dude, stfu. you're just trying to stir the shit with your "liberals, dems, anti war" nonsense.
and, don rumsfeld is telling me the iraqis have 400,000 troops trained...so if that's true (he wouldn't lie, would he?) then they can take care of business, no?
I'm simply asking a question. If it is too hard to answer, which I'm guessing for you it might be, dude. Feel free to excuse yourself from the conversation.
If I'm not mistaken dude, aren't we all stiring the "shit" everytime we post anything on the moving train isn't that the point.
Back to the question. Ok, so put your I'm a liberal or I'm a conservative stuff aside just for a second. I really am curious as to what people think a non US military presence in Iraq would look like. thanks.
I really am curious as to what people think a non US military presence in Iraq would look like. thanks.
Probably similar to what it looks like now, without the attacks on U.S. troops, which is definitely part of the violence......so my answer is I think it would be similar but overall there would be more peace than now. That's my opinion.
I mean you would have gotten your wish, an American withdrawl, but something tell me that you would still blame our government.
Yes, I would still blame our government. Why? Well, we invaded, didn't we? Hell, we practically created Saddam, didn't we?
As for what the country would look like after we left, I say probably better than it does today. The violence will continue whether we are there or not. The primary difference is, we wouldn't be one of the players.
...
The same shit that is currently going on... Sectarian Violence (a.k.a. Civil War) between Shi'ites and Sunnis. Wasn't that the excuse du yesterjour for keeping our troops there... to prevent a Civil War? As for the Kurds... I can see them working out a deal with the Shi'ites to create their own seperate state... much to the dismay of Turkey.
The Shi'ites in charge have already begun to form 'Death Squads' to got out and extract vengence on the Sunnis for all of those years of oppression. and can you really blame them? The Sunnis in neighboring countries don't want another Iran in their midst. Muqtada al Sadr got his own loyalists and he has several seats in the Iraqi parliment. That's democracy at work and there ain't shit we can say about it because we're the ones who've installed it. These fuckers are gonna keep on fighting til that meteor slams into the Pacific and puts us all out of our misery.
...
Now... what is YOUR vision of 'Winning The War' and what does Iraq have to look like before we can leave? And please, consider the facts on the ground over there... the culture, history, religion, customs, etc... and avoid the improbable peaches and cream outcome we tend to see through American eyes.
Great I'm glad you asked. I'll try to stay away from the peaches and cream, though I will admit as a conservative I am fed a lot of it.
I think if we just packed up and left things would go from bad, which they certianly are, to really bad. Someone here earlier was talking about the US military's job not being to act as a police presence. That is absolutely right, yet that is exactly what we are doing. It is not possible to do the things that Republicans want in Iraq, which is the size of Califronia, with only 130,000 troops give or take a few thousand.
To answer your question, I think we should stay we should add more soldiers, we should secure the border, and if that means build a berm around the boarders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia and place troops along the boarder, then do it. I think adding more soldiers will help to more quickly reach everyone's goal, get our troops home and get out of Iraq.
I'm sure I threw a little peaches and cream in, but you are what you eat. My "amazing plan" is certainly only one piece of the puzzle. To be honest it gives me a headache to think of everything that needs to happen in Iraq.
Great I'm glad you asked. I'll try to stay away from the peaches and cream, though I will admit as a conservative I am fed a lot of it.
I think if we just packed up and left things would go from bad, which they certianly are, to really bad. Someone here earlier was talking about the US military's job not being to act as a police presence. That is absolutely right, yet that is exactly what we are doing. It is not possible to do the things that Republicans want in Iraq, which is the size of Califronia, with only 130,000 troops give or take a few thousand.
To answer your question, I think we should stay we should add more soldiers, we should secure the border, and if that means build a berm around the boarders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia and place troops along the boarder, then do it. I think adding more soldiers will help to more quickly reach everyone's goal, get our troops home and get out of Iraq.
I'm sure I threw a little peaches and cream in, but you are what you eat. My "amazing plan" is certainly only one piece of the puzzle. To be honest it gives me a headache to think of everything that needs to happen in Iraq.
US millitary will not achieve this feat. by themselves, first the mentality is not about liberating Iraq, it's about establishing control in a said area. Now if you make the UN step in, maybe they could "help" the americans decision maker to change their mentality about what need to be done and how it must be done (i doubt, highly utopic). Plus having a real coalition would help to achieve what you just said, secure borders, secure civillians etc.
But in the end i question the intentions of the american govt. in Iraq, a govt. has been elected, an army have been trained, but yet the decision are still taken in Washington, i don't get that, weither they lie about their intentions, or they lie about the achievements, that's yours to decide...
"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Winning the war is the last thing the Bush Administration wants. Empires colonise destabilised countries for their material resources, on the pretext of being there for civilising, humanitarian reasons. The longer the situation in the middle east is considered unstable, the louder will be the calls to "stay here until the job is done". They'll stretch this out as long as possible, in pursuit of private profits. The insurgents are, ironically, doing Bush's work for him.
That may be true in the case of the corporate interests...almost indistinguishibale from government's, but they do want to win this war...hegemony is the ultimate goal here. methinks
it will be very spineless to pull out now, after fucking up the country.
well, was it spineless to pull out of vietnam, or should we have stayed a killed few million more?
