America has lost the war in Iraq.

Yes.
McG fits right in with the sociopaths that took over Amerika, the NeoFascists.

"The Baath party were Saddam's willing executioners and most of them are complicent in genocide. Sorry mass homicide."

Incocorrect: Out of aprox. 1,400,000 Baathist Pary members only about 1% were complicit. Another failure of Bremmer's, which caused businesses to fail and mass unemployment, ergo the unrest.

Blaming the unrest only on "insurgents", rebels, terrorsits and rats is another exageration.

A myth: Right Wing is painted as efficient and organized.

The aftermath was bungled!

0 Replies

Quote:

If that's true, why are we in Faluja? Why would we risk our troops instead of just defending what " America is interested in, specifically oil fields, administrative centres and enough territory to build some very large military bases"?

thats a good question mcg.

The official answer is that we (and I keep using that plural pronoun to mean all the coalition forces but particularly the Americans) are in Falluja, because the Fallujians are being very naughty and resisting being liberated.

To turn the question on its head, what were the Germans doing in Stalingrad?

Or, to pose a counter factual argument (i actually hate these), what might the Canadian occupation forces be doing in Seattle?

What, in short, IS America doing in Iraq?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
If that's true, why are we in Faluja? Why would we risk our troops instead of just defending what " America is interested in, specifically oil fields, administrative centres and enough territory to build some very large military bases"?

thats a good question mcg.

The official answer is that we (and I keep using that plural pronoun to mean all the coalition forces but particularly the Americans) are in Falluja, because the Fallujians are being very naughty and resisting being liberated.

To turn the question on its head, what were the Germans doing in Stalingrad?

Or, to pose a counter factual argument (i actually hate these), what might the Canadian occupation forces be doing in Seattle?

What, in short, IS America doing in Iraq?

Steve, you said "The war is not won. It won't be won until we have established the stated objective of a free peaceful liberal and Muslim democracy in Iraq. Something worth striving for, but something nowhere near yet achieved. This is what worries me about simple statements like we won the war. It betrays the real American view, that "we" have taken control of the bits of Iraq "we" i.e. America is interested in, specifically oil fields, administrative centres and enough territory to build some very large military bases, while the fate of the rest of Iraq and its population is irrelevant. A free peaceful.. etc etc.
would be nice, but who cares, we now control the bits of Iraq that are important to furthering the interests of American geopolitical strategy."

I replied and you haven't answered my question. by your thinking, we are there merely to steal their oil and to set up bases. Why are we being so careful in dealing with the insurgency? Why are we trying to set up a government for Iraq? Why are we not simply destroying the cities and killing all those that oppose us? We haven't we just dropped a bomb on Al-Sadr's head? we know where he is, it would be really easy to do.

0 Replies

Many of you seem to have rejected the President's stated objectives without even considering them. One question; if we succeed in bringing about the President's stated objectives; won't the people both inside Iraq and outside alike be better off?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Many of you seem to have rejected the President's stated objectives without even considering them. One question; if we succeed in bringing about the President's stated objectives; won't the people both inside Iraq and outside alike be better off?

Sorry, O'Bill, but the Shrub's "stated objectives" only became the "stated objectives" when it became clear that the invasion had not uncovered WoMD, when the invasion did not turn up evidence of links to Al Qaeda. The entire humanitarian line was trotted out to justify pre-emptive war after the fact. What people reject is this pathetic fig leaf which the administration is trying to use. If what is happening right now is evidence of the skill with which we can expect this crew to manage the situation, then they need to go for that reason alone.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Many of you seem to have rejected the President's stated objectives without even considering them. One question; if we succeed in bringing about the President's stated objectives; won't the people both inside Iraq and outside alike be better off?

Sorry, O'Bill, but the Shrub's "stated objectives" only became the "stated objectives" when it became clear that the invasion had not uncovered WoMD, when the invasion did not turn up evidence of links to Al Qaeda. The entire humanitarian line was trotted out to justify pre-emptive war after the fact. What people reject is this pathetic fig leaf which the administration is trying to use. If what is happening right now is evidence of the skill with which we can expect this crew to manage the situation, then they need to go for that reason alone.

My hindsight is 20/20 too, Setenta. That doesn't answer my question. Forget the timing and answer "if we succeed in bringing about the President's stated objectives; won't the people both inside Iraq and outside alike be better off?"

