PDA

View Full Version : How will American defeat in Iraq impact future American politics?



HornyPope
11-18-2008, 03:18 PM
Just like following the American defeat in Vietnam, the withdrawal from Iraq will mean a period of change. Unlike Vietnam though, I am not so sure that change will come in a form of pacifism. I think a lot of people are really bitter for losing the war against terrorism, but they are willing to forget about it for a moment because Osama bin Laden isn't making headlines anymore, the economy is in a shitter, fellow Americans are losing jobs and the country is in a middle of an exciting NFL season. But how long will the lull last?

What if new terrorist acts hit America? Will Hussein strike back and will the public support him?

Mota Boy
11-18-2008, 04:02 PM
I think a lot of people are really bitter for losing the war against terrorism, but they are willing to forget about it for a moment because Osama bin Laden isn't making headlines anymore, the economy is in a shitter, fellow Americans are losing jobs and the country is in a middle of an exciting NFL season. But how long will the lull last?That's a pretty big assumption. I think you first need to make the case that we're losing the war on terror (or are you implying that we have already lost it?).

jacknife737
11-18-2008, 05:03 PM
US troops are still actively engaged in Afghanistan, in fact troop levels there will be increasing significantly; and there will still be residual forces in Iraq; it’s not as if America is going to isolate itself in the post Iraq-era.

And although Obama may wish to engage in multilateralism, I doubt unilateralism will be significantly removed from US foreign policy since it seems too entrenched, and has been for the most of US history.

HornyPope
11-18-2008, 05:43 PM
That's a pretty big assumption. I think you first need to make the case that we're losing the war on terror (or are you implying that we have already lost it?).

American have lost the war in Iraq and are prepared to withdraw.

Some American allies previously fighting together with U.S. have changed their mind since 2001 and I think the trend will continue until there is almost nobody left.

The majority of your countrymen voted into presidency a man whose foreign agenda is the opposite from that of the incumbent (who declared the war on terrorism). This new president also favours diplomacy over war with the extremists.

Osama Bin Laden is still on the lose.

Is that a strong enough case?

Static_Martyr
11-18-2008, 06:21 PM
Osama Bin Laden is still on the lose.

I blame Bush for that. Dead or alive, my ass :mad:

JohnnyNemesis
11-18-2008, 06:56 PM
I can't tell if this is a serious thread or not...

HornyPope
11-18-2008, 10:18 PM
I can't tell if this is a serious thread or not...

It only looks absurd cause you ain't seen it before. My ideas are fresh, but you watch--the notion will soon hit mainstream politics. Somebody will have to make the decision: is the war on terrorism still going on or is it not? If not, then who is the loser?

Hypno Toad
11-19-2008, 01:04 AM
I think a lot of people are really bitter for losing the war against terrorism,

By leaving IRAQ?


I hope that was a joke, Sigh....


The war on terrorism is taking place in Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is not a lost cause. Not that there was really much of "War on terrorism" In the first place, but Obama says he will increase troop numbers in Afghanistan. As far as I see it, The Joint effort in Afghanistan should be considered more a security operation.

jacknife737
11-19-2008, 01:22 AM
So, for the sake of playing devils advocate, by what standards are you judging Iraq to be a defeat? Saddam Hussein was removed from power and a democratic and (relatively) stable government has been established. Levels of violence are down significantly from previous years, mostly due to the surge. The US troop withdrawal is going to coincide with a recent security agreement that was accepted by the Iraqi Cabinet (and will likely be approved by the parliament) that calls for a full withdrawal of US combat troops by 2011. And the US now has a new ally in a hostile region. How is this a defeat?

bighead384
11-19-2008, 09:17 AM
Just found this and thought it was interesting. It's an article about a video Al Qaida released about Obama. Here's what Al-Qaida sees for the future of American politics:


The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Ayman al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.
In al-Qaida's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect — along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — "house negroes."

Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as "house negroes."

The message also includes old footage of speeches by Malcolm X in which he explains the term, saying black slaves who worked in their white masters' house were more servile than those who worked in the fields. Malcolm X used the term to criticize black leaders he accused of not standing up to whites.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the latest message was just "more despicable comments from a terrorist."

The 11-minute 23-second video features the audio message by al-Zawahri, who appears only in a still image, along with other images, including one of Obama wearing a Jewish skullcap as he meets with Jewish leaders. In his speech, al-Zawahri refers to a Nov. 5 U.S. airstrike attack in Afghanistan, meaning the video was made after that date.

Al-Zawahri said Obama's election has not changed American policies he said are aimed at oppressing Muslims and others.

"America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always," the deputy of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden said.

He said Obama's plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.

"Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them," he said.

Al-Zawahri did not threaten specific attacks, but warned Obama that he was "facing a Jihadi (holy war) awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see."

He said Obama's victory showed Americans acknowledged that President George W. Bush's policies were a failure and that the result was an "admission of defeat in Iraq."

But Obama's professions of support for Israel during the election campaign "confirmed to the Ummah (Islamic world) that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims," al-Zawahri said.

HornyPope
11-19-2008, 09:43 AM
The war on terrorism is taking place in Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is not a lost cause. Not that there was really much of "War on terrorism" In the first place, but Obama says he will increase troop numbers in Afghanistan. As far as I see it, The Joint effort in Afghanistan should be considered more a security operation.

So what, according to you, are 150 000+ American serviceman and servicewomen doing in Iraq if not fighting terrorism?


So, for the sake of playing devils advocate, by what standards are you judging Iraq to be a defeat? Saddam Hussein was removed from power and a democratic and (relatively) stable government has been established. Levels of violence are down significantly from previous years, mostly due to the surge. The US troop withdrawal is going to coincide with a recent security agreement that was accepted by the Iraqi Cabinet (and will likely be approved by the parliament) that calls for a full withdrawal of US combat troops by 2011. And the US now has a new ally in a hostile region. How is this a defeat?

And what do you think happened to the insurgents who a year or two ago mortared the Iraqi capital daily? You think U.S. killed them all? You think they turned in their weapons for the plow and left to live a happily ever after life in the farm?

These people will come back to play a role in Iraqi politics after the Yankees have left, whether by cutting a deal with existing government or supplanting the existing government.

Static_Martyr
11-19-2008, 01:52 PM
These people will come back to play a role in Iraqi politics after the Yankees have left, whether by cutting a deal with existing government or supplanting the existing government.

If we just say, "the terrorists will come back and cut a deal with the government there, so we should stay at war with them until [x period of time, etc.]," then you could use that as grounds to invade almost any largely-unindustrialized nation (or hell, why stop there? Just get the industrialized ones, too), regardless of whether or not it was true.

We've already set up a government in Iraq, albeit a shaky one; there's not much we can do in the long-term that we haven't already done or contributed to. We can't stay at the current troop level forever, especially not with the "other war" going on in Afghanistan; it's just not possible to hold a war on two or three different fronts (assuming this Iran thing doesn't work out) with the troops that we have. They're not infinitely-numbered, ya know 0_0

HornyPope
11-19-2008, 09:11 PM
These people will come back to play a role in Iraqi politics after the Yankees have left, whether by cutting a deal with existing government or supplanting the existing government.

If we just say, "the terrorists will come back and cut a deal with the government there, so we should stay at war with them until [x period of time, etc.]," then you could use that as grounds to invade almost any largely-unindustrialized nation (or hell, why stop there? Just get the industrialized ones, too), regardless of whether or not it was true.

I only said the first part of that sentence, you made up the rest, including the application of such rational.


We've already set up a government in Iraq, albeit a shaky one; there's not much we can do in the long-term that we haven't already done or contributed to. We can't stay at the current troop level forever, especially not with the "other war" going on in Afghanistan; it's just not possible to hold a war on two or three different fronts (assuming this Iran thing doesn't work out) with the troops that we have. They're not infinitely-numbered, ya know 0_0

Now, your argument on the other hand is a cop-out for any revisionist historian. See, the Germans didn't really lose the second world war. They established a number of shaky governments across Europe, but they couldn't stay at that troop level forever, especially with the "other wars" going in the East, Africa and the Atlantic ocean. Right?

jacknife737
11-19-2008, 11:43 PM
And what do you think happened to the insurgents who a year or two ago mortared the Iraqi capital daily? You think U.S. killed them all? You think they turned in their weapons for the plow and left to live a happily ever after life in the farm?

These people will come back to play a role in Iraqi politics after the Yankees have left, whether by cutting a deal with existing government or supplanting the existing government.

A lot of it has to do with integrating them into the political process already, ie making civil servants out of insurgents. Granted that doesn't necessarily make them pro-US, but i doubt Iraq is going to take a radically anti-US stance once it begins the withdrawal of their forces.

Also, it's not like the US is totally pulling out completely; there are still going to be troops left in Iraq, they'll just stay in their bases instead of patrolling the streets. Not to mention that massive new embassy their building; there is still going to be a noticeable US presence in the country, even though the majority of combat troops will have been removed.

Static_Martyr
11-20-2008, 04:01 AM
I only said the first part of that sentence, you made up the rest, including the application of such rational.

True....but you seemed to be implementing that claim as criticism of a withdrawal from Iraq. And so that was the natural reasoning to follow (that we should stay). Or perhaps I misunderstood?

Now, your argument on the other hand is a cop-out for any revisionist historian. See, the Germans didn't really lose the second world war. They established a number of shaky governments across Europe, but they couldn't stay at that troop level forever, especially with the "other wars" going in the East, Africa and the Atlantic ocean. Right?

First off, I never said we weren't losing the war. I've said that we're losing the war for quite some time, actually --- the vaguely-defined "war on terror" is the type of war that is essentially impossible to win, anyway.