The US presence in IRaq is only making the situation worse, that should be obvious...since 1991, the US has only made things harder for the average Iraqi...I bet they'd be willing to trade Saddam for the US right about now.
no, i think the point is to try to have a civil conversation. when you start throwing around the "liberal" or "conservative" bullshit, then it just gets political (and then you try to downplay it by saying "put your i'm a liberal or i'm a conservative stuff aside"...nice touch). i wanna get beyond politics, beyond "stiring" (stirring?) shit. BEYOND TALKING POINTS!!
you want an answer to your little question? it would probably look a lot like it does right now...shitty.
there. i answered your little question. wow, that took so much thought. i think i need a nap.
Thanks, see it wasn't that hard. I had my doubts about you, but not anymore. Your right next time I have a question for a specific group of people I wont ask it. I should instead keep it open ended so everyone can participate. Leason learned.
I'm wondering what all those in favor of packing up and leaving Iraq think a post US military presence Iraq would look like? I'm not trying to be a smart ass I would love to know what people thought.
I'm under the impression that we need to stay and continue to help Iraq rebuild.
I also think that if we packed up and left, things in Iraq would go from bad to really bad and many more thousands of innocent people would die. I'm wondering who liberals/Dems/anti-war people would blame for the genocide that is likely to take place after we left? I mean you would have gotten your wish, an American withdrawl, but something tell me that you would still blame our government.
I would probably still blame our government simply because it was our invasion that was the catalyst for their problems. If we left Iraq today the situation probably would get worse, mayne even a hell of a lot worse, but their is no certainty that the situation wouldn't deteriorate if we left 10 years from now. There will probably always be sectarian violence in iraq between the Sunni's and Shia simply because it has been that way for thousands of years and us setting up a government there probably will not change that. The Sunni's will be pissed if the Shia control the government and the Shia will be pissed if the Sunni's hold power so now matter how much time we spend on the ground there shit will happen the minute we leave. So we might as well cut our losses and leave and allow nature to take it's course. Eventually peace will prevail in Iraq but it will be on their terms not ours.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I would probably still blame our government simply because it was our invasion that was the catalyst for their problems. If we left Iraq today the situation probably would get worse, mayne even a hell of a lot worse, but their is no certainty that the situation wouldn't deteriorate if we left 10 years from now. There will probably always be sectarian violence in iraq between the Sunni's and Shia simply because it has been that way for thousands of years and us setting up a government there probably will not change that. The Sunni's will be pissed if the Shia control the government and the Shia will be pissed if the Sunni's hold power so now matter how much time we spend on the ground there shit will happen
the minute we leave. So we might as well cut our losses and leave and allow nature to take it's course. Eventually peace will prevail in Iraq but it will be on their terms not ours.
I agree that if we pulled out the Sunni and Shia violence would get worse then it already is. What do people think about breaking Iraq up into three seperate states for the Sunnis, Shites and Kurds? Is that even realistic?
I agree that if we pulled out the Sunni and Shia violence would get worse then it already is. What do people think about breaking Iraq up into three seperate states for the Sunnis, Shites and Kurds? Is that even realistic?
Well the problem with that would be oil. The majority of the oil wells in Iraq are in the southern part of the country which is majority Shia controlled. Also the only seaposrt is in the same area. By splitting the country thge Shia would control most of the oil wells and the only seaport which would be a huge issue with the Sunni and Kurds. I personally think it would be a solution worth serious consideration, but I don't think the Iraqis feel the same way.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Great I'm glad you asked. I'll try to stay away from the peaches and cream, though I will admit as a conservative I am fed a lot of it.
I think if we just packed up and left things would go from bad, which they certianly are, to really bad. Someone here earlier was talking about the US military's job not being to act as a police presence. That is absolutely right, yet that is exactly what we are doing. It is not possible to do the things that Republicans want in Iraq, which is the size of Califronia, with only 130,000 troops give or take a few thousand.
To answer your question, I think we should stay we should add more soldiers, we should secure the border, and if that means build a berm around the boarders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia and place troops along the boarder, then do it. I think adding more soldiers will help to more quickly reach everyone's goal, get our troops home and get out of Iraq.
I'm sure I threw a little peaches and cream in, but you are what you eat. My "amazing plan" is certainly only one piece of the puzzle. To be honest it gives me a headache to think of everything that needs to happen in Iraq.
...
The thing is... even if we do secure the place and rebuild all the shit we blew up... those fuckers would probably STILL be fighting. The only reason why they weren't fighting was because Hussein had a gorilla grip on their nuts. Even when we do leave, there is no guarantee that those fucker won't continue to do the same shit. And the probablility, based upon their past history, culture and religious doctrine... is that they will.
I know this is not a the only outcome and another possible outcome is that Iraq becomes the Canada of the Middle East... but, we should consider all, or at least as many as we can think of, scenarios that may turn up. We made a disasterous assumption that the 'Greeted as liberators', 'Wine, Roses and Kisses' were going to be the only results of the Bush War and don't want to travel that route again.
So... when is 'The End' and what needs to exist for us to declare 'Victory'? What is the criteria that tells us the job is done? This is what Bush and Company can't tell us because there is no plan except to continue with this bullshit half-ass, hold our punches police action.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I agree that if we pulled out the Sunni and Shia violence would get worse then it already is. What do people think about breaking Iraq up into three seperate states for the Sunnis, Shites and Kurds? Is that even realistic?
will turkey be expected to come to the party in relation to the kurds or will they spit their dummy?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
After starting this thread, I am now back to respond to some of the comments. I was called a few names, but whatever.
