So every time a Supply Caravan gets hit by IEDs, is it because of Islamic Radicalism? (I don't know, I'm not there, but I have a hard time imagining that Muslims hate Lumber and Processed Cheese.) Or are the Caravans being bombed because the people of Iraq have no other way to say, We don't want your goods America! We want to do things our way. Again, I am not there, I am not them, but which is easier to believe?
Hm... Well, I'd like to propose an alternative theory: Militant groups are purposefully restricting the flow of supplies into the community as a show of power to those within. In other words, they're telling the other residents of the city, "You don't get to eat unless we say so, so you'd better fall in line and obey our wishes." I'll be the first to admit that I have no clue how the internal politics are playing out, but it seems a probable motive in theory. Of course, resentment of American involvement is probably a big part of it as well, but I don't know that it's necessarily a "Baghdad Tea Party." Anyway, just playing devil's advocate.
What I was leaning towards with the OP is that as far as I can tell there's a lot of sentiment everywhere that there's nothing more to be done, and when you can poll 50% of the marines who think it's not worthwhile then that, at least, is a pretty serious morale problem and much more likely just reflects the fact that control of the country has pretty much gotten away from the US.
Honestly I'm convinced that any positive outcome from Iraq was probably lost within the first 2 weeks after they rolled into Baghdad, and it turned out no one had actually tried to plan for how they were going to control and provide for the city. And then things got a metric fuckton worse when they dismissed the former security forces (of course that was the CPA, since the military was expecting to have them).
You know guys, the occupation gets a lot of shit for its position on privatizing the oil fields, but if you are trying to build a democracy, government ownership of the oil supply isn't the brightest move. Unless there is a strong pre-existing democratic structure, it is the kiss of death.
I don't think anyone's really gotten much money out of those oil fields since as I understand it they were sabotaged and have continued to be sabotaged since pretty much the get go, and the whacky thing was why almost no effort was invested in trying to protect them initially.
What's completely mad is that Iraq is more or less a picture perfect corporate dystopia. Insurgency and military troops in constant warfare, corporations doing stupid and wasteful stuff to bill the government some more money and operating with the backing of effectively corrupt officials, and the ability to simply put their personnel in a position to die real easy if they don't do what they say.
I'm not sure why that is completely mad. Is seems like the obvious thing to happen when a government is barely functional.
Edit: Fareed Zacharia had a good idea a few months ago. If you restarted Iraq's state run companies you could create about 200,000 jobs overnight.
That does sound like a pretty decent idea. The security of a government rests on it's populace having a vested interest in maintaining it. 200,000 jobs is a nice jumping off point for that kind of policy.
Making the oil fields completely private actually seems like a bad idea to me. Either government or private run, there is a large risk that the money will go mostly to the top with very little trickle down. With private, it's a guarantee. With government, there is atleast a chance the money will go back into the state.
Also, not a penny of any of that money should ever touch Haliburton or whatever dummy corporations they've set up so that people don't know all the money is being funnelled to Haliburton.
Not one fucking penny. They've defrauded our government for more than enough.
I'm not sure why that is completely mad. Is seems like the obvious thing to happen when a government is barely functional.
Completely mad in that it happened more or less with sponsorship from the Bush administration. I mean, employment policy in the CPA that asked who you voted for in the election? Flying in $12 billion in cash to a war zone to pay contractors?
So every time a Supply Caravan gets hit by IEDs, is it because of Islamic Radicalism? (I don't know, I'm not there, but I have a hard time imagining that Muslims hate Lumber and Processed Cheese.) Or are the Caravans being bombed because the people of Iraq have no other way to say, We don't want your goods America! We want to do things our way. Again, I am not there, I am not them, but which is easier to believe?
Hm... Well, I'd like to propose an alternative theory: Militant groups are purposefully restricting the flow of supplies into the community as a show of power to those within. In other words, they're telling the other residents of the city, "You don't get to eat unless we say so, so you'd better fall in line and obey our wishes." I'll be the first to admit that I have no clue how the internal politics are playing out, but it seems a probable motive in theory. Of course, resentment of American involvement is probably a big part of it as well, but I don't know that it's necessarily a "Baghdad Tea Party." Anyway, just playing devil's advocate.
That is a viable argument, that type of thing happens all the time i.e Charles Taylor in Liberia, however, we are not just talking about food here, we are talking about every consumer product, textiles, building materials, medicine and food.
If we are talking about a group of people using force to coerce people in to behaving a certain way, then how is the US military any different? So do we continue to let Haliburton use the US military as their own personal security guards, or do we pullout and let another sect take over and control the local govt/economy? Somebody has got to right?
