Ah but Iraq was created by Western powers trying to 'fix' a situation in 1918. By your logic we should have let it devolved long ago. Note I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it shouldn't have been established in the first place should it? Some of the fallout from the first 'spreading democracy' foreign policy
I don't think we have any business in Iraq but we are there now.
Indeed. But 'fixing' one problem always leads to 'fixing' another, and another, and well you see where this leads.
Lastly,please state your position if you are going to satirize mine.
Don't feel special, I satirize most positions when it comes to Iraq. Especially the ones that state we (being the US) need to help another downtrodden group of people. I feel for the Christians. As a Christian myself, I know they need help from private organizations to be led to a point of safety. However that does not mean I advocate the State to ensure safety within another nation does it?
otherwise you sound just like a democrat, all criticism and no plan.
Plans were suggested long ago (well three+ years seems long ago now doesn't it?). They weren't listened to then and frankly I don't think they would work now. Unfortunately, contrary to solid conservative thought, the US must stabilize the Iraqi government to some extent. What that means however is who the Iraqis vote they get, whether we like the bastard or not. Maliki seems to lean to Iran, well too bad. That's what the Iraqis apparently wanted with their purple fingers isn't it? Let Maliki's government stabilize and get out.
The sad case however is that eventually the Iraqis will elect a theocratic government and draw ever closer to Iran over the next generation. But that's what we gave them isn't it? The freedom to choose their course. And when they do, there shouldn't be complaints coming from the either side of the aisle about going to 'fix' it again.