PM JST - 25th September

Nippon5,

Yes, it was controlled. It was also stable.
Nippon5 at 10:48 PM JST - 25th September

SezWho2

Ok then if that is stable to you I understand your point.. Maybe we might get lucky in the states and we can get that type of stable goverment soon...
Badsey at 10:59 PM JST - 25th September

stability is nothing without control:

A foreign presence is leaving = you now have more of both.

Sure we are not talking BMW yet, but at least the car is rolling.
SezWho2 at 11:52 PM JST - 25th September

Nippon5,

I don't think that is "stable" to just me. I think that is "stable" to a lot of people. Here's what Webster's says about the word in its first meaning: firmly established. That's what Saddam's government was and the current government is not.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stable[3]

I hope our government never becomes like Saddam's was. However, there is a tendency for democracy to give way to demagoguery and I think we can easily see that tendency today in American politics.
Nippon5 at 05:18 PM JST - 26th September

SezWho2 not subject to insecurity or emotional illness http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stable[3]

That is also the right way to use the word in this situation..

No country is a true democracy and never will be until each person has an equal say. But a begining democracy is better then a dictatorship that kills its own people..

Hopefully the country has a better idea of what freedom feels like now and wont waste it when the American forces pull out. But as you say a democracy can become anything because it is a democracy and the people get to choose what they want.

On a side note... Im really getting tired of the (mod) taken out messages that are in a line of discussion and not out of line of the topic. If you want to take one part of a discussion out you should remove the whole line of discussion as it makes you look bad when you dont remove the first 6 of 7 messages that are "off topic".. Only reason this site is a site is those of us that take our time to post to it and click on your Ads, try to be a little more even in your judgement and maybe you will keep a good base of readers.
SezWho2 at 08:45 AM JST - 30th September

Nippon5,

Sorry not to have gotten back to you sooner. My computer went down.

I think I know what you're trying to say about "insecurity and emotional illness". However, I don't think that really applies. It might have applied to Saddam, but not to Iraq--just as it might have applied to Nixon but not to the US.

I don't really want to get into the discussion of which is better--democracy or dictatorship. Unless I can be the dictator, I prefer democracy. However, I think the question is really: which is better, a beginning democracy which is unstable and has no guarantee of remaining a democracy and in which its people are killed in large numbers or a dictatorship which is stable and has no certainty of remaining a dictatorship and in which its people are killed in large numbers.