Thaiboxer on
Playing WoW "only when you are bored" is like smoking "only when you are drinking".
Yeah if we pullout all the Iraqi insurgents can claim they prevented us from turning their country into less of a shithole. Boy, will we have egg on our face!
Which is why a political solution is the only one with any staying power. the central government there needs to find ways of isolating their more extreme elements while making it attractive for the more moderate groups to actively participate. Trouble is right now the Iraqi government is viewed as either an American pawn(partly true) or a sectarian force using their power to terrorize their enemies(also partly true).
I question if it's too late to really create a government that the people are going to follow. Trouble is on the US' part it seems like we never really cared. We didn't keep the parts of the old government that worked. Our leaders seem utterly ignorant of the sectarian groups and conflicts in the country.
I'm not sure why that is completely mad. Is seems like the obvious thing to happen when a government is barely functional.
Edit: Fareed Zacharia had a good idea a few months ago. If you restarted Iraq's state run companies you could create about 200,000 jobs overnight.
That does sound like a pretty decent idea. The security of a government rests on it's populace having a vested interest in maintaining it. 200,000 jobs is a nice jumping off point for that kind of policy.
Making the oil fields completely private actually seems like a bad idea to me. Either government or private run, there is a large risk that the money will go mostly to the top with very little trickle down. With private, it's a guarantee. With government, there is atleast a chance the money will go back into the state.
Also, not a penny of any of that money should ever touch Haliburton or whatever dummy corporations they've set up so that people don't know all the money is being funnelled to Haliburton.
Not one fucking penny. They've defrauded our government for more than enough.
Personally I think our government should start sending Halliburton the bills for every failing public works project they fuck up in Iraq(read up on it there's ALOT).
Which is why a political solution is the only one with any staying power. the central government there needs to find ways of isolating their more extreme elements while making it attractive for the more moderate groups to actively participate. Trouble is right now the Iraqi government is viewed as either an American pawn(partly true) or a sectarian force using their power to terrorize their enemies(also partly true).
I question if it's too late to really create a government that the people are going to follow. Trouble is on the US' part it seems like we never really cared. We didn't keep the parts of the old government that worked. Our leaders seem utterly ignorant of the sectarian groups and conflicts in the country.
2 very simple things.
De-Baathification.
Disbanding the Iraqi army.
If we didn't do that we could very well have pulled out in victory by now.
I'm not sure why that is completely mad. Is seems like the obvious thing to happen when a government is barely functional.
Edit: Fareed Zacharia had a good idea a few months ago. If you restarted Iraq's state run companies you could create about 200,000 jobs overnight.
That does sound like a pretty decent idea. The security of a government rests on it's populace having a vested interest in maintaining it. 200,000 jobs is a nice jumping off point for that kind of policy.
Making the oil fields completely private actually seems like a bad idea to me. Either government or private run, there is a large risk that the money will go mostly to the top with very little trickle down. With private, it's a guarantee. With government, there is atleast a chance the money will go back into the state.
Also, not a penny of any of that money should ever touch Haliburton or whatever dummy corporations they've set up so that people don't know all the money is being funnelled to Haliburton.
Not one fucking penny. They've defrauded our government for more than enough.
Personally I think our government should start sending Halliburton the bills for every failing public works project they fuck up in Iraq(read up on it there's ALOT).
Why do you want to bankrupt Haliburton? (IE there are so fucking many it would destroy them.)
I'm not sure why that is completely mad. Is seems like the obvious thing to happen when a government is barely functional.
Edit: Fareed Zacharia had a good idea a few months ago. If you restarted Iraq's state run companies you could create about 200,000 jobs overnight.
That does sound like a pretty decent idea. The security of a government rests on it's populace having a vested interest in maintaining it. 200,000 jobs is a nice jumping off point for that kind of policy.
Making the oil fields completely private actually seems like a bad idea to me. Either government or private run, there is a large risk that the money will go mostly to the top with very little trickle down. With private, it's a guarantee. With government, there is atleast a chance the money will go back into the state.
Also, not a penny of any of that money should ever touch Haliburton or whatever dummy corporations they've set up so that people don't know all the money is being funnelled to Haliburton.
Not one fucking penny. They've defrauded our government for more than enough.
Personally I think our government should start sending Halliburton the bills for every failing public works project they fuck up in Iraq(read up on it there's ALOT).
Why do you want to bankrupt Haliburton? (IE there are so fucking many it would destroy them.)
I would so "because god damn at this stage it should've happened already"
If we are talking about a group of people using force to coerce people in to behaving a certain way, then how is the US military any different?
I wasn't implying we were. I'm just hypothesizing that militant groups may be doing things out of motives other than "Fuck off, America."