I don't think I used the word "win" in my post. Just "overcome" or "lose". I guess I don't see war as a win situation in Iraq. That probably doesn't need explanation.
Couple of thoughts: I dont agree that people in the military are uneducated and have no choices. There are demographically similar to the population or probabably the post office employees or other govt employees. A mix of different socio economic classes, some go to college, some don't, some are poor some are middle class. I am sure it leans to some degree to persons who are see the military as an opportunity (there could be different perceptions of opportunity).
Many of the thoughts from other countries seem to lean towards we deserve to lose. Maybe the mindset is we need to be punished for making the mistakes we have made and/or the perception that we are so awful and brutal, almost the same as terrorists. I am sure you all have your reasons, but it just doesn't seem to be a balanced analysis of the US. I am not going to try to explain that.
Those in the US who are opposed seem torn to some degree between we should lose cause we screwed up and the concept that we don't want to see Iraq fall apart. Some maybe do, but I think that is what I saw in the posts.
I didn't start this post becasue I am some crazy patriot, and I didn't support this war originally because I thought Bin Laden and Sadam were buddies. I did feel that there were reasons to consider the war an option, a last option, to the WMD programs and the defiance to the UN and the world that Sadam had shown.
From then to now, I realize that intent and delivery are two different things. I knew it could go this way, and had reservations from the beginning.
Overall, I just think that all the visceral hatred here is undeserved, and unwise. I really don't think anyone should want this situation to get worse, and the US to leave. IMHO. It just doesn't make sense to me, many people will suffer and the terrorists will see it as victory which will only encourage them worldwide. But this was the motive of 911 wasn't it?
And I know that celebrating when terrorists kill people, yes even our soldiers, just so the BIG OL USA can loose, is really twisted. And yes, I do see them (terrorists) as human fecal matter, and not because they are Arab or Muslim!
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
I really don't think anyone should want this situation to get worse, and the US to leave. IMHO. It just doesn't make sense to me, many people will suffer and the terrorists will see it as victory which will only encourage them worldwide.
Ahh. Interesting point. Similar to my analogy of you can't go 0-100mph instantaneously or something's going to break.
No doubt it's been a serious, "Hi, how the fuck are you? it's been a really good to get to know you session." between societies.
The coming apart scenario should be gradual and as consistently humane as possible as well (figuratively speaking).
However isn't it so glorius that Bush got a bright idea....went and sprang out of nowhere and planted the US flag over there like a fool. Sigh...a simple Hi would have sufficed :rolleyes:
What a naive kook to think he could rampage into a city of 6 million, second in size only to New York City, and start telling everything and everyone what to do?
Staying the course is not the way to go. That dumb fuck Bush should have just bomb the shit out of them and the soldiers would of been home 3 years ago. Im not for war but if your gonna do it, do it right. But at this point they should move out. There are now much bigger problems N. KOREA!!!! BUSH IS DOING NOTHING TO STOP THEM FROM MAKING WMD'S! THEY HATE US AND IM ABOUT 90% SURE THAT THEY WILL USE THEM. THEY HAVE A ITCHY TRIGGER FINGER AND THEY WANT TO KILL US. THE HELL WITH IRAQ, BUSH FUCKED THAT WHOLE THING UP.
Ahh. Interesting point. Similar to my analogy of you can't go 0-100mph instantaneously or something's going to break.
No doubt it's been a serious, "Hi, how the fuck are you? it's been a really good to get to know you session." between societies.
The coming apart scenario should be gradual and as consistently humane as possible as well (figuratively speaking).
However isn't it so glorius that Bush got a bright idea....went and sprang out of nowhere and planted the US flag over there like a fool. Sigh...a simple Hi would have sufficed :rolleyes:
What a naive kook to think he could rampage into a city of 6 million, second in size only to New York City, and start telling everything and everyone what to do?
Unimaginable...
There is little doubt that we have idiots in our govt, who spend billions on war, the concept of war, how to wage war, weapons of war, and anything else focused on war - and the idiots still can't win a war. But, in reality the soldier isn't one of those people, they are bureaucrats stuck in some office comtemplating or maybe fanatasizing about how we could pick up a country here or there. Laughable - but we hire our politicians to use good judgement and not let this happen, but there is always the risk of deception.
Yeah, we need to exit, that is a duh, but how and when is the question of the day.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Ahh. Interesting point. Similar to my analogy of you can't go 0-100mph instantaneously or something's going to break.
No doubt it's been a serious, "Hi, how the fuck are you? it's been a really good to get to know you session." between societies.
The coming apart scenario should be gradual and as consistently humane as possible as well (figuratively speaking).
However isn't it so glorius that Bush got a bright idea....went and sprang out of nowhere and planted the US flag over there like a fool. Sigh...a simple Hi would have sufficed :rolleyes:
What a naive kook to think he could rampage into a city of 6 million, second in size only to New York City, and start telling everything and everyone what to do?
Unimaginable...
There is little doubt that we have idiots in our govt, who spend billions on war, the concept of war, how to wage war, weapons of war, and anything else focused on war - and the idiots still can't win a war. But, in reality the soldier isn't one of those people, they are bureaucrats stuck in some office comtemplating or maybe fanatasizing about how we could pick up a country here or there. Laughable - but we hire our politicians to use good judgement and not let this happen, but there is always the risk of deception.