Second, this was again an assumption that you were criticizing the idea of a withdrawal. If I made a mistaken assumption, then I of course take responsibility for the misunderstanding 0_0

Mota Boy
11-20-2008, 07:31 AM
American have lost the war in Iraq and are prepared to withdraw.

The majority of your countrymen voted into presidency a man whose foreign agenda is the opposite from that of the incumbent (who declared the war on terrorism). This new president also favours diplomacy over war with the extremists.

Is that a strong enough case?No, not really. A shift in tactics isn't refutation of the War on Terror itself, but its management. I don't think you would see anyone say that Obama's election means we've been defeated b y the economy. Barack Obama has long stated that he believes that Afghanistan is the central front in the WoT and he wants to put more troops there; Iraq has been a costly sideshow. The situation in Iraq is significantly improved from the past few years. IF we manage to withdraw and leave behind a stable, friendly government (definitely not a certainly, but certainly a possibility) then how on earth is that defeat?

You seem to be making the right-wing case that a Democrat in power and a withdraw from Iraq automatically means a defeat at the hands of terrorists, and it's no more credible a premise than when Rush Limbaugh assumes it.

Hypno Toad
11-20-2008, 03:52 PM
So what, according to you, are 150 000+ American serviceman and servicewomen doing in Iraq if not fighting terrorism?




You have just brought up a complete paradox. The only terrorists the US is fighting in Iraq are ones who left Afghanistan to specifically to fight and die in combat against US troops, it could be considered baiting, but since when is killing 100, 000+ Iraqis a valid baiting tactic? The Insurgents terrorizing civilians are terrorizing civilians to diminish support for the US invasion, so essentially all these "terrorists" your 150, 000 servicemen are fighting are either non existent (blown out of proportion or obscured by media) not terrorists, or are terrorists created by the US invasion Iraq, the invasion that took place "to defeat terrorism"; the terrorism the US created by invading Iraq; Iraq; The country invaded by the US to combat terrorism; the terrorism created by the US by invading Iraq. Do you see how it works? Iraq disliked america before the iraq invasion, but not enough to really do anything about it. Once the Us invaded, and destroyed the tyrannical government (the one that would crush terrorist activity and civil disobedience) it made the conditions right for a civil war and terrorist activity.

Do you see what I mean? Every minute the US stays in Iraq, they further piss off, kill, or demoralize more people. Those people, or their family members (if they were a dead eprson) join forces to terrorize US troops, and US troops supporters.

Do you see how the cycle works?


Afghanistan on the other hand, is a dirt poor country, ripe for raping by religious fundamentalists, and terrorist groups. terrorists the US incidentally created and funded during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

More or less, every "terrorist" the US fights today, is one they have created at some point in time, directly, or indirectly.


FWI, an Insurgent is NOT a terrorist. And Insurgency is an informal fighting force. Terrorism is the killing of innocence to provoke a political reaction. Thus, an Insurgent is an informal fighting participant, and terrorist is one that takes part in the terrorizing of innocence to provoke a political reaction. On occasion, Insurgencies may resort to terror tactics out of frustration or for a tactical advantage. Though, the US also did this during Vietnam, and on a smaller scale in Iraq, but you don't call your troops "terrorists", if you do call Insurgents terrorists, you are also implying that you own US fighting force is too.

All in all, to answer your question:

The US servicemen are shooting enemies they have created, and then shooting the more enemies they create by shooting the enemies they created. As well as making a half assed effort to set up a crappy, useless democracy that will probably turn back into a dictatorship a few days after the US pulls out, just like Vietnam :D

BTW, have you ever seen generation kill?

Many of the US servicemen are vulgar, horny, killing machines bent on killing and shredding every single "hajji" fighter they see. Honestly, have you ever had a discussion with an average, US marine? War brings out the worst in people. So please stop trying to consider these fighters as these romantic, heroic, empathetic sympathizers that they are not. Though many of them may be "serving their country" or "doing their duty" a great portion of them are there because they want to kill people and blow shit up.

HornyPope
11-20-2008, 07:34 PM
A lot of it has to do with integrating them into the political process already, ie making civil servants out of insurgents. Granted that doesn't necessarily make them pro-US, but i doubt Iraq is going to take a radically anti-US stance once it begins the withdrawal of their forces.

Oh so U.S. is going to withdraw and leave behind a government composed of insurgents? That's re-assuring...


Barack Obama has long stated that he believes that Afghanistan is the central front in the WoT and he wants to put more troops there; Iraq has been a costly sideshow

A 'costly sideshow'? Is that what Hussein called it?

That sideshow was the biggest American involvement since Vietnam (and in many ways on par with Vietnam); it cost you a couple of trillions and claimed hundred thousands casualties on both sides.


The situation in Iraq is significantly improved from the past few years. IF we manage to withdraw and leave behind a stable, friendly government (definitely not a certainly, but certainly a possibility) then how on earth is that defeat? Because that big IF will probably not materialize. The dire situation in Iraq was due not due to lack of ammo or a series of unfortunate circumstances that just didn't work in America's favour. It was a result of fierce resistance at the hands of the insurgents. Now, these insurgents have not been defeated. There are thousands of them and when the American army has left, they will come back to play the same role in Iraq politics that they played before the invasion. Basically, outside of a number of notable changes on top of the command, we're back to square one. USA hasn't accomplished SHIT in Iraq?

How is it anything BUT a defeat?


First off, I never said we weren't losing the war. I've said that we're losing the war for quite some time, actually --- the vaguely-defined "war on terror" is the type of war that is essentially impossible to win, anyway. Ok, so now that U.S. has lost the war in Iraq, how do you think it will impact future American politics?

HornyPope
11-20-2008, 07:37 PM
The only terrorists the US is fighting in Iraq are ones who left Afghanistan to specifically to fight and die in combat against US troops, it could be considered baiting, but since when is killing 100, 000+ Iraqis a valid baiting tactic? The Insurgents terrorizing civilians are terrorizing civilians to diminish support for the US invasion, so essentially all these "terrorists" your 150, 000 servicemen are fighting are either non existent (blown out of proportion or obscured by media) not terrorists, or are terrorists created by the US invasion Iraq, the invasion that took place "to defeat terrorism"; the terrorism the US created by invading Iraq; Iraq; The country invaded by the US to combat terrorism; the terrorism created by the US by invading Iraq. Do you see how it works? Iraq disliked america before the iraq invasion, but not enough to really do anything about it. Once the Us invaded, and destroyed the tyrannical government (the one that would crush terrorist activity and civil disobedience) it made the conditions right for a civil war and terrorist activity.

Do you see what I mean? Every minute the US stays in Iraq, they further piss off, kill, or demoralize more people. Those people, or their family members (if they were a dead eprson) join forces to terrorize US troops, and US troops supporters.

Do you see how the cycle works?
[..]

The US servicemen are shooting enemies they have created, and then shooting the more enemies they create by shooting the enemies they created. As well as making a half assed effort to set up a crappy, useless democracy that will probably turn back into a dictatorship a few days after the US pulls out, just like Vietnam



Yes, I see.

Ok, so now that U.S. realized that it cannot win the war in Iraq and has formally announced a withdrawal, do you consider it a loss or do you consider it a victory for America? Or is it a tie?

Hypno Toad
11-20-2008, 08:24 PM
It depends how you look at it, they won the formal war, but they failed at their main objective. Which was setting up a western style democracy, and restoring order in the country.

So in the end, America really did lose badly. trillions of dollars in debt, and they didn't even complete the objective. It is a lot like the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, really.

Mota Boy
11-20-2008, 09:30 PM
That sideshow was the biggest American involvement since Vietnam (and in many ways on par with Vietnam); it cost you a couple of trillions and claimed hundred thousands casualties on both sides.Well, it claimed over one hundred thousand casualties on one side, but anyway... and? Point remains, it is a distraction from the WoT. You're just making my case that it's a pretty fucking big distraction from which we need to extricate ourselves.



Because that big IF will probably not materialize. The dire situation in Iraq was due not due to lack of ammo or a series of unfortunate circumstances that just didn't work in America's favour. It was a result of fierce resistance at the hands of the insurgents. Now, these insurgents have not been defeated. There are thousands of them and when the American army has left, they will come back to play the same role in Iraq politics that they played before the invasion. Basically, outside of a number of notable changes on top of the command, we're back to square one. USA hasn't accomplished SHIT in Iraq?So you're taking future possibilities, assuming that they're certainties and then further assuming that those certain hypotheticals mean failure for American military policy. I think you're assuming just as much about your knowledge of Iraqi political scenarios as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did.

There are myriad scenarios for how a sovereign Iraq could work out. At this point, I don't see the insurgents as having any power. Originally they were largely composed of groups excluded from the political process. Most of those have been brought in. All that remain are the few hardcore, fanatical freedom fighters, and Iraqis are fucking tired of them. The success of the Taliban wasn't just their ideology, it was that the Taliban, as Pashtuns, are also members of a tribe that has a plurality in Afghanistan. The Iraqi insurgents have no natural base from which to draw. Any problems will come from the government splintering into rival factions. But again, we're dealing in hypotheticals.

Static_Martyr
11-21-2008, 04:06 AM
Ok, so now that U.S. has lost the war in Iraq, how do you think it will impact future American politics?

I can't say with certainty.....but I do hope it makes the point to U.S. leaders that we can't just go to war with anyone anywhere for any reason. Going into Iraq was a stupid decision from the start; the reasons we're given now for the initial invasion are things that came about after the actual invasion; there simply were no real reasons for invading. No WMDs, no threats to U.S. safety, no terrorists cavorting with Hussein (and I mean Saddam~). But on top of that, I think the last 8 years have given American leaders quite the swelled heads; we've gotten it in our minds that it's okay to go to war based on some misguided idea of "get them before they get us;" I equate the U.S.'s actions in Iraq to a situation between two folks standing on a streetcorner; one guy accuses the other guy of having a gun, and the other guy denies it. So the first guy pulls out a gun of his own and shoots the second guy in the chest, claiming it was "self-defense" because the other guy might have had a gun and so it was only reasonable to take him out "just in case."

