THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

The only Americans who died past-1945 in Germany were (as far as I could find out) victims of traffic accidents (and might be by "friendly fire", but that was listed by the US-forces as accidents).

0 Replies

Benign Iraq? ROF

0 Replies

"Five years after sending US troops to war, Bush still glories in his monumental stupidity. He boasts about progress, conveniently forgetting his "Mission Accomplished" boast of May 1, 2003.

Yes, of course Saddam was a tyrant. But Iraq remained an integral nation despite his tyranny. I don't recall any Iraqi introducing him or herself as a Sunni, Shiite, Kurd or Christian. Water flowed and sewage was treated. Business ran smoothly. Yes, no one dared criticize Saddam, but off camera an Iraqi engineer begged me to tell US authorities not to invade. "Saddam is old. His sons are idiots and incapable of taking over. Have patience. We are a 6,000 year old civilization. We will manage the transition."

No arguments would have swayed Bush and Cheney from their war. Five bloody years later , US power and technology has not provided a transition. Cockburn writes: "Five years of occupation have destroyed Iraq as a country. Baghdad is today a collection of hostile Sunni and Shia ghettoes divided by high concrete walls. Different districts even have different national flags. Sunni areas use the old Iraqi flag with the three stars of the Baath party and the Shia wave a newer version, adopted by the Shia-Kurdish government. The Kurds have their own flag."

In US politics these themes fade into vague declarations of "ending the war" at some future point (Clinton and Obama) or staying the course forever (McCain). As each candidate strains to convince the public that he or she has the unique combination of qualities to lead the nation--none dare say empire -- they avoid the knottiest issue that will confront the next chief executive: extrication for the sickening quicksand into which Bush has placed the country.

http://www.counterpunch.org/

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

And as we should not be taken off topic by those silly accusations, this here warrants repeating:

hamburger wrote:
foxfire wrote :

Quote:
But if you think there was not residual resistance in Korea, Germany, Japan et al after the initial occupation, your history teachers really let you down.

perhaps you want to enlighten the readers where that "residual resistance" in germany took place .
i lived through the war and occupation years as a teenager and have posted about my personal experiences during that time several times on a2k .

to the best of my knowledge , no allied soldiers or germans died from any war-like actions after the war ended .

so i wonder where the "residual resistance" was ?

I'd really like to see an answer to that question.

I had two uncles who were part of that occupation force in the months following the surrender of Germany. As I have previously stated, Germany was different because the Allies pretty well bludgeoned it into submission. In their memoirs, my uncles talk of residual hostilities, especially among some visionary German youth who were not ready to relinquish their visions of Nazi supremacy. The same kind of hostility was apparent in Japan. I agree there is no comparison between the German and Japanese occupations and Iraq and by comparison the resistance was small and inconsequential in Germany and Japan. A better comparison would be the example of Korea, Bosnia, and Kosovo in which the war didn't end nice and neat with an unconditional surrender but rather just stopped. Reconstruction has been much more difficult in those places, but, as in Germany and Japan, we still have a presence in all those places.

(I don't mean to imply that reconstruction in Germany was any picnic either. My uncles also wrote of their grief and anger over the very real suffering of German citizens, especially the kids, who did suffer some extreme deprivation before things were finally put back together there. I don't recall whether they mentioned it, but some of that was surely converted into anger directed at the occupying Allies. That would be only natural I would think.)

McCain envisions that victory in Iraq will be when the Iraqis have a strong and independent government capable of defending itself. He envisions a peaceful American presence in Iraq that would look no different than our presence in Germany, Japan, Kuwait, Korea, et al look now.

But Iraq is unique in that you are dealing with myriad countries funneling supplies, weaponry, and manpower into Iraq with the intention of keeping the war going, and we have been unwilling to use overwhelming force to bring it to a close.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Now if you did not intend to imply that Krauthammer and McCain have your vision of Iraq in mind with a 100-year presence that looks like Iraq of the last five years, then say so and admit that you distorted what Krauthammer said.

I don't care very much what 'vision' they have in mind.

The vision Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld had in mind was one where Saddam would be defeated in a couple of days, where Americans would be greated 'with flowers', 'as liberators', where the war would cost roughly $60 billion that would be paid for by the profits from selling Iraqi oil, etc. etc.

I'm sure you remember those 'visions' quite well.

Now, the question of how to deal with Iraq, how to handle the situation, is a difficult one. That's certain.