Yeah, we need to exit, that is a duh, but how and when is the question of the day.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Winning or losing "the war" is a very outdated method of characterizing the current situation over there. There is no war to be lost because the war was over in about 3 weeks (if that). The US's current operation in Iraq (at least according to reasonable public acceptance) is nation building and helping Iraq form a government.
What "loosing" now means is defeating the current objective of at best preventing the Iraqi people from filling their void of soverengty with a even more oppresive and destructive government than Saddam Hussein's.
With my definition I am willing to lose. I don't see a way we can accomplish anything over there with the little value Iraqis have been accustomed to place on human life. Iraquis kill their own kids and people in the hundreds and thousands to get at us. I don't know that there is a way to reverse that kind of engrained thinking.
Confucious Says: He who buries a man's wife alive, should not expect to sit at that man's dinner table without the subject coming up.
Many of the thoughts from other countries seem to lean towards we deserve to lose. Maybe the mindset is we need to be punished for making the mistakes we have made and/or the perception that we are so awful and brutal, almost the same as terrorists. I am sure you all have your reasons, but it just doesn't seem to be a balanced analysis of the US. I am not going to try to explain that.
i am one of those from 'other countries'. i am from australia and our boys are there as well. seeing how their original duty of protecting japanese has ended or about to end with the japanese going home, the australians are now being moved into a more dangerous position. this in contradiction to the original reason aussies were sent there. seems our fearlesss leader likes to obfuscate things as well. i however i do not believe the US 'deserves to lose'. it would take a callous mind to wish that on the grunts on the ground. i also have stated that i don't care if the US 'win' this 'war' or not. and that is a statement i stand by. i have been watching the US for many years. i remember a time when i was all for going in and blowing shit up for the greater good. over the ensuing years i have changed my opinion on many things. one of thos being, US foreign policy and the real agenda that drives it. i no longer see the US as the beacon of freedom and democracy.
Overall, I just think that all the visceral hatred here is undeserved, and unwise. I really don't think anyone should want this situation to get worse, and the US to leave. IMHO. It just doesn't make sense to me, many people will suffer and the terrorists will see it as victory which will only encourage them worldwide. But this was the motive of 911 wasn't it?
the motive behind 9/11 was because of the US's presence in places they don't belong. it wasn't because they hate our freedoms. it was because the West and especially the US government are massive hypocrites. the Saudis allowed the US a presence in the most holy land of islam. that's bound to piss a few people off. that's like putting me, an atheist, in charge of the vatican. and as it's turned out they pissed off the wrong people.
And I know that celebrating when terrorists kill people, yes even our soldiers, just so the BIG OL USA can loose, is really twisted. And yes, I do see them (terrorists) as human fecal matter, and not because they are Arab or Muslim!
so you're so confident and comfortable with your governments past and present that you can make that statement, knowing(or maybe not) what the United States has done around the world in the name of democracy but really all for an economic policy based on and supported by 'free' trade markets and the expansion of such.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
There is little doubt that we have idiots in our govt, who spend billions on war, the concept of war, how to wage war, weapons of war, and anything else focused on war - and the idiots still can't win a war. But, in reality the soldier isn't one of those people, they are bureaucrats stuck in some office comtemplating or maybe fanatasizing about how we could pick up a country here or there. Laughable - but we hire our politicians to use good judgement and not let this happen, but there is always the risk of deception.
Yeah, we need to exit, that is a duh, but how and when is the question of the day.
Hehe you got the double post login thingy bug. It blows my mind that these cushy, overfed, out of shape fatcats bargain over countries and resources and haven't a clue what thy're doing to peoples lives. The magnitude of their sheer arrogance and disregard for people and reality for that matter makes the whole institution a very dangerous vehicle in the hands of an inexperienced (delusional) driver.
I guess the good ol boys thought that back in the day, it was just like making hay, but it's a bigger smarter world then it was 50 - 100 years ago.
I believe we are all not only changing, but changing ever faster in the evolutionary sense - even in our day to day lives sense. I don't think the southern good old boy "hang em high" approach is just not going to cut it internationally anymore. Put away the legacy of the Texas cowboy six shooter (Yosemite Sam) approach, I think it's time to close the book on the legacy of that fabled iconic mentality.
I guess if the US really wanted to take over Iraq really fast all they'd have to do is eliminate TV, Newspapers, and the internet, oh and radio.
In that scenario if left unchecked...we'd prolly just wake up one morning and take an oath to the order texas heehaw club and become a slave to the US govt working on whatever...
Let's see.... kill all the indians...enslave all black people. Treat them like crap as long as you possibly can until the people in your own country decide to fight you because of it. Start up a bunch of clans to try and fight it. When that's finally all burned up and no longer acceptable....start doing the exact same somewhere/everywhere else...
I'm telling you... some of that southern mentality stuff is like a virulent disease spreading the earth...
‘Despite popular belief and the nationalism being shoved down our throats, they're not "protecting" us one bit. If anything they're making us more and more of a target for the rest of the world.’
That’s the point I would LOVE people to see. No matter how many ‘rogue states’ you ‘defeat’, you’re creating an unfavourable history. I mean (ok this is fresh in my head because of a conversation in another thread) Ireland and England are actually political ‘friends’ lol. Does that mean all the Irish wounds have been closed and everyone’s ready to move on? Hopefully, but it’s not guaranteed, is it?