If America and Iraq were American citizens instead of countries, America would be in prison right now >:/

Rag Doll
11-21-2008, 09:00 AM
Many of the US servicemen are vulgar, horny, killing machines bent on killing and shredding every single "hajji" fighter they see. Honestly, have you ever had a discussion with an average, US marine? War brings out the worst in people. So please stop trying to consider these fighters as these romantic, heroic, empathetic sympathizers that they are not. Though many of them may be "serving their country" or "doing their duty" a great portion of them are there because they want to kill people and blow shit up.

Honestly, have *you* ever had a discussion with an average US marine? Because I actually have. I haven't just watched YouTube videos or seen propagandized news coverage. Now, I am firmly against the war *and* firmly against the Bush Administration. However, the "average US marine" you describe...well, they're few and far between. I have met with members of Iraq Vets Against the War....not one of whom is like this, or describes anyone being like this. Many classmates and colleagues are vets of Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Again, none of them are like this. The stories they tell are of not wanting to be there, but being told they need to follow orders...of watching their friends get rushed to army hospitals with their faces melting off...of being stop lossed....of coming home all fucked up because of PTSD and suffering nightmares. Not of being killing machines. Fuck, my best friend is marrying an Iraq/Afghanistan vet MARINE and neither he, nor his friends, have the type of mentality you attribute to a "great portion of them." I have yet to hear a story about this mentality from any of the numerous people I know that have served there.

HornyPope
11-21-2008, 09:08 AM
Well, it claimed over one hundred thousand casualties on one side, but anyway... and? Point remains, it is a distraction from the WoT. You're just making my case that it's a pretty fucking big distraction from which we need to extricate ourselves.

You cannot dismiss it as a 'distraction', even a fucking big one, when it claimed an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of funds, military involvement, casualties, attention from the media and from the public and so on... My point is, Iraq was front and center in the War on Terrorism.


There are myriad scenarios for how a sovereign Iraq could work out. At this point, I don't see the insurgents as having any power. Originally they were largely composed of groups excluded from the political process. Most of those have been brought in. All that remain are the few hardcore, fanatical freedom fighters, and Iraqis are fucking tired of them. The success of the Taliban wasn't just their ideology, it was that the Taliban, as Pashtuns, are also members of a tribe that has a plurality in Afghanistan. The Iraqi insurgents have no natural base from which to draw. Any problems will come from the government splintering into rival factions. But again, we're dealing in hypotheticals.

Of course we're dealing with hypotheticals because that's how one anticipates a future. No one knows with certainty. It comes down to the best guess.

Your guess rests on everything going right; you assume that the hostile factions are neutralized and unable to cause any damage. How exactly will that happen, I don't know... will the Iraqi government be able prevent them from acquiring weapons and firing RPGs into office buildings? Will there not be tribes that will collaborate with insurgents and pump their own militia in the streets?

Incidentally, Rumsfield and Wolfie were praying on the best scenario too--they thought everything will go as they planned.

Now, my guess is more probable than yours because I assume that anything can destabilize this foresaken country, such as a natural disaster, or an international incident to humiliate the government, or a political scandal or oh-I-don't-know.... somebody blows up the president? How likely is that?

Static_Martyr
11-21-2008, 01:32 PM
You cannot dismiss it as a 'distraction', even a fucking big one, when it claimed an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of funds, military involvement, casualties, attention from the media and from the public and so on... My point is, Iraq was front and center in the War on Terrorism.

Maybe now that we've invaded, it is. But we're to blame for that, I'm afraid....if we hadn't invaded, there would be no threat of invading terrorists. Saddam was doing a pretty decent job taking care of them on his own time and dollar until we came and deposed him.

Not that's it bad that Saddam is gone --- great, even. But one consequence of his removal was that we are now charged with keeping terrorists out of the fledgling nation we have essentially created....a job that is nearly impossible without the cooperation of the people and the government of Iraq. It's kind of like a relationship; we can do our part to set things straight, but if the other party doesn't do its part as well, then the best we can ever reach is 50% efficiency. There has to be a point at which we can lay down our guns and say, "look, we've done all we can, the rest is up to you." It's nice to believe we could drop in there all G.I. Joe and kick ass and save the day and kill all the terrorists and make it all better, but I sincerely doubt we could do that even if we had the troops; the enemy here is not any one particular faction but an ideology, and a negative one at that --- we're not stopping anybody who is "pro-"anything except "pro-violence," and that causes the definition of "enemy" to become even more vague. There is no entity to whom defeat can bring victory, because even if we were to kill all the "enemies" as we currently define them, more would be able to rise in their place without much trouble.

Your guess rests on everything going right; you assume that the hostile factions are neutralized and unable to cause any damage. How exactly will that happen, I don't know... will the Iraqi government be able prevent them from acquiring weapons and firing RPGs into office buildings? Will there not be tribes that will collaborate with insurgents and pump their own militia in the streets?

If you're expecting Iraq to be as safe to walk as, say, Washington, then you're probably going to be waiting awhile. The Middle East has always been somewhat of a hotbed of such violence, and this "war" is not making it any better. I don't think we'll be seeing a complete (or even overall) reduction of violence for the long-term for quite some time, whether or not we withdraw. Another reason why I have so little faith in the "War on Terror;" the goal seems to be the complete stabilization of the Middle East I:/

Incidentally, Rumsfield and Wolfie were praying on the best scenario too--they thought everything will go as they planned.

I remember that; weren't they the ones who said we'd be greeted as liberators? Or was that just Cheney, McCain, and the other prominent GOP figures at the time? I didn't watch a whole lot of news back then....

Mota Boy
11-22-2008, 06:16 AM
You cannot dismiss it as a 'distraction', even a fucking big one, when it claimed an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of funds, military involvement, casualties, attention from the media and from the public and so on... My point is, Iraq was front and center in the War on Terrorism.Your point is, we spent a lot of money on Iraq, therefore it must be central to our strategy. We are going to shift resources to Afghanistan in a change in strategy. This doesn't mean that we've lost or that the war has failed, it means that the people at the highest levels of government were managing it incorrectly. A shift in tactics does not a defeat make. Were that the case, both sides would have already lost this "war" many times over.

Also, you are conflating an ongoing, open-ended battle again an ideology (War on Terror) with a specific conflict (Iraq). The downscaling of the Iraq War has long been called for as the most sensible use of resources, and only the right has been referring to it as "defeat".


Now, my guess is more probable than yours because I assume that anything can destabilize this foresaken country, such as a natural disaster, or an international incident to humiliate the government, or a political scandal or oh-I-don't-know.... somebody blows up the president? How likely is that?Ah, now we're treating the hypotheticals as hypotheticals. I'd say that many of those scenarios are possible, though I fail to forsee a natural disaster. Not really on an earthquake zone or a typhoon target. And sure, people can get blown up. Iraq obviously will not become a new Eden anytime soon, but I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume the government will continue to exist, though it will likely require a continuation of a rather substantial amount of aid assuming oil revenues continue to be unstable.

metalmania
11-22-2008, 03:38 PM
ahahah this subject is telling the stupid, liar policy of this country.remember all!what did "perfect president"say before iraq war? i tell:"hey we re thinking that iraq is producin' the MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPON" and this emperial country did occupy iraq and "couldnt those weapons"! again they did say it:"hey we came to bring the freedom here" so this liar policy came to iraq for oil but just not for oil .this emperial power came to iraq for to organize to middleeast!and 1 million people died there for this policy and they re still dying day by day!soldiers re turning their houses without legs,arms! you re just watching news on tv in our houses,and just writing here blablabla but who can know the reality there ?and world saw that iraq is becoming wietnam for emperial soldiers; but for politicans?they re happy cause they re selling blood,oil,gas... i can say the next policy: kafkasia's countries's minerals(but dont forget the russia),afghanistan(dont forget the narcotic games),iran... so emperialism cant leave the iraq for its fate more 10 years so people died again again civil or soldier .and usa is trying to wipe to wietnam image with this war!aha sorry i forgot :europe's powerfull countries re against this war but after they did run there cause they have to benefit from iraq's blessings! europe did kneel to biggest emperial power ! they did show their weakness

HornyPope
11-22-2008, 09:45 PM
Your point is, we spent a lot of money on Iraq, therefore it must be central to our strategy. We are going to shift resources to Afghanistan in a change in strategy. This doesn't mean that we've lost or that the war has failed, it means that the people at the highest levels of government were managing it incorrectly. A shift in tactics does not a defeat make. Were that the case, both sides would have already lost this "war" many times over.

Changing commanders is a shift in tactics, the surge in troops is a shift in tactics, an upgrade in weapons is a shift in tactics... hell, even opening another front can be a shift in tactics. As it stands, however, the Americans are withdrawing from Iraq because the war has become unsustainable and unwinnable. You simply cannot fight it any longer. It is a sound defeat for U.S.

But I think we're going in circles now, so let me introduce a novel concept that I was aiming at when I started this thread... I anticipated to hit the point sooner then later... Why can't you just admit your country has lost the war in Iraq and move on? If you can't admit you lost, then it must be that you want to keep on fighting the war until you have won it, is that it? Do you want to keep fighting until you won the war?

Mota Boy
11-26-2008, 07:44 AM
What do you believe winning the war will look like, if you believe ending fighting means that you've lost? It's not as though we'll get al Qaeda to the negotiating table to formally surrender.

sKratch
11-26-2008, 10:58 AM
This is possibly the best trolling I've ever seen.