But whatever you believe should be the course for Iraq, I wouldn't want the decision based on a rosy, fantastic assessment of the current situation.

Foxfyre wrote:

Otherwise I will assume that I was correct in my observation that you think they want a prolonged occupation involving 10s of thousands of deaths so long as it isn't Americans who are being killed.

I haven't said that is what they would want. But I have to refer you again to McCain, who has said that "Americans wouldn't mind".

According to McCain, Americans wouldn't mind an occupation of Iraq, as long as no Americans got killed.

Foxfyre wrote:

And it is this kind of distortion of American goals and intentions that gives me a very strong impression of antiAmericanism that is insulting.

Well, that's easy, then. We disagree on the interpretation of the current situation. The assessment of how an occupied Iraq might look like in the future. I haven't even mentioned "American goals".

Look.

I'm sure that the soldiers in Iraq or even many of the people supporting the occupation think they are acting in the Iraqis best interests. I don't dispute that.

However, you have to realize that American troops in Iraq are very much part of the current problem. And in that regard, the situation in Iraq is so entirely different from the situation in post-war (let's say) Germany that the comparison alone is breathtaking.

Therefore, I'm really criticising the carelessness of McCain and Krauthammer, of their arguments that run along the lines of "Hey, we did it in South Korea and Japan, and worked really well - so what's the problem?"

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I had two uncles who were part of that occupation force in the months following the surrender of Germany. As I have previously stated, Germany was different because the Allies pretty well bludgeoned it into submission. In their memoirs, my uncles talk of residual hostilities, especially among some visionary German youth who were not ready to relinquish their visions of Nazi supremacy.

May I sincerely and honestly doubt that such happened "after the initial occupation". (Though it certainly depends on what YOU call 'intial occupation' here. But since you said "in the months following the surrender of Germany" - that would be May until late summer 1945, right?)

[ For instance, in the French Zone, in Tübingen, one day after it was occupied, on 20.04.1945, a German female civilian died by a granate attack from German Hitler youth.]

0 Replies

Quote:

I had two uncles who were part of that occupation force in the months following the surrender of Germany.

Figures you would say something like that; you always do. If you were old enough you would have probably claimed you were there in some kind of important capacity yourself as you usually do.

0 Replies

"Do not needlessly endanger your lives
until
I give you the signal.-"--- D D EISENHOWER

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I had two uncles who were part of that occupation force in the months following the surrender of Germany. As I have previously stated, Germany was different because the Allies pretty well bludgeoned it into submission. In their memoirs, my uncles talk of residual hostilities, especially among some visionary German youth who were not ready to relinquish their visions of Nazi supremacy.

May I sincerely and honestly doubt that such happened "after the initial occupation". (Though it certainly depends on what YOU call 'intial occupation' here. But since you said "in the months following the surrender of Germany" - that would be May until late summer 1945, right?)

[ For instance, in the French Zone, in Tübingen, one day after it was occupied, on 20.04.1945, a German female civilian died by a granate attack from German Hitler youth.]

I didn't say anything about anybody getting killed in Germany after the surrender Walter. I said that there was opposition in Germany to the American occupation. Are you prepared to tell me that all the Germans were happy the Americans (or other Allies) were there? Disbelieve me all you want, but at least disbelieve what I say, not what I didn't say. Opposition does not always mean shooting at somebody and I made a point to say that so far as I know, that kind of thing was inconsequential.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
I had two uncles who were part of that occupation force in the months following the surrender of Germany.

Figures you would say something like that; you always do. If you were old enough you would have probably claimed you were there in some kind of important capacity yourself as you usually do.

Thank you Revel. I always so much appreciate your psychic abilities. I wonder if you would appreciate being called a liar by somebody who has absolutely no way to know?

Well you just proved you have no psychic ability.

I have spoken extensively before that I am from a military family with quite a few members of my family at least in every 20th Century war. My father ran the commissary at a POW camp here in the states--for German prisoners by the way--his three brothers, my mom's brother, their collective four brother-in-laws, and an assortment of other relatives were all on active duty overseas in the war. Some of them were also in Korea. I come from large families on both sides.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Now if you did not intend to imply that Krauthammer and McCain have your vision of Iraq in mind with a 100-year presence that looks like Iraq of the last five years, then say so and admit that you distorted what Krauthammer said.

I don't care very much what 'vision' they have in mind.