0 Replies

That was a cheap shot, O'Bill. I wasn't indulging in Monday morning quarterbacking. You wrote:
"Many of you seem to have rejected the President's stated objectives without even considering them." My point is that there are those who criticize the administration because they feel they have been lied to, and for venal purposes. To that extent, you can expect those same people to be sceptical about what the real objectives of this administration are. If what they intend is an attetmpt to set up an allegedly democratic government with Chalabi in charge, then my answer is definitely no.

As soon as you delineate, in full, what you claim the Shrub's "stated objectives" to be, i will respond to them. And, i will reserve the right to point out where and when this crew has played fast and loose with the truth.

0 Replies

I dont know if I've said this already but I feel

1. the STATED objectives in Iraq are noble
2. the reality is blatant imperialism.

As Setanta will no doubt elaborate, we Brits are past masters in doing the Imperialism thingy. In many ways we were good at it, bringing Christianity, railways and industry to primitive peoples who were oblivious to the wealth under their feet. Of course we allowed them to share in that wealth, by sending them deep underground to dig it out for us.

0 Replies

Have we won "the war"? If the objective was to find WMD, obviously one cannot justify saying the war is over. I hesitate to say the war is over, when my little brother could be deployed to Iraq any day.

Are the Iraqis better off without Saddam Hussein? Yes.

Foxfyre wrote:

Two wrongs don't make a right. This is true. But there comes a time when when doing nothing is the most wrong thing to do.

Bush would have been better off justifying the war not with WMD, but with the thousands of people that Saddam murdered. Even so, I support his actions.

A question for those who oppose the US presence in Iraq: What exactly do you expect the US to do at this point? Would it be better to pull out and leave Iraq in shambles, so that another despot could come in and take control? (Remember Hitler's rise to power in post-WWI Germany?) If all Bush cared about was oil, as so many of you seem to say, he would have taken the oil and left a long time ago. Building peace takes time.

0 Replies

ruby_red wrote:

(Remember Hitler's rise to power in post-WWI Germany?)

The two situations are not analogous. Ludendorf, one of history's greatest self-deluding egomaniacs, created a myth in the first days after the collapse of the Imperial government. That myth was that Army was still triumphant when the civilian authority "stabbed them in the back." Hitler was simply a psycho-neurotic opportunist. He was not the first gutter politician out on the street with the basic message which was eventually peddled as Nazism, but he exploited the technique more effetively than anyone else. It is naive, at best, to compare these two situations.

Quote:

If all Bush cared about was oil, as so many of you seem to say, he would have taken the oil and left a long time ago. Building peace takes time.

I don't necessarily believe that the Shrub's goal was the oil--which does not exculpate the rest of his crew. However, building oil drilling and recovery infratructure, and terminal and/or pipeline facilities takes as long or longer than "nation building," quite apart from the fact that it can't be packed up and taken home--to get the benefit, the construction has to stay in place, and those who hope to profit from it have to keep a physical presence. While not purporting that the entire exercise was a venal ploy to get the oil, i consider it very likely that the oil was a major factor with important people within the administration. Your remark about nation building is a non-starter as a vindication of this war.

0 Replies

I didn't mean to cheap shot you, Set. I gotta go pick up supplies for my next Costa Rican adventure (Sunday) now, but I'll try to elaborate later.

0 Replies

'K, O'Bill, no problem . . . have fun and be safe . . .

0 Replies

Let's call it what it is: in Fallujah, it's a gun grab.

Under Iraqi law, Iraqi citizens are allowed to own fire arms, just as Americans are allowed the same right.

So here is this massive, US led military presence in Fallujah telling Iraqis who's confidence and trust we're supposed to be earning, that they can't have guns and if they don't hand them over to the occupying force, they will be shot on sight.

I mean, let's burn a few more bridges. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

How wonderfully uninformed you are. It's a gun grab... sheesh. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

The Point?
If the Iraqis don't want American style Democracy aka Plutocracy isn't it their right to chose whatever form of Govt. they desire?

In America the citizens have the right to bear arms and form militias. In Iraq now it seems that this right has not been granted by the US Govt. of Occupation.

The War for the hearts and minds of Iraq has been lost.

Now the US Govt. is seen as the Imperialistic Occupier, which of course, it is!

0 Replies

Every Iraqi is allowed to own one small weapon (AK-47 which Americans are NOT allowed to own.)

They are NOT allowed to have RPG's, SHoulder launched missiles, morters, heavy machine guns, etc... These are weapons of war, not defense. Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?

Also, no one is "forcing" an American style democracy on anyone. It will be an Iraqi style democracy and will represent all parts of Iraq equally.