HornyPope
11-28-2008, 10:54 PM
What do you believe winning the war will look like, if you believe ending fighting means that you've lost? It's not as though we'll get al Qaeda to the negotiating table to formally surrender.

The war on terrorism will be won when the terrorists will have been defeated DUH.

Static_Martyr
11-29-2008, 07:45 AM
Getting rid of all of the terrorists....you mean like how we got rid of all of the communists?

LosingStreak
11-29-2008, 03:04 PM
Getting rid of all of the terrorists

Right, and how do you suppose they will go along doing that?

Static_Martyr
11-29-2008, 06:02 PM
Right, and how do you suppose they will go along doing that?

Are you asking me? I'm not sure I understand the question; how will who go along with that?

I wasn't saying anything about actually getting rid of terrorists, I was asking if he meant "Get rid of all the terrorists" in the same sense that the Cold War ideology was to "get rid of all the communists." In that it's essentially impossible.

Smash_Returns
11-29-2008, 09:52 PM
Two different wars:

The Iraq War

The War on Terror

Obama plans to leave the Iraq War. Which actually was a victory (Democracy was established) the only reason we still are there is for security.

The War on Terror wages on, and is not a lost cause, nor showing any signs of ending until we find Osama.

So, how did we lose a war here?

HornyPope
11-30-2008, 02:54 PM
Obama plans to leave the Iraq War. Which actually was a victory (Democracy was established) the only reason we still are there is for security.

That 'democracy' was established is not a necessary condition for victory. While in most cases the occupier establishes its own government following a victory, the fact that the occupier has established a pro-occupation government doesn't make the occupier a victor. Ever heard of puppet regimes?

Moreover, if you indeed established a democratic government, why the 150 000+ "security personnel"? Who are you defending this government against hmmm? If the government is democratic and thus enjoys the popular support, should it not be able to maintain its own army? Are there not enough able-bodied men in Iraq to defend the democracy?


The War on Terror wages on, and is not a lost cause, nor showing any signs of ending until we find Osama.

And the fact that you haven't been able to capture Osama for 7 years tells you what of that war exactly?

Smash_Returns
12-01-2008, 08:58 AM
That 'democracy' was established is not a necessary condition for victory. While in most cases the occupier establishes its own government following a victory, the fact that the occupier has established a pro-occupation government doesn't make the occupier a victor. Ever heard of puppet regimes?

Moreover, if you indeed established a democratic government, why the 150 000+ "security personnel"? Who are you defending this government against hmmm? If the government is democratic and thus enjoys the popular support, should it not be able to maintain its own army? Are there not enough able-bodied men in Iraq to defend the democracy?



And the fact that you haven't been able to capture Osama for 7 years tells you what of that war exactly?

Even though Iraq supports it's government, what about the many other nations full of radicals that don't? That why there's the security force. We're just in there while they train their military.

IamSam
12-01-2008, 09:02 AM
Even though Iraq supports it's government, what about the many other nations full of radicals that don't?

Please excuse me while I go on a brief grammatical rant.









GAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!


It's: It is
Its: Possessive

HornyPope
12-01-2008, 09:25 PM
Even though Iraq supports it's government, what about the many other nations full of radicals that don't? That why there's the security force. We're just in there while they train their military.

Do you think American's inability to contain the insurgents is one of the causes for the withdrawal from Iraq?

Also, how come is America training new recruits instead of enlisting men who served in the national army under Hussein (the Iraqi one) ?

Bipolar Bear
12-02-2008, 07:54 AM
Iraq War

An unjustified war with changing motives. It was brought up by years of lies.

Idiot: Why do you disagree with the Iraq War?

Smart man: Because there was no reason for it and no weapons of mass destruction?

Idiot: So you'd still rather have Saddam in power?

Smart man: No, but it wasn't work the deaths of Americans and civilians, and it we could used the money for better.

Idiot: well....uh...its people like Saddam bin laden that can't enjoy hannukagh....uhhh....fuck you!

Moose
12-02-2008, 04:29 PM
i think everyone can agree the reasons for the war, or at least what came about being, weren't ideal. and i think we can agree that the war was not handled properly. looking back on it, if we knew this were going to happen, we should have finished it off in the early 90's with bush sr.

anyhow...

the point isnt whether or not we should have went into iraq, that issue is dead and agreed upon by most people. the question now is, what should we do from here?

i think early signs show obama isnt going to remove a significant amount of troops from iraq anytime soon. he may do it a year before the election, claim victory, and run on that...but i think a lot of people figured that anyway.

Smash_Returns
12-03-2008, 08:58 AM
I never claimed to agree with the war. I just said we didn't lose.

However, insurgent numbers/attacks in Iraq are significantly down from 1-2 years ago.

However, the fact that we went to war on false pre-tenses makes winning on the same conditions we went to war with is impossible (unless we somehow find WMDs, unlikely). However, this doesn't doom us to defeat, as long as we win in the sense of the new conditions placed for victory.

Bipolar Bear
12-03-2008, 12:42 PM
I never claimed to agree with the war. I just said we didn't lose.

However, insurgent numbers/attacks in Iraq are significantly down from 1-2 years ago.

However, the fact that we went to war on false pre-tenses makes winning on the same conditions we went to war with is impossible (unless we somehow find WMDs, unlikely). However, this doesn't doom us to defeat, as long as we win in the sense of the new conditions placed for victory.

Your country did lose and if it condemned itself to a loss beforehand by instigating a war with false pretexts then its loss results from its own goddamn stupidity and you deserved it. New conditions placed for victory..yeah. That's like starting a monopoly game then deciding halfway through that the condition for victory isn't to be the last person who isn't bankrupt but rather the person who lands on "go" the most times (not to mention that halfway through you have a much better idea of the final outcome...)

IamSam
12-03-2008, 02:22 PM
Your country did lose and if it condemned itself to a loss beforehand by instigating a war with false pretexts then its loss results from its own goddamn stupidity and you deserved it. New conditions placed for victory..yeah. That's like starting a monopoly game then deciding halfway through that the condition for victory isn't to be the last person who isn't bankrupt but rather the person who lands on "go" the most times (not to mention that halfway through you have a much better idea of the final outcome...)

Wrong. We won the war, lost the end game.

And the pretexts for the war were not false, we were holding the receipts for the WMD's we sent them during the Iran/Iraq conflict. Oops.

I didn't agree that we should have gone in on the pretext of WMD's, but much rather would have liked the pretext to be 'Sadaam is a bad man and needs to be removed.' That would have been fine with me.

jacknife737
12-03-2008, 02:40 PM
Wrong. We won the war, lost the end game.

And the pretexts for the war were not false, we were holding the receipts for the WMD's we sent them during the Iran/Iraq conflict. Oops.

I didn't agree that we should have gone in on the pretext of WMD's, but much rather would have liked the pretext to be 'Sadaam is a bad man and needs to be removed.' That would have been fine with me.

Yeah, the false pretext argument doesn't really hold up. I mean, yes several US officials had been wanting to remove Saddam from power; but most of the world thought Iraq had WMDs, i mean, he forced out the UN inspectors, ect; even critics of the War, such as Jacques Chirac thought so, he just felt the UN was better suited dealing with the problem.

But i agree, i feel as if the Neoconservative agenda would be easier to accept if they were more straightforward, and made the argument for war based on liberal intevention.

Bipolar Bear
12-03-2008, 04:42 PM
Every once in a while the US government decides to go into war. It pleases the companies and let's face it - political figures LIKE wars. The pretexts for the war are completely irrelevant and are only excuses for what they're doing, but by this point they're probably even starting to believe their own lies.

Jesus
12-03-2008, 05:03 PM
Yeah, the false pretext argument doesn't really hold up. I mean, yes several US officials had been wanting to remove Saddam from power; but most of the world thought Iraq had WMDs, i mean, he forced out the UN inspectors, ect; even critics of the War, such as Jacques Chirac thought so, he just felt the UN was better suited dealing with the problem.

But i agree, i feel as if the Neoconservative agenda would be easier to accept if they were more straightforward, and made the argument for war based on liberal intevention.

The UN inspectors were withdrawn at request of the Clinton administration because of the air strikes that were going to carried out by the US and UK. They weren't forced out.
And most of the world was having doubts whether Iraq had WMDs, because as time went on the evidence in favor of Iraq having WMDS became more and more ridiculous. To say that pretext in regard to WMDS wasn't false is pretty ridiculous. However the question of them having WMDs wasn't the most relevant for a bunch of countries (or for me), it was whether war would be a best option to create a stable post Saddam Iraq (and middle east). The US agreed with both premises. Both proved to be false.

In regard to liberal intervention, responsibility to protect (R2P) or humanitarian intervention. The 3 marketing names liberals or so called progressives generally use for nation state to nation state violence (when their guys are carrying it out obviously) are only that, namely names or empty words. None of the cases in the literature stand up to scrutiny. The only one might be India's invasion of what was back then East Pakistan in the 1970's, but that's generally excluded because that wasn't us, the good guys by nature, that carried it out.

It's actually fascinating to see that both jacknife737 and IamSam stating that they would have been okay with the war it if it would have been fought on the pretext that Saddam was a bad man (Liberal, humanitarian R2P argument). Like this somehow would have changed anything. As I already sort of stated above, whether Iraq had WMD wasn't really the issue, it was whether war would be the best option to create a stable post Saddam Iraq. The reason for war itself has little impact on the course of the war. So it doesn't matter whether it would have been carried out under the pretext of WMD or R2P, it still would have the same clusterfuck end result. For the simple reason that while some liberal might believe his own bullshit R2P argument, the people that actually get bombed don't give a fuck about whatever reason you give for bombing them and with good reason. History is on their side.