‘The principal got up and went on and on about how lucky we are to be in America, where we can live free and grow up to be whatever we want to be. As if there aren't hundreds of other places where people can do that’
Lol, oh dear god! That’s the kinda American arrogance that most of us hate. I mean, lol, that ideal is probably more realistic in Ireland because we have such a thing as ‘free education’ :cool:
‘I agree that if we pulled out the Sunni and Shia violence would get worse then it already is. What do people think about breaking Iraq up into three seperate states for the Sunnis, Shites and Kurds? Is that even realistic?’
I suppose something similar worked in Yugoslavia… but you’re treading on very dangerous ground here… I mean how is it up to the rest of the world to decide what’s best for a certain region? Although, with most people here, it seems to be one way or another – the US must stay and finish the job OR they must pull out. Seems everyone’s forgetting the PERFECT let off for the US (maybe cos Bush ruined that option) – the UN. The UN is much more experienced at peacekeeping than the US – maybe if they US pulled out and they send in neutral peace enforcers, LIKE the Irish, the Swedish, etc. and see how things go… but I can’t imagine this is something Bush would ask for, which is sad, cos it’s the only way I can see things calming down.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
The violence in Iraq is increasing and the U.S. is not going to be able to accomplish anything. That is why the military is looking for foreign troops to help out. The whole world can run a debt and loss of life now for the big fuck up. In the end, the resistance will continue to build and nothing will be accomplished from occupation. Let the country heal on it's own. Should have let them take Saddam out themselves.
Part of the reason for going into Iraq was because Saddam tortured people. Now the U.S. Military is torturing people. It's a big hipocritical fuck you to the world. The U.S. supplied Iraq with weapons and funding, supported him and then made shit up against him. The same goes for Osama and al-Qaeda, they are government funded terrorist cells used to cause global panic.
Leaving Iraq will leave it in their hands. There will be immediate celebration, since they won't be occupied anymore and will be sovereign again. There will be some resistance to the new government, wether they accept it or overthrow it, is their fucking choice, self-determination.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The violence in Iraq is increasing and the U.S. is not going to be able to accomplish anything. That is why the military is looking for foreign troops to help out. The whole world can run a debt and loss of life now for the big fuck up. In the end, the resistance will continue to build and nothing will be accomplished from occupation. Let the country heal on it's own. Should have let them take Saddam out themselves.
Part of the reason for going into Iraq was because Saddam tortured people. Now the U.S. Military is torturing people. It's a big hipocritical fuck you to the world. The U.S. supplied Iraq with weapons and funding, supported him and then made shit up against him. The same goes for Osama and al-Qaeda, they are government funded terrorist cells used to cause global panic.
Leaving Iraq will leave it in their hands. There will be immediate celebration, since they won't be occupied anymore and will be sovereign again. There will be some resistance to the new government, wether they accept it or overthrow it, is their fucking choice, self-determination.
i remember a time when i was all for going in and blowing shit up for the greater good. over the ensuing years i have changed my opinion on many things. one of thos being, US foreign policy and the real agenda that drives it. i no longer see the US as the beacon of freedom and democracy.
the motive behind 9/11 was because of the US's presence in places they don't belong. it wasn't because they hate our freedoms. it was because the West and especially the US government are massive hypocrites. the Saudis allowed the US a presence in the most holy land of islam. that's bound to piss a few people off. that's like putting me, an atheist, in charge of the vatican. and as it's turned out they pissed off the wrong people.
so you're so confident and comfortable with your governments past and present that you can make that statement, knowing(or maybe not) what the United States has done around the world in the name of democracy but really all for an economic policy based on and supported by 'free' trade markets and the expansion of such.
Interesting....the biggest difference between then and now is subtle in most people's minds, but I think it could bet the collapse of the Soviet Union. There were always two camps - democrats and communists/totalitarianism. W/o fear of Soviet Agression, its like America has become the problem in many peoples minds, yet we have always been the "beacon of freedom and democracy" in the past. Did we (US) change or did the world change?
I have to disagree on the 'hate us for our freedoms' point, logically they Do hate our freedoms because if you noticed their religious laws are based on taking away freedoms. We (not just the US) are the biggest threat to the concepts the fanaticals hold. I have talked to people who live in Saudi for example, have married into Muslim families, had their kids kidnapped, etc. I am not saying this is true of all Muslim's, but we have to aknowledge that if they hate us, it is for our freedoms. Not saying that is the only reason - but to dismiss it (because GW said it?) seems incorrect.
I am not comfortable because I don't really know everything that goes on in the name of US (or European) interests. There are many resources assigned solely to intellegence and policy that know more about what really goes on in the world than I - I wish it wasn't this way, but how else can it be?
If the US got out of the business of war, intellegence, world policy, etc - tell me what would happen? Sure there would be some positive effects, but I am sure there would be negative effects as well.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Winning or losing "the war" is a very outdated method of characterizing the current situation over there. There is no war to be lost because the war was over in about 3 weeks (if that). The US's current operation in Iraq (at least according to reasonable public acceptance) is nation building and helping Iraq form a government.
What "loosing" now means is defeating the current objective of at best preventing the Iraqi people from filling their void of soverengty with a even more oppresive and destructive government than Saddam Hussein's.
With my definition I am willing to lose. I don't see a way we can accomplish anything over there with the little value Iraqis have been accustomed to place on human life. Iraquis kill their own kids and people in the hundreds and thousands to get at us. I don't know that there is a way to reverse that kind of engrained thinking.