So do we continue to let Haliburton use the US military as their own personal security guards, or do we pullout and let another sect take over and control the local govt/economy? Somebody has got to right?
If you consider it as an abstract moral problem, it might be nice for the US to try to help Iraq set up a viable social infrastructure so that Iraqi civilians get to live in peace. However, I don't think that would be a realistic course of action because:
1) It's a highly complex cultural and historical conflict and no one knows the solution or even what one might look like.
2) I don't think it's fair to ask American citizens to give their lives for this abstract goal that no one knows how to achieve. Would the world be a better place if there were peace in the Middle East? Yes. Would America benefit from an economically and politically stable Iraq? Most likely, yes. But the problem is no one knows how to make it happen, and what's going on right now is certainly not working.
I really think the most responsible thing to do as a self-proclaimed democracy is to pull the troops out. I'm a big believer in the fact that people in general are stupid, and need the government to tell them what's best for them, and I won't completely rule out the far-fetched possibility that Bush knows something he can't tell us which makes it imperative that we stay in Iraq no matter how bad things look, but it seems like Bush is just being pigheaded and needlessly wasting American lives.
... We didn't keep the parts of the old government that worked. Our leaders seem utterly ignorant of the sectarian groups and conflicts in the country.
It has been proven that our Government knew full well that decapitating the government of Iraq would create Chaos by way of Sectarian violence.
That video proves they knew full well the consequences.
So why then did they not only decapitate but destroy the "parts of the old government that worked"? So that Bushco could put in their own perhaps? They were not ignorant, they knew what they were doing, don't let them of the hook like that.
Personally I think our government should start sending Halliburton the bills for every failing public works project they fuck up in Iraq(read up on it there's ALOT).
You can't send them the bill, that is unless you are willing to deduct it from the Huge check that we cut to them.
Hrm, that would be an interesting Invoice:
Supplies for our massive war - Screwed up projects = Still Billions.
Thaiboxer on
Playing WoW "only when you are bored" is like smoking "only when you are drinking".
It doesn't help that our government has been giving a big sloppy blowjob to the Shia leadership since the start. We never even tried to create the illusion of being impartial.
The idea that Bush & Crew were being malevolent and planned the disaster from the start is a lie, its just that they ignored the facts that didn't suit their purposes. Essentially, they were going to invade Iraq, facts or truth be damned, and they managed to use their word to convince the public despite having no argument. Now they're cleaning up their tracks, blaming Al-Maliki and the Democrats, and setting up for the next time they can launch another criminally dumb invasion.
Picardathon on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure why that is completely mad. Is seems like the obvious thing to happen when a government is barely functional.
Edit: Fareed Zacharia had a good idea a few months ago. If you restarted Iraq's state run companies you could create about 200,000 jobs overnight.
That does sound like a pretty decent idea. The security of a government rests on it's populace having a vested interest in maintaining it. 200,000 jobs is a nice jumping off point for that kind of policy.
Making the oil fields completely private actually seems like a bad idea to me. Either government or private run, there is a large risk that the money will go mostly to the top with very little trickle down. With private, it's a guarantee. With government, there is atleast a chance the money will go back into the state.
Also, not a penny of any of that money should ever touch Haliburton or whatever dummy corporations they've set up so that people don't know all the money is being funnelled to Haliburton.
Not one fucking penny. They've defrauded our government for more than enough.
Personally I think our government should start sending Halliburton the bills for every failing public works project they fuck up in Iraq(read up on it there's ALOT).
WHY?! They're been in cahoots from day one! They're all getting rich off of it!
As for starting jobs that would have been a good idea but come now, we're 5 years in.
A good analogy I've seen for the war has been what happened with that mine collapse. They just announced they've completely called off the search. Now let's think what happened, the mines initially traps several workers and over the course of a week they try and dig them out, then the mine collapses again because SURPRISE! the mountain is on a fault line, and kills/traps more men. So eventually they stop digging. Now can you imagine if those people just kept going and going causing more and more cave ins and losing more men? Stating they had to "stay the course" and what not?- People would say they were nuts, but we see it with the war because we adapt what is called a sunk cost effect.
You figure you'll already invested so much that you MUST keep going until you gain, even if it's obviously a losing bet.
As far as Al Queda is concerned they're already winning because they can't exactly invade us or anything. But they can bankrupt us and send the nation into a depression or chaos.
EDIT- To add "It doesn't help that our government has been giving a big sloppy blowjob to the Shia leadership since the start. We never even tried to create the illusion of being impartial."
- Which of course baffles everyone when the Sunnis rise up in armed revolt!