So yeah 8 years of the Bush administration hasn't resulted in a bunch of people learning that the war was bad in principle but that it was only fought wrongly or for the wrong reasons and that 'our' guy can do it better. Heck just look at Afghanistan, lets send more and more troops there cause our guy is there now and he'll do it correctly.

Anyway, is the Iraq war or the war on terror lost? In regard to it's military goal, sure, it was lost the day it began because it's goal is unachievable. Like the war on drugs.
However more importantly it's not yet lost as a motivational factor in supporting state violence, as a bunch of posts here show. And I doubt it will for a long time.

IamSam
12-03-2008, 05:16 PM
It's actually fascinating to see that both jacknife737 and IamSam stating that they would have been okay with the war it if it would have been fought on the pretext that Saddam was a bad man (Liberal, humanitarian R2P argument). Like this somehow would have changed anything. As I already sort of stated above, whether Iraq had WMD wasn't really the issue, it was whether war would be the best option to create a stable post Saddam Iraq. The reason for war itself has little impact on the course of the war. So it doesn't matter whether it would have been carried out under the pretext of WMD or R2P, it still would have the same clusterfuck end result. For the simple reason that while some liberal might believe his own bullshit R2P argument, the people that actually get bombed don't give a fuck about whatever reason you give for bombing them and with good reason. History is on their side.


No, but it's a fantastically more stable reason to go in than a bunch of WMD's on wheels.

jacknife737
12-03-2008, 05:59 PM
@ Jesus

So it’s pretty obvious that you're not a supporter of liberal interventionism, which is fine. I obviously strongly disagree with your dismissal of it; but I don’t really want to get into too much of a debate over the merits of that ideology, unless someone feels like making an additional thread. I suppose that we’re going to have to agree, to disagree on this one. I feel that the removal of Saddam and the implementation of democracy in Iraq were worthy goals, well worth the cost of blood and treasure, regardless of the justification used.* I do feel however, that the US should be keeping with the grand strategy of liberal interventionism, as they did during the Clinton years. It may not, as you say, affect the way the conflict was waged; but I do feel it would give the administration more legitimacy.


The UN inspectors were withdrawn at request of the Clinton administration because of the air strikes that were going to carried out by the US and UK. They weren't forced out. And most of the world was having doubts whether Iraq had WMDs, because as time went on the evidence in favor of Iraq having WMDS became more and more ridiculous.

I admit, I was wrong about the inspectors; however, the “no wmd side” didn’t have any strong evidence to the contrary. Yes, one could argue that the onus is on the Americans to prove their case more effectively; however, in a post 9/11 world, I think it’s relatively reasonable for the US government to be on edge regarding rouge states.


To say that pretext in regard to WMDS wasn't false is pretty ridiculous. However the question of them having WMDs wasn't the most relevant for a bunch of countries (or for me), it was whether war would be a best option to create a stable post Saddam Iraq (and middle east). The US agreed with both premises. Both proved to be false.

That is highly contestable. As I mentioned in a post earlier in this thread; I feel as if the Iraq situation is stabilizing considerably, and the US now has a new ally in the region, where it didn’t before.

________
Edit: * That said, i still opposed the invasion, for practical, rather then ideological reasons. It distracts the US from it's main goals in Afghanistan and even some areas in Pakistan; as well as a general overextension of US troops and capital.

Moose
12-03-2008, 07:54 PM
i wouldnt even say support for the war was totally lost after no wmd were found...id say the war likely lost more support due to the amount of years it has been going on, and the nation building that is still occuring.


a lot of people thought there were worse weapons there than found. they still could have been shipped out, sold, or hidden. still, if this war took 4 years, instead of 8, no one would be nearly this upset.

it has more to do with what is occuring now. if this war was done within 4 years, with a stable democratic iraqi govt in place (even if it had continuing issue) people wouldnt be so angry towards the war.

however, the war is still going on, and the gov't there really hasnt been established. instead, the u.s. are the one's who are trying to hold iraqi up all these years and people are getting tired of it.


so, at this point, you cant pull the troops out, you have to establish strong stability and a democratic gov't in iraq. one that will become a strong friend of the u.s.

no one is saying it doesnt suck, it does, but you still have to make the right decisions going forward.

pyrimid
12-04-2008, 10:43 PM
Oh so U.S. is going to withdraw and leave behind a government composed of insurgents? That's re-assuring...

Please put down the bong and clear your head before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

The United States was formed by a bunch of thugs, criminals, and greedy bastards who rebelled against the king of England. And used the tactics of insurgents and gorilla fighting to win the revolutionary war: the majority of Americans at the time of the revolution were thrown out of most every European country because of dept, criminal behavior, or they were just not liked in proper society. Our forefathers were the dregs of European society and I am proud that they had the balls to stand up to the King.

My favorite quote is “stop your bitchin and start the revolution” Henry Rollins

Static_Martyr
12-05-2008, 04:04 AM
The United States was formed by a bunch of thugs, criminals, and greedy bastards who rebelled against the king of England. And used the tactics of insurgents and gorilla fighting to win the revolutionary war: the majority of Americans at the time of the revolution were thrown out of most every European country because of dept, criminal behavior, or they were just not liked in proper society. Our forefathers were the dregs of European society and I am proud that they had the balls to stand up to the King.

I like Greg Proops' take on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOyP1EvsO8Y

HornyPope
12-05-2008, 08:35 PM
Please put down the bong and clear your head before you stick your foot in your mouth again.

The United States was formed by a bunch of thugs, criminals, and greedy bastards who rebelled against the king of England. And used the tactics of insurgents and gorilla fighting to win the revolutionary war: the majority of Americans at the time of the revolution were thrown out of most every European country because of dept, criminal behavior, or they were just not liked in proper society. Our forefathers were the dregs of European society and I am proud that they had the balls to stand up to the King.

My favorite quote is “stop your bitchin and start the revolution” Henry Rollins

Considering there is absolutely no link between your three paragraphs nor a link my phrase you quoted, I think you're the one with a few bong hits too many. Can you hold a thought for longer than fifteen seconds, amigo or you just don't have one?

Welcome to the boards and please try again.

pyrimid
12-06-2008, 12:42 AM
Considering there is absolutely no link between your three paragraphs nor a link my phrase you quoted, I think you're the one with a few bong hits too many. Can you hold a thought for longer than fifteen seconds, amigo or you just don't have one?

It has everything to do with it. You expect for a government formed less than five years ago to be doing everything it should be. Well look in your own back yard, our government has been here for more than 200 years and it is pretty f’d up. We have many things that need to be changed and fix. But we started out the same way as many groups that did not agree on most things, even basic rights. Yet we have stumbled through it pretty well. And you feel that leaving Iraq in the hands of its own people, (yes some former insurgents and freedom fighters) is a bad thing, that will cause turmoil and eventually self-destruct. Well I say at least let them try; if they fail they will still be better off than under the rule of a dictator.

HornyPope
12-06-2008, 10:19 AM
It has everything to do with it. You expect for a government formed less than five years ago to be doing everything it should be. Well look in your own back yard, our government has been here for more than 200 years and it is pretty f’d up. We have many things that need to be changed and fix. But we started out the same way as many groups that did not agree on most things, even basic rights. Yet we have stumbled through it pretty well. And you feel that leaving Iraq in the hands of its own people, (yes some former insurgents and freedom fighters) is a bad thing, that will cause turmoil and eventually self-destruct. Well I say at least let them try; if they fail they will still be better off than under the rule of a dictator.

It's your condescending way to simplify the Iraqi politics into "we're really trying, but they just need more time" that bothers me because this bullshit is recycled by the American media and the people alike until they themselves become convinced of it.

For your information, Iraq has a 5000 year old history. They have lived through situations of turmoil and civil unrest and malfunctioning governments hundreds of time during that period. These are not ignorant, nomadic men who simply need American edumacation at a world stage to finally figure out what is right for them. Case in point, answer me the following: why has Iraq not brought the army it had from the days of Saddam Hussein (as in, bring in some key commanders and the NCO veterans)? Why are Iraqis uncable to provide security for their own, so-called democratic, government?

bighead384
12-06-2008, 10:21 AM
WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush said Saturday the U.S.-Iraqi security pact approved this week calls for 150,000 American troops to be withdrawn from Iraq in two stages — all by the end of 2011.

The first stage begins next year when U.S. troops pull back from Baghdad and other Iraqi cities by the end of June, Bush said in his weekly radio address. The new pact requires all U.S. troops to leave the country by the end of 2011.

"Only a few years ago, such an agreement was unimaginable," Bush said. "Chaos and violence were consuming Iraq. Terrorists were seizing new ground and using violence to divide the Iraqi people along sectarian lines. And the nation was nearing the point of political collapse and civil war."

The agreement approved by Iraq's three-member presidential council goes into effect next month — even though Iraqi voters will have the final say in a referendum by the end of July. It replaces a U.N. mandate that gives the U.S.-led coalition sweeping powers to conduct military operations and detain people without charge if they were believed to pose a security threat.

The war, in its sixth year, has claimed the lives of more than 4,200 U.S. military personnel. It has dominated most of Bush's presidency and will define his legacy. He credits increased stability in Iraq to last year's U.S. military buildup, which President-elect Barack Obama opposed.

"Today, violence is down dramatically," Bush said. "Our forces have struck powerful blows against al-Qaida. The Iraqi military is growing in capability, taking the lead in the fight against the extremists, and working across sectarian lines."

Last month, attacks fell to the lowest monthly level since the war began in 2003. But recent high-profile bombings are continuing to try to shake public confidence and tensions remain among rival ethnic and religious groups. It's unclear what will happen after U.S. troops start withdrawing.