The vision Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld had in mind was one where Saddam would be defeated in a couple of days, where Americans would be greated 'with flowers', 'as liberators', where the war would cost roughly $60 billion that would be paid for by the profits from selling Iraqi oil, etc. etc.

I'm sure you remember those 'visions' quite well.

I wasn't talking about Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld. I was talking about a Krauthammer opinion piece defending what John McCain mean by a 100-year presence in Iraq and how the Democrats are distorting that. It would have been far more honest on your part to have commented on that instead of introducing a lot of red herrings that are totally unrelated to either that piece or what McCain said.

Quote:

Now, the question of how to deal with Iraq, how to handle the situation, is a difficult one. That's certain.

But whatever you believe should be the course for Iraq, I wouldn't want the decision based on a rosy, fantastic assessment of the current situation.

What rosy, fantastic assessment of the current situation did either Krauthammer or McCain or I present in this discussion? Surely you wouldn't be building a straw man with that comment?

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Otherwise I will assume that I was correct in my observation that you think they want a prolonged occupation involving 10s of thousands of deaths so long as it isn't Americans who are being killed.

I haven't said that is what they would want. But I have to refer you again to McCain, who has said that "Americans wouldn't mind".

According to McCain, Americans wouldn't mind an occupation of Iraq, as long as no Americans got killed.

I will again refer you to the context of McCain's remarks and ask that you not take them out of context and dishonestly use them as the Democrats are doing here.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And it is this kind of distortion of American goals and intentions that gives me a very strong impression of antiAmericanism that is insulting.

Well, that's easy, then. We disagree on the interpretation of the current situation. The assessment of how an occupied Iraq might look like in the future. I haven't even mentioned "American goals".

You certainly implied that it was the goal of McCain to continue the shooting war in Iraq. And when I gave you a chance to explain that isn't what you meant, you didn't do so.

Quote:

Look.

I'm sure that the soldiers in Iraq or even many of the people supporting the occupation think they are acting in the Iraqis best interests. I don't dispute that.

However, you have to realize that American troops in Iraq are very much part of the current problem. And in that regard, the situation in Iraq is so entirely different from the situation in post-war (let's say) Germany that the comparison alone is breathtaking.

You are correct that there is no comparison between present day Iraq and post war Germany which is why I took some pains to explain that which you have not acknowledged.

But the point being made here by McCain, Krauthammer, and me is that a benign and friendly presence of Americans in Iraq for a long time to come would not be an objectionable concept. A goal of a free, independent, and prosperous Iraq that is a good citizen of the world is a worthy goal. I don't accept that the Iraq that has been and is must be the Iraq that always will be.

This was the message of McCain and Krauthammer, and you ignored it presumably so that you could heap more criticism on the United States.

Quote:

Therefore, I'm really criticising the carelessness of McCain and Krauthammer, of their arguments that run along the lines of "Hey, we did it in South Korea and Japan, and worked really well - so what's the problem?"

Please point out where this peculiar observation of your appears in anything McCain has said or in Krauthammer's piece.

0 Replies

Let the whole world support the decency and uphold democracy.
Barbaric banal butchering and torturing should stop whether from USA or from USA supported criminals.
Rama

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Now if you did not intend to imply that Krauthammer and McCain have your vision of Iraq in mind with a 100-year presence that looks like Iraq of the last five years, then say so and admit that you distorted what Krauthammer said.

I don't care very much what 'vision' they have in mind.

The vision Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld had in mind was one where Saddam would be defeated in a couple of days, where Americans would be greated 'with flowers', 'as liberators', where the war would cost roughly $60 billion that would be paid for by the profits from selling Iraqi oil, etc. etc.

I'm sure you remember those 'visions' quite well.

I wasn't talking about Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld. I was talking about a Krauthammer opinion piece defending what John McCain mean by a 100-year presence in Iraq and how the Democrats are distorting that. It would have been far more honest on your part to have commented on that instead of introducing a lot of red herrings that are totally unrelated to either that piece or what McCain said.

I was commenting on that. In Krauthammer's interpretation of McCain's words, the 100 (or 1,000 or 10,000) years of occupation would look like the continued military presence in South Korea or post-WWII Japan or Germany.

Or, in Krauthammer's words

Charles Krauthammer wrote:

benign and strategically advantageous

So here's the question: how do you get from the violent and strategically disadvantageous Iraq of 2008 to the envisioned "benign and strategically advantageous" Iraq that Krauthammer is talking about? How long will it take? Any guesses? Any proposals?