You are right - it is a nation building excercise but since the UN bailed out it has been changed to a "war" or an "occupation". Hmmm - words do mean things.
I love your handle 'Stupidhumanbeings' - that is one of my favorite PJ lines, sums it up.
Also from LBC - "Sometimes life it don't leave you alone". Words to live by.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
‘
I suppose something similar worked in Yugoslavia… but you’re treading on very dangerous ground here… I mean how is it up to the rest of the world to decide what’s best for a certain region? Although, with most people here, it seems to be one way or another – the US must stay and finish the job OR they must pull out. Seems everyone’s forgetting the PERFECT let off for the US (maybe cos Bush ruined that option) – the UN. The UN is much more experienced at peacekeeping than the US – maybe if they US pulled out and they send in neutral peace enforcers, LIKE the Irish, the Swedish, etc. and see how things go… but I can’t imagine this is something Bush would ask for, which is sad, cos it’s the only way I can see things calming down.
UN wrote the resolutions, but they bailed out at the first sign of difficulty. Hence the US felt obligated to step up. Right or wrong, that is what happened.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Comments
I'm simply asking a question. If it is too hard to answer, which I'm guessing for you it might be, dude. Feel free to excuse yourself from the conversation.
If I'm not mistaken dude, aren't we all stiring the "shit" everytime we post anything on the moving train isn't that the point.
Back to the question. Ok, so put your I'm a liberal or I'm a conservative stuff aside just for a second. I really am curious as to what people think a non US military presence in Iraq would look like. thanks.
As for what the country would look like after we left, I say probably better than it does today. The violence will continue whether we are there or not. The primary difference is, we wouldn't be one of the players.
Great I'm glad you asked. I'll try to stay away from the peaches and cream, though I will admit as a conservative I am fed a lot of it.
I think if we just packed up and left things would go from bad, which they certianly are, to really bad. Someone here earlier was talking about the US military's job not being to act as a police presence. That is absolutely right, yet that is exactly what we are doing. It is not possible to do the things that Republicans want in Iraq, which is the size of Califronia, with only 130,000 troops give or take a few thousand.
To answer your question, I think we should stay we should add more soldiers, we should secure the border, and if that means build a berm around the boarders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia and place troops along the boarder, then do it. I think adding more soldiers will help to more quickly reach everyone's goal, get our troops home and get out of Iraq.
I'm sure I threw a little peaches and cream in, but you are what you eat. My "amazing plan" is certainly only one piece of the puzzle. To be honest it gives me a headache to think of everything that needs to happen in Iraq.
US millitary will not achieve this feat. by themselves, first the mentality is not about liberating Iraq, it's about establishing control in a said area. Now if you make the UN step in, maybe they could "help" the americans decision maker to change their mentality about what need to be done and how it must be done (i doubt, highly utopic). Plus having a real coalition would help to achieve what you just said, secure borders, secure civillians etc.
But in the end i question the intentions of the american govt. in Iraq, a govt. has been elected, an army have been trained, but yet the decision are still taken in Washington, i don't get that, weither they lie about their intentions, or they lie about the achievements, that's yours to decide...
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
That may be true in the case of the corporate interests...almost indistinguishibale from government's, but they do want to win this war...hegemony is the ultimate goal here. methinks
well, was it spineless to pull out of vietnam, or should we have stayed a killed few million more?
The US presence in IRaq is only making the situation worse, that should be obvious...since 1991, the US has only made things harder for the average Iraqi...I bet they'd be willing to trade Saddam for the US right about now.
Thanks, see it wasn't that hard. I had my doubts about you, but not anymore. Your right next time I have a question for a specific group of people I wont ask it. I should instead keep it open ended so everyone can participate. Leason learned.
I would probably still blame our government simply because it was our invasion that was the catalyst for their problems. If we left Iraq today the situation probably would get worse, mayne even a hell of a lot worse, but their is no certainty that the situation wouldn't deteriorate if we left 10 years from now. There will probably always be sectarian violence in iraq between the Sunni's and Shia simply because it has been that way for thousands of years and us setting up a government there probably will not change that. The Sunni's will be pissed if the Shia control the government and the Shia will be pissed if the Sunni's hold power so now matter how much time we spend on the ground there shit will happen the minute we leave. So we might as well cut our losses and leave and allow nature to take it's course. Eventually peace will prevail in Iraq but it will be on their terms not ours.
I agree that if we pulled out the Sunni and Shia violence would get worse then it already is. What do people think about breaking Iraq up into three seperate states for the Sunnis, Shites and Kurds? Is that even realistic?
Well the problem with that would be oil. The majority of the oil wells in Iraq are in the southern part of the country which is majority Shia controlled. Also the only seaposrt is in the same area. By splitting the country thge Shia would control most of the oil wells and the only seaport which would be a huge issue with the Sunni and Kurds. I personally think it would be a solution worth serious consideration, but I don't think the Iraqis feel the same way.
.
.
There is no Win and there is no Lose with the War in Iraq. I wish people would open up their eyes and remove the absolutes about it.
The thing is... even if we do secure the place and rebuild all the shit we blew up... those fuckers would probably STILL be fighting. The only reason why they weren't fighting was because Hussein had a gorilla grip on their nuts. Even when we do leave, there is no guarantee that those fucker won't continue to do the same shit. And the probablility, based upon their past history, culture and religious doctrine... is that they will.