0 Replies

Good to know
It's comforting to know from an "offical authority" what Iraqi "Democracy" will be like.

Rolling Eyes

"One question; if we succeed in bringing about the President's stated objectives; won't the people both inside Iraq and outside alike be better off?

One question deserves another.

Firstly the President's objectives off "Freedom" must be defined.

What if Iraq does emerge as a "Democracy", a Representive Republic and demands that the US Troops completely leave Iraq and tear down the 14 Military bases and also demands that all US Corps leave?

0 Replies

Re: Good to know

pistoff wrote:

"One question; if we succeed in bringing about the President's stated objectives; won't the people both inside Iraq and outside alike be better off?

One question deserves another.

Firstly the President's objectives off "Freedom" must be defined.

What if Iraq does emerge as a "Democracy", a Representive Republic and demands that the US Troops completely leave Iraq and tear down the 14 Military bases and also demands that all US Corps leave?

One question does deserve another. Typically you answer before you ask... but I'll go first. In the event we succeed at bringing a true representative system of government to Iraq, without stealing their resources, they'd be fools to want us to go away. Having American Military Bases in your country is the height of National Security. Gone will be the possibility of a foreign power ever again attacking, let alone defeating you. Think about it. As for Oil... The world market determines the price and we happen to be the biggest customer. Do you really think any oil producing country want us to stop buying its oil? Please.

What I meant by "stated objectives" precisely what the President said. Establish a democratic government that guarantees a voice to all the citizens in Iraq. Remove the oppressors, roll back the sanctions and hold their hands as they join the rest of the civilized world. Of course it's a daunting task; but if we succeed we will have proven to the entire ME that there is a better way and when people learn what true freedom is, they'll desire it. We've seen how hard these people will fight for what they believe in. It's time we show them something worth fighting for.

I'm not suggesting King George II started this thing for humanitarian reasons. I'm saying it's entirely possible he'll finish it that way, if for no other reason than to save what's left of his face. If he succeeds, the Iraqi people will have something they've never had before and Americans will have a reason to be proud.

I'm reminded of the Porsche 911. The design made no sense at all and was scoffed at but the result was described as "a bad idea done to perfection". The Iraqi people can't do this on their own and there is plenty of doubt whether the most powerful country in the world will be enough to help them. But imagine success, and what you would feel in retrospect.

As for our soldiers: they are risking their necks to free oppressed strangers. What nobler purpose could there be?

0 Replies

O'Bill, it is highly unlikely that a truly representative government--of the type we know with largely simple majority rule--would stand for very long without setting up a timetable for the U.S. to get out, and soon. The Shi'ia outnumber the Sunni, both Arab and Kurd Sunni. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether or not the Arab and Kurd Sunnis simply submit to a Shi'ite government--do you really expect that Shi'ism, largest minority "sect" of Islam, will tolerate an unlimited American presence?

Legitimacy in Saudia Arabia, whether under the Ibn Saud clan, or previously under the Turks, is conferred by safeguarding the safety of Pilgrims to the holy shrines of Mecca and Medina. In Iraq, Shi'ite legitimacy will be defined by the ability to protect Pilgrims to the holy shrines in Najaf and Karbala. Bin Laden went to war with us because there were "Infidel" soldiers in the homeland of the holy shrines of Islam. I suggest to you that you need to undestand that the same condition will apply to Iraq, and especially to the Mosque of Ali. Ali was the Prophet's cousin, and his son-in-law, and he was considered Islam's Greatest Holy Warrior by many--a point not to be ignored. Shi'ism became the majority "cult" (second only to the Sunna) of Islam within a generation of the Prophet's death. The reaction of fundamentalist Shi'ites (not to complicate this, but there are many sects of Shi'ia, and there are Sufi mystics as well--but the principle point here is that Shi'ia will unite on this issue) to the occupation of the holy places of Shi'ism will be just as fanatical as Al Qaeda's reaction to U.S. troops in Saudia Arabia. And they will come to Iraq in their seemingly endless thousands to kill Americans. Please spare me the indignity of saying that its better to fight "terrorism" there than here. The Shi'ite fanatics we will face if we don't get the hell away from Najaf and Karbala, wouldn't be terrotists if we weren't there. Ask yourself what the reaction of Americans would be if the Arabs took Israel, and denied our people access to Jerusalem and Bethlehem . . .

0 Replies

Bill, bring us some fine coffee, and maybe a few cigars.

0 Replies

America has lost the war in Iraq.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know