Other events also will determine the course of violence in Iraq: Provincial elections after the first of the year; efforts by the Iraqis to assume more control of Baghdad; and the integration of former Sunni insurgents into the security forces or civilian government jobs.

If those steps go smoothly, Iraqis will have a real chance of maintaining the security gains since the U.S. troop buildup of last year. If not, Obama will have to decide whether to slow the troop withdrawal despite his promise to remove American combat troops within the first 16 months in office.

"The battle in Iraq has required a large amount of time and a large amount of money," Bush said.

"Thousands of our finest citizens have given their lives to make our country safer and bring us to this new day. The war in Iraq is not yet over, but thanks to these agreements and the courage of our men and women in Iraq, it is decisively on its way to being won."

If I'm not mistaken, Obama wants to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq gradually as soon as he gets into office right?

So basically, Obama will have the troops out of Iraq by 2010, and Bush will have them out by 2011? It's kind of strange that there's such little difference.

Static_Martyr
12-06-2008, 12:36 PM
It may seem small, but an awful lot of people can die in one year.....

Smash_Returns
12-06-2008, 06:47 PM
Why are Iraqis uncable to provide security for their own, so-called democratic, government?

Cable has nothing to do with this argument. It's not even a typo, because "C" is nowhere near any of the keys you hit.

That being said, maybe it's because they don't have a trained military of enough magnitude to deal with the terrorists? That's why we've been training more Iraqi soldiers. So they CAN take over security of the nation.

You can't seriously be idiotic enough to not know that...

Moose
12-06-2008, 07:34 PM
if a being from another planet came on this board, and was able to breakdown this language of ours, they would think that the united states of america is the worst, most destructive and evil place in the universe.

HornyPope
12-06-2008, 07:34 PM
Cable has nothing to do with this argument. It's not even a typo, because "C" is nowhere near any of the keys you hit.

That being said, maybe it's because they don't have a trained military of enough magnitude to deal with the terrorists? That's why we've been training more Iraqi soldiers. So they CAN take over security of the nation.

You can't seriously be idiotic enough to not know that...

Run a search on Iraq's military during the Saddam Hussein era and then tell me if they have the magnitude to deal with the terrorists or if they do not.

Static_Martyr
12-06-2008, 10:04 PM
Also, how come is America training new recruits instead of enlisting men who served in the national army under Hussein (the Iraqi one) ?

Sorry, just noticed this; I'm wondering, on what are you basing the assumption that a significant-enough portion of Saddam's army would feel motivated to join a force in defense of the new government? Granted, I'm not entirely familiar with the military structure under Saddam's government, but from what I have heard, there were quite a few pro-Saddam "Patriots" even during the downfall era. Perhaps some of them --- maybe even a lot of them --- would be willing to enlist to defend the new Iraqi government under U.S. supervision, but I can't imagine that too many of them would be keen on the idea of supporting a new government under the supervision of the same forces that brought down their own. I mean, Saddam's regime couldn't have held sway for so long (or at all) if he didn't have some kind of following.

HornyPope
12-07-2008, 01:00 PM
Also, how come is America training new recruits instead of enlisting men who served in the national army under Hussein (the Iraqi one) ?

Sorry, just noticed this; I'm wondering, on what are you basing the assumption that a significant-enough portion of Saddam's army would feel motivated to join a force in defense of the new government? Granted, I'm not entirely familiar with the military structure under Saddam's government, but from what I have heard, there were quite a few pro-Saddam "Patriots" even during the downfall era. Perhaps some of them --- maybe even a lot of them --- would be willing to enlist to defend the new Iraqi government under U.S. supervision, but I can't imagine that too many of them would be keen on the idea of supporting a new government under the supervision of the same forces that brought down their own. I mean, Saddam's regime couldn't have held sway for so long (or at all) if he didn't have some kind of following.

The Americans have established a democratic government in Iraq, have they not? A democratic government is presumed to be for the people, is it not? If so, then why wouldn't the Iraqi men support it?

I'll remind you that military service under Saddam was compulsory. Over a million of men have basic military training and dozens of thousands have seen direct combat during the first Gulf War.

Smash_Returns
12-07-2008, 03:24 PM
The Americans have established a democratic government in Iraq, have they not? A democratic government is presumed to be for the people, is it not? If so, then why wouldn't the Iraqi men support it?

I'll remind you that military service under Saddam was compulsory. Over a million of men have basic military training and dozens of thousands have seen direct combat during the first Gulf War.

They do. That's why they are letting us train them. They don't have enough soldiers left from Saddams reign. Iraqi casualties are much higher than US casualties, you just don't hear of them as much.

Static_Martyr
12-07-2008, 06:07 PM
The Americans have established a democratic government in Iraq, have they not? A democratic government is presumed to be for the people, is it not? If so, then why wouldn't the Iraqi men support it?

Well, for one, maybe all of the Iraqis don't see it that way. From the insurgents' perspective, at least, it seems they'd rather have an extremist/absolutist government than a moderate or democratic one.

HornyPope
12-07-2008, 10:27 PM
They do. That's why they are letting us train them. They don't have enough soldiers left from Saddams reign. Iraqi casualties are much higher than US casualties, you just don't hear of them as much.

That sounds... brutal. Just how many casualties do you suppose the Iraqis have suffered?



The Americans have established a democratic government in Iraq, have they not? A democratic government is presumed to be for the people, is it not? If so, then why wouldn't the Iraqi men support it?

Well, for one, maybe all of the Iraqis don't see it that way. From the insurgents' perspective, at least, it seems they'd rather have an extremist/absolutist government than a moderate or democratic one.

Just how many insurgents do you suppose there are?

NGNM85
12-07-2008, 10:56 PM
Two different wars:
The Iraq War

The War on Terror

True, but the Iraq War is also a subsection of the broader, nebulous, "War on Terror." I’ll get to the Iraq War in a second, but the War on Terror should not be treated with any seriousness, it’s a bumper sticker, not a policy. First, you can’t really declare war on an activity, like the “War on Drugs” this is essentially an empty slogan, but that’s just the beginning. I’m not saying you can’t try to stop terrorism, but any serious attempt to do so would hardly resemble what we’re seeing. First of all, one would logically expect that the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq would be more likely to incite terrorism, the NIE reports based on our intelligence agencies findings, echo this. Global terrorism is in fact on the rise, Al-Qaeda are as strong as ever, etc. Moreover, the United States is, historically, a major sponsor of international terrorism, for which we were chastised in the United Nations in 1986, I believe. I’m also fairly sure we’re the only member state to be charged as such. If one looks at the official definition of terrorism; “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature..through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.” (From a US army manual.) This highlights the inherent dishonesty in this escapade. Our own behavior in Nicaragua, Indonesia, Iraq, and quite a few other places, constitutes terrorism, it’s total hypocrisy.



Obama plans to leave the Iraq War. Which actually was a victory (Democracy was established) the only reason we still are there is for security.

In order to have been a “victory”, that would necessitate first of all that the administration was at least in part motivated by the welfare of the Iraqi people, and to establish a democracy there. First of all, the administration did everything it could to prevent democracy in Iraq. The much-lauded elections were only allowed to take place after enormous protests and rioting, they just wanted to install a readymade government with people they deemed acceptable, there was no interest in allowing the Iraqi people to participate. Second, it cannot be believed, by any rational person that the administration was motivated by concern for the Iraqi people. Saddam was an ally during the end of the Cold War, when he was really committing atrocities, mass murder, etc., the Reagan administration (Which included some of the same people, including Dick Cheney.) helped Saddam acquire weapons, as somebody mentioned, (In which Rumsfeld was instrumental.) that was back when he was a “good guy“, until he committed his first real crime, namely disobediance, in invading Kuwait, which probably had a lot to do with a miscommunication, but that’s’ besides the point. Theres’ also the years of sanctions which drove Iraq, which was really prospering, on the verge of first-world status, into horrifying poverty and sent the infant mortality rate through the roof, it had little effect on the regime, meanwhile. This was all known and understood. Moreover, the Iraqi government has been pushing for us to leave.


So, how did we lose a war here?

Well, with about 4,000+ Americans dead, at least about ten times that wounded, and Iraqi civilian deaths at very solid estimates of around one million (1,000,000) dead, and, incidentally, around 600 billion dollars, (and that’s’ a low estimate) lost, we sure as shit didn’t win. But thinking about this in terms of winning and losing and good and evil is a gross oversimplification and frankly, part of the problem, as it’s counterproductive to rational discourse.

jacknife737
12-08-2008, 12:43 AM
Again, i hate to tow the neoconservative line, and I am in no way trying to diminish the suffering endured by the Iraqi people; but the claim that 1 000 000 Iraqis have died is a gross overestimate. I mean Iraq only has a population of like 29 000 000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ puts the death toll at maximum 97 828 killed so far. That number is probably not 100 % accurate, but it's safe to say that the casualty rate is not significantly higher than 150 000.

pyrimid
12-08-2008, 01:18 AM
official definition of terrorism
“the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature..through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.”

One side calls them terrorists and the other side calls them freedom fighters.
Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin, Kim il-sung, Karl Marx and even Hitler all were called freedom fighter or revolutionist at one point.

NGNM85
12-08-2008, 10:36 AM
Again, i hate to tow the neoconservative line, and I am in no way trying to diminish the suffering endured by the Iraqi people; but the claim that 1 000 000 Iraqis have died is a gross overestimate. I mean Iraq only has a population of like 29 000 000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ puts the death toll at maximum 97 828 killed so far. That number is probably not 100 % accurate, but it's safe to say that the casualty rate is not significantly higher than 150 000.


Nobody knows exactly, the government figures are definitely rounded down, obviously. The figure I quoted was from the British polling firm Opinion Research Business. http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
Even if we scrap any argument and take this figure of 150,000 to be irrefutable truth, we are talking about a catestrophic destruction of human life, an atrocity.