No.

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Now, the question of how to deal with Iraq, how to handle the situation, is a difficult one. That's certain.

But whatever you believe should be the course for Iraq, I wouldn't want the decision based on a rosy, fantastic assessment of the current situation.

What rosy, fantastic assessment of the current situation did either Krauthammer or McCain or I present in this discussion? Surely you wouldn't be building a straw man with that comment?

And you wouldn't want to twist what I've said, right?

The rosy, fantastic assessment is the assumption that a benign and strategically advantageous American presence in Iraq is a realistic option in the near future. Krauthammer (and McCain) is arguing that, hey, if there are no Americans dying (take note that neither of them mentions Iraqi casualties), then an American presence isn't really a problem.

That assumes that it's possible to maintain an American occupation force in Iraq while avoiding American casualties.

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Otherwise I will assume that I was correct in my observation that you think they want a prolonged occupation involving 10s of thousands of deaths so long as it isn't Americans who are being killed.

I haven't said that is what they would want. But I have to refer you again to McCain, who has said that "Americans wouldn't mind".

According to McCain, Americans wouldn't mind an occupation of Iraq, as long as no Americans got killed.

I will again refer you to the context of McCain's remarks and ask that you not take them out of context and dishonestly use them as the Democrats are doing here.

I agree. Let's look at the context. McCain on CBS's Face the Nation:

Quote:

"My point was and continues to be, how long do we have to stay in Bosnia? How long do we have to stay in South Korea? How long are we going to stay in Japan? How long are we going to stay in Germany? All of those, 50-, 60-year period. No one complains. In fact, they contribute enormously, their presence, to stability in the world," McCain said.

"The point is, it's American casualties. We've got to get Americans off the front line, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities. And then I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years. What they care about is a sacrifice of our most precious treasure, and that's American blood. So what I'm saying is look, if Americans are there in a support role, but they're not taking casualties, that's fine."

As I said: According to McCain, Americans wouldn't mind an occupation of Iraq, as long as no Americans got killed.

If you think that there was any other context to McCain's statement, go ahead and present it, and explain how that changes what he said.

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Foxfyre wrote:
And it is this kind of distortion of American goals and intentions that gives me a very strong impression of antiAmericanism that is insulting.

Well, that's easy, then. We disagree on the interpretation of the current situation. The assessment of how an occupied Iraq might look like in the future. I haven't even mentioned "American goals".

You certainly implied that it was the goal of McCain to continue the shooting war in Iraq. And when I gave you a chance to explain that isn't what you meant, you didn't do so.

I "implied that it was the goal of McCain to continue the shooting war"? Please go back and quote the post where you think I did so, and we can discuss this point intelligently...

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Look.

I'm sure that the soldiers in Iraq or even many of the people supporting the occupation think they are acting in the Iraqis best interests. I don't dispute that.

However, you have to realize that American troops in Iraq are very much part of the current problem. And in that regard, the situation in Iraq is so entirely different from the situation in post-war (let's say) Germany that the comparison alone is breathtaking.

You are correct that there is no comparison between present day Iraq and post war Germany which is why I took some pains to explain that which you have not acknowledged.

I've certainly acknowledged that. I even said "Thank you". Also, I'll acknowledge it again. Indeed, there's no comparison between present day Iraq and post war Germany.

Foxfyre wrote:

But the point being made here by McCain, Krauthammer, and me is that a benign and friendly presence of Americans in Iraq for a long time to come would not be an objectionable concept.

Well, I'll have to agree again. The concept is fine. I just think that a realistic assessment of the current situation will tell you that "a benign and friendly presence of Americans in Iraq", if American troops are to stay in Iraq and continue the current occupations, is at least years away.

Foxfyre wrote:

A goal of a free, independent, and prosperous Iraq that is a good citizen of the world is a worthy goal.

It is, indeed. I just don't think that continuing the current occupation is the best way to achieve that goal.

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't accept that the Iraq that has been and is must be the Iraq that always will be.

Fine with me.

Foxfyre wrote:

This was the message of McCain and Krauthammer,

It wasn't. Otherwise they would have said so. It's your interpretation of the message, and it's not worth more than anybody else's interpretation.

Foxfyre wrote:

and you ignored it

No. I just didn't interpret it the way you'd like me to.

Foxfyre wrote:

presumably so that you could heap more criticism on the United States.