I know this is not a the only outcome and another possible outcome is that Iraq becomes the Canada of the Middle East... but, we should consider all, or at least as many as we can think of, scenarios that may turn up. We made a disasterous assumption that the 'Greeted as liberators', 'Wine, Roses and Kisses' were going to be the only results of the Bush War and don't want to travel that route again.
So... when is 'The End' and what needs to exist for us to declare 'Victory'? What is the criteria that tells us the job is done? This is what Bush and Company can't tell us because there is no plan except to continue with this bullshit half-ass, hold our punches police action.
Hail, Hail!!!
yup, there is only failure, and worse failure
Would you prefer we keep wasting billions of dollars runnig around randomly murdering people?
will turkey be expected to come to the party in relation to the kurds or will they spit their dummy?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I don't think I used the word "win" in my post. Just "overcome" or "lose". I guess I don't see war as a win situation in Iraq. That probably doesn't need explanation.
Couple of thoughts: I dont agree that people in the military are uneducated and have no choices. There are demographically similar to the population or probabably the post office employees or other govt employees. A mix of different socio economic classes, some go to college, some don't, some are poor some are middle class. I am sure it leans to some degree to persons who are see the military as an opportunity (there could be different perceptions of opportunity).
Many of the thoughts from other countries seem to lean towards we deserve to lose. Maybe the mindset is we need to be punished for making the mistakes we have made and/or the perception that we are so awful and brutal, almost the same as terrorists. I am sure you all have your reasons, but it just doesn't seem to be a balanced analysis of the US. I am not going to try to explain that.
Those in the US who are opposed seem torn to some degree between we should lose cause we screwed up and the concept that we don't want to see Iraq fall apart. Some maybe do, but I think that is what I saw in the posts.
I didn't start this post becasue I am some crazy patriot, and I didn't support this war originally because I thought Bin Laden and Sadam were buddies. I did feel that there were reasons to consider the war an option, a last option, to the WMD programs and the defiance to the UN and the world that Sadam had shown.
From then to now, I realize that intent and delivery are two different things. I knew it could go this way, and had reservations from the beginning.
Overall, I just think that all the visceral hatred here is undeserved, and unwise. I really don't think anyone should want this situation to get worse, and the US to leave. IMHO. It just doesn't make sense to me, many people will suffer and the terrorists will see it as victory which will only encourage them worldwide. But this was the motive of 911 wasn't it?
And I know that celebrating when terrorists kill people, yes even our soldiers, just so the BIG OL USA can loose, is really twisted. And yes, I do see them (terrorists) as human fecal matter, and not because they are Arab or Muslim!
Ahh. Interesting point. Similar to my analogy of you can't go 0-100mph instantaneously or something's going to break.
No doubt it's been a serious, "Hi, how the fuck are you? it's been a really good to get to know you session." between societies.
The coming apart scenario should be gradual and as consistently humane as possible as well (figuratively speaking).
However isn't it so glorius that Bush got a bright idea....went and sprang out of nowhere and planted the US flag over there like a fool. Sigh...a simple Hi would have sufficed :rolleyes:
What a naive kook to think he could rampage into a city of 6 million, second in size only to New York City, and start telling everything and everyone what to do?
Unimaginable...
There is little doubt that we have idiots in our govt, who spend billions on war, the concept of war, how to wage war, weapons of war, and anything else focused on war - and the idiots still can't win a war. But, in reality the soldier isn't one of those people, they are bureaucrats stuck in some office comtemplating or maybe fanatasizing about how we could pick up a country here or there. Laughable - but we hire our politicians to use good judgement and not let this happen, but there is always the risk of deception.
Yeah, we need to exit, that is a duh, but how and when is the question of the day.
There is little doubt that we have idiots in our govt, who spend billions on war, the concept of war, how to wage war, weapons of war, and anything else focused on war - and the idiots still can't win a war. But, in reality the soldier isn't one of those people, they are bureaucrats stuck in some office comtemplating or maybe fanatasizing about how we could pick up a country here or there. Laughable - but we hire our politicians to use good judgement and not let this happen, but there is always the risk of deception.
Yeah, we need to exit, that is a duh, but how and when is the question of the day.
What "loosing" now means is defeating the current objective of at best preventing the Iraqi people from filling their void of soverengty with a even more oppresive and destructive government than Saddam Hussein's.
With my definition I am willing to lose. I don't see a way we can accomplish anything over there with the little value Iraqis have been accustomed to place on human life. Iraquis kill their own kids and people in the hundreds and thousands to get at us. I don't know that there is a way to reverse that kind of engrained thinking.
welcome back!
i am one of those from 'other countries'. i am from australia and our boys are there as well. seeing how their original duty of protecting japanese has ended or about to end with the japanese going home, the australians are now being moved into a more dangerous position. this in contradiction to the original reason aussies were sent there. seems our fearlesss leader likes to obfuscate things as well. i however i do not believe the US 'deserves to lose'. it would take a callous mind to wish that on the grunts on the ground. i also have stated that i don't care if the US 'win' this 'war' or not. and that is a statement i stand by. i have been watching the US for many years. i remember a time when i was all for going in and blowing shit up for the greater good. over the ensuing years i have changed my opinion on many things. one of thos being, US foreign policy and the real agenda that drives it. i no longer see the US as the beacon of freedom and democracy.
the motive behind 9/11 was because of the US's presence in places they don't belong. it wasn't because they hate our freedoms. it was because the West and especially the US government are massive hypocrites. the Saudis allowed the US a presence in the most holy land of islam. that's bound to piss a few people off. that's like putting me, an atheist, in charge of the vatican. and as it's turned out they pissed off the wrong people.
so you're so confident and comfortable with your governments past and present that you can make that statement, knowing(or maybe not) what the United States has done around the world in the name of democracy but really all for an economic policy based on and supported by 'free' trade markets and the expansion of such.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Hehe you got the double post login thingy bug. It blows my mind that these cushy, overfed, out of shape fatcats bargain over countries and resources and haven't a clue what thy're doing to peoples lives. The magnitude of their sheer arrogance and disregard for people and reality for that matter makes the whole institution a very dangerous vehicle in the hands of an inexperienced (delusional) driver.