Duskygrin
12-08-2008, 10:38 AM
I fear we misunderestimated him.

jacknife737
12-08-2008, 11:45 AM
Nobody knows exactly, the government figures are definitely rounded down, obviously.

I think we can both agree, on that.

NGNM85
12-08-2008, 09:48 PM
I admit, I was wrong about the inspectors; however, the “no wmd side” didn’t have any strong evidence to the contrary. Yes, one could argue that the onus is on the Americans to prove their case more effectively; however, in a post 9/11 world, I think it’s relatively reasonable for the US government to be on edge regarding rouge states.


Au contraire. I thought the WMD's were bullshit from thwe beginning, actually, I started getting nervous just after 9/11. After the shock wore off my first thought was what godawful, knee-jerk reaction shit for brains would come up with. I think I've been vindicated. First of all, Saddam had been subject to inspections, US forces wiped out most of his military forces. One big sign was his neighbors, especially Kuwait and iran, who had been invaded by Iraq earlier, were vehemently opposed to this war. I think that speaks volumes. Between 2002-2003 weapons inspections were going along pretty well, with Iraq generally complying, up until GW told the inspectors to get out because the bombs were coming down even though no evidence of WMD had been uncovered, again, very telling. Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector and expert on the Iraqi military publicly denounced the administrations' plan, saying there was no WMD to find. The Pentagon has access to all this information, it really stretches credability to think the administration was genuinely concerned about WMD. Theres' good reasons to believe this was just another selling point cooked up for justification. Richard Clarke, former National Security adviser said that behind closed doors the administration planned to invade Iraq regardless and was just looking to create plausible justification for doing so. Paul Wolfowitz (Who is, incidentally, a douche bag.) has admitted as much. Several former intelligence people have also confirmed this. Also, most of Bush's cabinet are culled from an extreme-right think tank called the Project For a New American Cerntury", during the Clinton years this organization pressed Clinton to do essentially what we're doing now, a full-scale invasion, so they had this plan already. 9/11 was just the catalyst to make it politically possible. There was no genuine threat, or even the concern of genuine threat from Iraq.

Now let's get to "rogue" states. Let's get real, the issue with rogue states, or the legitimate issue, is nuclear weapons, thats' the threat. Interestingly, the BEST deterrant to nuclear conflict, the FISSBAN treaty, without which, said one IAEA spokesman said nuclear war is "inevitable", but the administration voted against it, I think we were the ONLY country in opposition, maybe one other. But thats' not all; Iran has made at least three attempts to open negotiations with the Bush administration, every attempt was rebuked. We COULD sit down and hammer things out diplomatically, but this admionistration has no interest. One should also bear in mind that Iran used to be a democracy, and they loved America, until we decided they're government wasn't sufficiently anti-communist and overthrew it to bring back the monarchy supported by a repressive police state apparatus which led to the revolution by Ayatollah Khomeini, because our allies killed all the moderates. The point is if we actually want a safer world with less terrorism, the best route is through diplomacy and fundamentally altering our foreign policy.

Smash_Returns
12-08-2008, 10:12 PM
Oh, The War On Terror definately is a... broad war, so to speak.
There are no definate win conditions.

As for the Iraq war, based on a strictly militarian standpoint (cold and heartless) we won, simply because the invasion was successful and we uprooted the government. However, in a broader sense, we didn't win or lose, simply because, nothing really has been accomplished, unless we successfully establish security over there, which is why many peole, (myself included) find the Iraq War to be bullshit.

jacknife737
12-08-2008, 10:29 PM
Look, were WMDs the only reason for the invasion? No, of course not; it was a mix of motives, such as the neoconservative desire to spread democracy throughout the Middle East as a tool to secure US interests and to contain what the administration viewed as terrorist elements, as well as, stopping the potential spread of WMDs. Eventually it turned out those weapons programs simply did not exist in Iraq, which in turn seems (at least initially) to give credence to those who claimed it was a bullshit excuse from the start. However, I will maintain that the United States had legitimate reason to suspect Iraq of developing such a program. To be frank, I hope you’ll excuse me for not wanting to get into yet another debate over this conflict. It wasn’t the only motive for the war; but it’s silly to dismiss it as a primary concern of the United States at the time.

As for “rogue states”, I’m not entirely supportive of the administrations way of dealing with, or even the usage of the term “rouge states” for that matter. It’s quite obvious, for example with Iran, aggressive diplomacy is needed rather then senseless saber rattling, ect. However, as I have mentioned earlier, as far as the Bush Administration was concerned in the wake of 9/11 it is not unwarranted for them to wish to deal with such security threats with more then simple “talk”. I’m not supportive of that course of action, but I can understand why they chose such a strategy.

NGNM85
12-08-2008, 10:46 PM
Look, were WMDs the only reason for the invasion? No, of course not; it was a mix of motives, such as the neoconservative desire to spread democracy (Read:"Largely authoritarian regimes where the people have little say that disregard the citizens in favor of western corporations and Washington DC.")
throughout the Middle East as a tool to secure US interests and to contain what the administration viewed as terrorist elements, as well as, stopping the potential spread of WMDs. Eventually it turned out those weapons programs simply did not exist in Iraq, which in turn seems (at least initially) to give credence to those who claimed it was a bullshit excuse from the start. However, I will maintain that the United States had legitimate reason to suspect Iraq of developing such a program. To be frank, I hope you’ll excuse me for not wanting to get into yet another debate over this conflict. It wasn’t the only motive for the war; but it’s silly to dismiss it as a primary concern of the United States at the time.

But there was no legitimate reason to believe Iraq HAD WMD, nor is it even likely the administration believed that (See above.), so thats' not a reason. Fighting terrorism is out, too, because the government predicted, and it's pretty much a given, that this exercise would INCRAEASE terrorism. (Which, incidentally, is what we're committing.)



As for “rogue states”, I’m not entirely supportive of the administrations way of dealing with, or even the usage of the term “rouge states” for that matter. It’s quite obvious, for example with Iran, aggressive diplomacy is needed rather then senseless saber rattling, ect. However, as I have mentioned earlier, as far as the Bush Administration was concerned in the wake of 9/11 it is not unwarranted for them to wish to deal with such security threats with more then simple “talk”. I’m not supportive of that course of action, but I can understand why they chose such a strategy.

The hijackers were all from Saudi Arabia, Iraq had NOTHINg to do with it. The administrations' response makes no logical sense in terms of the event. It can only make sense as part of an agenda which was loosely fixed around 9/11. There are reasons why they did what they did of course, theres' reasons for everything, but are they GOOD reasons, are they JUSTIFIABLE reasons? Not even close.

jacknife737
12-08-2008, 11:05 PM
(Read:"Largely authoritarian regimes where the people have little say that disregard the citizens in favor of western corporations and Washington DC.")

The current democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to disprove that, no? You can cite all the examples of past foreign intervention as you like, none of those negate the fact that today, both countries have democratically elected and functioning governments. I think people, including yourself severely misunderestimate the idealism involved in neconservatism. Their views regarding the promotion of democracy in the middle east is one of the main reasons why many prominent realist thinkers were against the war.


But there was no legitimate reason to believe Iraq HAD WMD, nor is it even likely the administration believed that (See above.), so thats' not a reason. Fighting terrorism is out, too, because the government predicted, and it's pretty much a given, that this exercise would INCRAEASE terrorism. (Which, incidentally, is what we're committing.)

And I disagree. We’re just going to go in circles here; as I mentioned in my previous post I don’t feel like getting into this debate. I also take issue with your views on state-sponsored terrorism, but alas, that is for another thread.


(The hijackers were all from Saudi Arabia, Iraq had NOTHINg to do with it. The administrations' response makes no logical sense in terms of the event. It can only make sense as part of an agenda which was loosely fixed around 9/11. There are reasons why they did what they did of course, theres' reasons for everything, but are they GOOD reasons, are they JUSTIFIABLE reasons? Not even close.

I never claimed that 9/11 and Iraq were connected; however the 9/11 attacks certainly placed the Administration in vulnerable and unstable position which clearly influenced their decision making. I also don't care whether or not you think they are justifiable reasons; i am simply trying to explain the administrations mindset when selecting and implementing their choice of strategy.

pyrimid
12-09-2008, 03:22 AM
But there was no legitimate reason to believe Iraq HAD WMD,



However, Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted U.N. resolutions demanding that it disarm." He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for. Since sites had been found which evidenced the destruction of chemical weaponry, UNSCOM was actively working with Iraq on methods to ascertain for certain whether the amounts destroyed matched up with the amounts that Iraq had produced. In the next quarterly report, after the war, the total amount of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq can be gathered.

Those include:
• 50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
• Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
• 2 large propellant casting chambers
• 14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
• Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
• Some 122 mm chemical warheads
• Some chemical equipment
• 224.6 kg of expired growth media

On October 3, 2003, the world digests David Kay's Iraq Survey Group report that finds no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, although it states the government intended to develop more weapons with additional capabilities. Weapons inspectors in Iraq do find some "biological laboratories" and a collection of "reference strains", including a strain of botulinum bacteria, "ought to have been declared to the UN." Kay testifies that Iraq had not fully complied with UN inspections. In some cases, equipment and materials subject to UN monitoring had been kept hidden from UN inspectors.
"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002."

In June 2004, the United States removed 2 tons of low-enriched uranium from Iraq, sufficient raw material for a single nuclear weapon.
Beginning in 2003, the ISG had uncovered remnants of Iraq's 1980s-era WMD programs. On June 21, 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country.

On July 2008, 550 metric tonnes of "yellowcake" the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium, arrived in Montreal as part of a top-secret U.S. operation. This transport of the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a voyage across two oceans. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth "tens of millions of dollars."