Well, you're working based on wrong presumptions.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
You are fed up, but most of the Iraqi people want us to stay until they and their government can protect themselves without our help. They do not want to experience a return to this kind of horror:

This statement is not backed up with any kind of actual truth but only your thoughts of what they should want.

Seven out of 10 Iraqis want foreign forces to leave: poll ORB and its local partner IIACSS interviewed 4,000 Iraqis in person between February 24 and March 5.

WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS DUE 7 OUT OF 10 WANT FOREIGN FORCES TO LEAVE?

The poll results do not say. Hell, I want foreign forces to leave Iraq when the Iraqi people and there government can protect themselves against suicidal mass murderers.

Here's the rest of the story:

Quote:

Seven out of 10 Iraqis want foreign forces to leave: pollAgence France-Presse
Published: Monday March 17, 2008
...
LONDON (AFP) - More than two-thirds of Iraqis believe US-led coalition forces should leave, according to a poll conducted for British television ahead of the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

The ORB/Channel 4 News survey suggested that 70 percent thought multinational forces should withdraw.

Yet some 40 percent of the 4,000 people surveyed said they wanted the United States to play a bigger role in rebuilding Iraq and 36 percent wanted more British involvement.

Overall, the wide-ranging poll painted a mixed picture of Iraqi attitudes, contrasting their bleak daily existence with a surprisingly positive attitude about the future.

It threw up stark statistics on the human cost of war, which began on March 20, 2003, its effect on infrastructure and daily life, plus the bloody sectarian violence that erupted in the aftermath of the invasion.

A quarter of those surveyed said they had lost a family member to murder. In Baghdad, that figure rose to nearly half (45 percent).

Some 81 percent had suffered power cuts and 43 percent had experienced drinking water shortages. In the last month, more than a quarter (28 percent) had been short of food.

Opinions varied on progress towards democracy.

Less than a quarter (23 percent) thought military action would prove to have been in Iraq's long-term interests but 55 percent were optimistic about the future -- although 48 percent of the minority Sunni were not.

Some 45 percent said they were satisfied with the pace of change, compared with 40 percent who were not; and just over two-thirds (68 percent) predicted Iraq would "one day be peaceful and normal."

Four out of five people said their own area was already trouble-free.

ORB and its local partner IIACSS interviewed 4,000 Iraqis in person between February 24 and March 5.

0 Replies

The point is that if they wanted the US to stay until their government can protect themselves without help they would have said so instead of saying they want US forces to leave.

0 Replies

Interesting how ican can imphasize only the points he wants to make, but the heading says:

Quote:

Seven out of 10 Iraqis want foreign forces to leave:

Isn't our occupation wunnerful? Nothing like a little security and peace in the neighborhood.

Quote:

A quarter of those surveyed said they had lost a family member to murder. In Baghdad, that figure rose to nearly half (45 percent).

I wonder how many in any developed country would tolerate 81 percent power cuts? This is worse than during Saddam's time.

Quote:

Some 81 percent had suffered power cuts and 43 percent had experienced drinking water shortages. In the last month, more than a quarter (28 percent) had been short of food.

0 Replies

Actually I need to correct myself before getting off for the night; its foreign forces instead of US forces; otherwise the point remains.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

The point is that if they wanted the US to stay until their government can protect themselves without help they would have said so instead of saying they want US forces to leave.

No, they would not have said so unless the poll takers actually asked that question that way.

0 Replies

"My first reaction to watching the Iraqi government respond forcefully and to make it abundantly clear that -- I think the exact -- I can't remember the exact words of the Prime Minister, but "criminal elements" I know were a part of his declaration -- would be dealt with. I thought that was a very positive moment in the development of a sovereign nation, that is willing to take on elements that are -- you know, that believe they're beyond the law."
-- George W. Bush, on the fighting in Basra

To which Dick Cheney said "Who you talkin' 'bout, Willard?"

Joe(then he shot him in the face)Nation

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:
The point is that if they wanted the US to stay until their government can protect themselves without help they would have said so instead of saying they want US forces to leave.

No, they would not have said so unless the poll takers actually asked that question that way.

Yes they would, Ican; they know the conditions on the ground as they live it everyday. If were worried about how conditions would worsen if the foreign forces leave then when they were asked the question if they want foreign forces to leave they would have said yes but not until we are able to secure our own security. The poll was conducted in interviews so chances are they were not confined to specific questions with their answers. Or if they were worried about the security situation if foreign forces left; they could have simply answered no to the question.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know