I guess the good ol boys thought that back in the day, it was just like making hay, but it's a bigger smarter world then it was 50 - 100 years ago.
I believe we are all not only changing, but changing ever faster in the evolutionary sense - even in our day to day lives sense. I don't think the southern good old boy "hang em high" approach is just not going to cut it internationally anymore. Put away the legacy of the Texas cowboy six shooter (Yosemite Sam) approach, I think it's time to close the book on the legacy of that fabled iconic mentality.
I guess if the US really wanted to take over Iraq really fast all they'd have to do is eliminate TV, Newspapers, and the internet, oh and radio.
In that scenario if left unchecked...we'd prolly just wake up one morning and take an oath to the order texas heehaw club and become a slave to the US govt working on whatever...
Let's see.... kill all the indians...enslave all black people. Treat them like crap as long as you possibly can until the people in your own country decide to fight you because of it. Start up a bunch of clans to try and fight it. When that's finally all burned up and no longer acceptable....start doing the exact same somewhere/everywhere else...
I'm telling you... some of that southern mentality stuff is like a virulent disease spreading the earth...
That’s the point I would LOVE people to see. No matter how many ‘rogue states’ you ‘defeat’, you’re creating an unfavourable history. I mean (ok this is fresh in my head because of a conversation in another thread) Ireland and England are actually political ‘friends’
‘The principal got up and went on and on about how lucky we are to be in America, where we can live free and grow up to be whatever we want to be. As if there aren't hundreds of other places where people can do that’
Lol, oh dear god! That’s the kinda American arrogance that most of us hate. I mean, lol, that ideal is probably more realistic in Ireland because we have such a thing as ‘free education’ :cool:
‘I agree that if we pulled out the Sunni and Shia violence would get worse then it already is. What do people think about breaking Iraq up into three seperate states for the Sunnis, Shites and Kurds? Is that even realistic?’
I suppose something similar worked in Yugoslavia… but you’re treading on very dangerous ground here… I mean how is it up to the rest of the world to decide what’s best for a certain region? Although, with most people here, it seems to be one way or another – the US must stay and finish the job OR they must pull out. Seems everyone’s forgetting the PERFECT let off for the US (maybe cos Bush ruined that option) – the UN. The UN is much more experienced at peacekeeping than the US – maybe if they US pulled out and they send in neutral peace enforcers, LIKE the Irish, the Swedish, etc. and see how things go… but I can’t imagine this is something Bush would ask for, which is sad, cos it’s the only way I can see things calming down.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Part of the reason for going into Iraq was because Saddam tortured people. Now the U.S. Military is torturing people. It's a big hipocritical fuck you to the world. The U.S. supplied Iraq with weapons and funding, supported him and then made shit up against him. The same goes for Osama and al-Qaeda, they are government funded terrorist cells used to cause global panic.
Leaving Iraq will leave it in their hands. There will be immediate celebration, since they won't be occupied anymore and will be sovereign again. There will be some resistance to the new government, wether they accept it or overthrow it, is their fucking choice, self-determination.
here here
Interesting....the biggest difference between then and now is subtle in most people's minds, but I think it could bet the collapse of the Soviet Union. There were always two camps - democrats and communists/totalitarianism. W/o fear of Soviet Agression, its like America has become the problem in many peoples minds, yet we have always been the "beacon of freedom and democracy" in the past. Did we (US) change or did the world change?
I have to disagree on the 'hate us for our freedoms' point, logically they Do hate our freedoms because if you noticed their religious laws are based on taking away freedoms. We (not just the US) are the biggest threat to the concepts the fanaticals hold. I have talked to people who live in Saudi for example, have married into Muslim families, had their kids kidnapped, etc. I am not saying this is true of all Muslim's, but we have to aknowledge that if they hate us, it is for our freedoms. Not saying that is the only reason - but to dismiss it (because GW said it?) seems incorrect.
I am not comfortable because I don't really know everything that goes on in the name of US (or European) interests. There are many resources assigned solely to intellegence and policy that know more about what really goes on in the world than I - I wish it wasn't this way, but how else can it be?
If the US got out of the business of war, intellegence, world policy, etc - tell me what would happen? Sure there would be some positive effects, but I am sure there would be negative effects as well.
You are right - it is a nation building excercise but since the UN bailed out it has been changed to a "war" or an "occupation". Hmmm - words do mean things.
I love your handle 'Stupidhumanbeings' - that is one of my favorite PJ lines, sums it up.
Also from LBC - "Sometimes life it don't leave you alone". Words to live by.
UN wrote the resolutions, but they bailed out at the first sign of difficulty. Hence the US felt obligated to step up. Right or wrong, that is what happened.