06 January, 2004
AFP
Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:
-1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.

Nayouf writes that the transfer of Iraqi WMD to Syria was organized by the commanders of Saddam Hussein's Special Republican Guard, including General Shalish, with the help of Assif Shoakat , Bashar Assad's cousin. Shoakat is the CEO of Bhaha, an import/export company owned by the Assad family.
In February 2003, a month before America's invasion in Iraq, very few are aware about the efforts to bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction from Iraq to Syria, and the personal involvement of Bashar Assad and his family in the operation.
Nayouf, who has won prizes for journalistic integrity, says he wrote his letter because he has terminal cancer.


Sounds like something was found.....

sKratch
12-10-2008, 09:16 AM
Look, were WMDs the only reason for the invasion? No, of course not; it was a mix of motives, such as the neoconservative desire to spread democracy throughout the Middle East as a tool to secure US interests and to contain what the administration viewed as terrorist elements, as well as, stopping the potential spread of WMDs.

The only motivation the administration provided to the public for going to war was to stop Sadam from being an imminent threat to the United States of America, on the basis of his possession of weapons of mass destruction. The goals were retroactively changed after no weapons were found.

HornyPope
12-10-2008, 11:47 AM
Oh, The War On Terror definately is a... broad war, so to speak.
There are no definate win conditions.

As for the Iraq war, based on a strictly militarian standpoint (cold and heartless) we won, simply because the invasion was successful and we uprooted the government. However, in a broader sense, we didn't win or lose, simply because, nothing really has been accomplished, unless we successfully establish security over there, which is why many peole, (myself included) find the Iraq War to be bullshit.

You keep on saying it but I already negated that argument by explaining that just because the government has been supplanted doesn't mean the occupier is victorious in the end. Very often in history, elements of the Resistance would regroup and will continue attacking the aggressor until he can no longer continue the occupation.

I brought in the example of Nazi Germany that has conquered almost the whole of Europe and occupied it for 4-6 long years until they have finally been defeated. Same thing can be said for WW1, Napoleonic wars or Japanese invasion of China and Korea etc...

jacknife737
12-10-2008, 02:51 PM
The only motivation the administration provided to the public for going to war was to stop Sadam from being an imminent threat to the United States of America, on the basis of his possession of weapons of mass destruction. The goals were retroactively changed after no weapons were found.

They may have only stated that WMDs were the "central reason", obviously to shore up world support for the military actions; but the real driving force behind the invasion was the Bush Doctrine*/Neoconservative ideology, which includes the reasons I listed above. They may have altered the rational for war in the public sphere, but the same motivations were always there.

Another point i'm trying to get across here, is that i'm not trying to cheerlead the Bush Administration; in general i just have issues with the notion of "resource war".

Edit: * Which was presented to the American public in Bush's 2002 State of the Union address. So, all motivations for war were presented to the public prior to the start of hostilities.

NGNM85
12-10-2008, 10:22 PM
The current democratic governments in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to disprove that, no? You can cite all the examples of past foreign intervention as you like, none of those negate the fact that today, both countries have democratically elected and functioning governments. I think people, including yourself severely misunderestimate the idealism involved in neconservatism. Their views regarding the promotion of democracy in the middle east is one of the main reasons why many prominent realist thinkers were against the war.

You're characterization of iraq and Afghanistan as "functioning democracies" is a gross distortion. There is still considerable sectarian violence and huge infrastructure problems. The administration has repeatedly stated it's intentions to "spread democracy", this is patent nonsense. Why then do we continue to maintain close relationships with some of the worst police states and human rights violators on the planet? The US government supported Saddam Hussein throughout the 80's, Rumsfeld was a major player in that, we initially supported the Taliban in 1996, are we to honestly believe these people have suddenly, spontaneously developed an intense love for democracy? Bullshit. As I mentioned, the administration did virtually everything it could to PREVENT the Iraqis from having elections. The majority of citizens in both countries want us to leave immediately. No, our commitment to "democracy" is the same as it was in the cold-war years, washington is supportive of self-governing regimes which fall exactly in line with the present political agenda. If anything, "real" democracy is viewed as a threat.



And I disagree. We’re just going to go in circles here; as I mentioned in my previous post I don’t feel like getting into this debate. I also take issue with your views on state-sponsored terrorism, but alas, that is for another thread.

It's not a matter of opinion. There is such a volume of evidence it's beyond question the administration already had it's mind made up to invade Iraq. According to Paul Wolfowitz, WMD were the best selling point. There are published reports from out intelligence agencies, and you don't have to be an expert to figure out, an invasion of Iraq would INCREASE global terrorism, former defense Secretaries Robert McNamera and William Perry have both stated that the United States present foreign policy has drastically increased the likelihood of devastating terrorist attacks. In the words of the National Intelligence Council in '04 ;"Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself." As for my views on state terrorism, I merely apply the standard according to the US government definition, it's the same criteria.


I never claimed that 9/11 and Iraq were connected; however the 9/11 attacks certainly placed the Administration in vulnerable and unstable position which clearly influenced their decision making. I also don't care whether or not you think they are justifiable reasons; i am simply trying to explain the administrations mindset when selecting and implementing their choice of strategy.

The 9/11 attacks did not place the administration in a vulnerable position, terrorism makes people nervous, roughly 3,000 were killed, but there was no threat to the us system of governance. If anything, it was a gift, as it was to Russia, China, etc., it was an excuse to clamp down, roll back civil liberties, etc. This is part of why there was no hesitation on the administrations' part to embark on a course of action that would most definitely increase terrorism, which analysts suggest has increased roughly sevenfold, globally. That the reasons were not justifiable is of supreme importance, especially to American citizens, like me. Not to mention it's central to how we proceed from here, if the Iraq war is a disaster, that was sold to us under false pretenses, which it is, thats' integral to how we formulate our policies from here onward. Frankly, you're asessment of the administrations' motives doesn't hold water.

jacknife737
12-10-2008, 10:57 PM
I’d like to point out, that I’m probably not going to reply any more in this thread since I’ve had this discussion way too many times on this BBS, and IRL. And I’m getting bored; we’re just going around in circles, and nobody's mind is going to be changed.


You're characterization of iraq and Afghanistan as "functioning democracies" is a gross distortion. There is still considerable sectarian violence and huge infrastructure problems. The administration has repeatedly stated it's intentions to "spread democracy", this is patent nonsense.

And I disagree. Are there currently problems? Of course; both countries have just undergone invasions. However, great strides have been made in relatively short periods of time, in Iraq levels of violence are down considerably from past years, and the Iraqi parliament (especially in the last few months) has shown that it is able function in a way to maintain the needs of Iraqi citizens. For a measure of success, you should not compare Iraq to say liberal democracies ie Canada/Australia/Britain, but rather it should be compared to the Iraq of 2002/03. You cannot deny that both Iraq and Afghanistan are now democracies; it is a fact.


It's not a matter of opinion. There is such a volume of evidence it's beyond question the administration already had it's mind made up to invade Iraq.

I’ve not stated otherwise, in fact, I’ve quite openly stated that WMDs were not the sole reason. That said, as I have mentioned earlier in other posts, I believe that in 2002/03 it was reasonable to assume that Saddam had a WMD program. Feel free to disagree, but you’d be wrong.


The 9/11 attacks did not place the administration in a vulnerable position, terrorism makes people nervous, roughly 3,000 were killed, but there was no threat to the us system of governance.

So, you don’t think that an attack in the financial capital of both the United States, and the world would put the Administration in a difficult position? To have 3000 (mostly Americans) slaughtered in front of the eyes of the world, and you don’t think the administration is going to reassess possible threats and strategies for dealing with such threats? Of course it is.

Edit:

That the reasons were not justifiable is of supreme importance, especially to American citizens, like me.

I don't care, because it is irrelevant to the point i was attempting to make in this thread. I don't care.

NGNM85
12-19-2008, 06:41 PM
Before I tackle anything else, it's important to clarify the realities underpinning Washington's efforts to "export democracy", as it's fundamental. Rather than reiterate a lot of the same material, I'll just provide the quote from Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent": (in reference to the Fnglish revolution of the1600s)"..as one historian pointed out in 1660, he criticized the radical democrats, the ones who had been calling for what we would now call democracy because they are making the people so curious, arrogant, that they will never find humility enough to submit to a civil rule. ..underlying these doctrines, which were very widely held, is a certain conception of democracy. It's a game for the elites,..not for the ignorant masses, who have to be marginalized, diverted and controlled-of course for their own good. The same principles were upheld in the American colonies. .."the people who own the country ought to govern it"-quoting John Jay.Now, in modern times, for elites, this ..contrary view is in fact the standard one, I think.. ..the title (Manufacturing Consent) is actually borrowed from a book by Walter Lippman (1921) ..in which he called the "manufacture of consent" .. "a revolution in the practice of democracy."
What it amounts to is a technique of control. ..he said this was useful, and necessary because "the common interests...,elude the public." ..they have to be the domain of a "specialized class." Notice thats' the opposite of the standard definition of democracy.
Theres' a version of this expressed by.. Reinhold Neibhur, who was very influential on contemporary policymakers. His view was that ..because of the "stupidity of the average man", he follows not reason but faith, ..requires "necessary illusions", and "emotionally potent oversimplifications." ..It's not the case,... that indoctrination is inconsistent with democracy, as this whole line of thinkers observes, it's the essence of democracy. ..in a military or feudal state ..it doesn't matter what people think because you can control what people do. When the state loses it's bludgeon, ..when the voice of the people can be heard you have this problem. It may make the people so curious, so arrogant, that they won't have the humility to submit to a civil rule and therefore you have to control what people think. ..various other ways of.. marginalizing the public."