The idea that Bush & Crew were being malevolent and planned the disaster from the start is a lie...
If that is the case, then knowing what they knew, they should have never gone into Iraq. Cheney says it in that video 13 years ago, he has known at least that long exactly what would happen. That fact that they did know what would happen combined with the amount of profit that is being made out of this war, really doesn't lead to many other conclusions. If they want to deny that, when asked why are American troops in Iraq, the only answer they have left is "I don't know" they' have basically exhausted all other answers...
War time profiteering is nothing new, it's crazy to think it couldn't happen again and even more crazy to think that our Capitalistic "Free Economy" society could somehow be above the moral ground of initiating it.
Thaiboxer on
Playing WoW "only when you are bored" is like smoking "only when you are drinking".
Dude, you are all over the place. Yes Sunnis and Shia have been fighting for 1400 years, and yes within each there are factions. A theological debate about that would really need it's own thread.
All Bush said today was, IF things go our way more often, we MIGHT be able to start reducing our forces SOMEDAY.
The question at hand in this thread is "Should American forces pull out? If so when?"
To answer that you have to ask yourself why we are there in the first place?
I argue that it is for Money and Oil, so do some (how many I do not know) of the American Soldiers in Iraq today.
If one can agree that we are only there for Money and Oil, and if also one can agree that Human Life is worth more than Money and Oil, knowing the longer we stay that more people will die for our "cause" , then the conclusion can be made that we should pull out immediately.
Now, if one wants to argue that we are there to implement Freedom and all that it entails, then the conclusion can also be made that we should pull out immediately. Allow me to explain this one to you...
What you so eloquently described as "Westernized Crap", our version of Freedom, while I can't speak for everyone, I can tell you what it means to me.
It mean that I have the freedom of choice. If I want to Eat Fast food everyday, I can. If I want to go to the grocery store once a week and make my meals at home I can. If I want to grow produce at home and hunt for meat, I can. If I want to go to a corporate entity like Great Clips for a hair cut, I can. If I want to go to a Small time Barber shop, I can.
If I want to work for a major corporation and work my way up the corporate ladder, I can. If I want to work two jobs and save every spare penny just so that one day I can open up my own small business, I can.
Despite being bombarded by advertising on a minute by minute basis in my life, In the end I still have those choices.
These are things that the Iraqi people of today are not Free to do. Is it because of Saddam Insane? No. You now have parts of Iraq where FBR Group (Haliburton) is the Sole Vendor of EVERYTHING for entire cities. If I was a small business owner and I wasn't able to take competing bids by vendors for anything, I would be livid.
So every time a Supply Caravan gets hit by IEDs, is it because of Islamic Radicalism? (I don't know, I'm not there, but I have a hard time imagining that Muslims hate Lumber and Processed Cheese.) Or are the Caravans being bombed because the people of Iraq have no other way to say, We don't want your goods America! We want to do things our way. Again, I am not there, I am not them, but which is easier to believe?
I personally love shopping at a Farmer's Market. The idea of getting food straight from the hand of the grower just appeals to me. I think about how often I hear about "Markets being bombed". This would be a place where a community comes together buy, sell and trade goods and services. Am I to believe that the destruction of such a community was a caused by a Militant Muslim Radical? Or is it possible that pressure could be put on specific sects in an area to eliminate any revenue flows that do not lead into Haliburton's coffers? I don't know that answer, but I know what sounds more feasible.
That being said, If we are there for Freedom, then US troops/interests need to leave the area, so that the people there can decide how they want to run their country, by staying we are eliminating their Freedoms.
Yeah, if US troops Pullout, sectarian violence may continue, but then it's been going on for 1400 years right, what makes us think that we can stop it now?
You're arguing against points I never even made. I only ever made one point and that was that your view of what the insurgency is doing in Iraq is overly idealistic and... I don't know, what's the word? Rosy-eyed? You get my meaning. You're too sentimental about it, each and every action being a grand rejection of America's goods.
It's one of these things, definitely. A rejection of the American occupation. It is not, however, grand. It's a simple military tactic. No, Islamic Radicalism is not at fault every time a supply train is blown up, in so far as not every insurgent is an Islamic radical. You ask why an insurgent would blow up a market and then, unless my comprehension here is all wrong, you go into a conspiracy theory of Haliburton making some people blow up markets just to protect revenue flow? Because you're fucking nuts if you think that. Do you not understand the military tactics behind the insurgency? It's like terrorism 101. Blow shit up to cause chaos and unrest, and force the Americans to pull out because they're making no progress and the U.S.A is sick of the war. There's no message there beyond the obvious: a lot of people in Iraq want the U.S gone because we're messing up their damn country. It's like you're putting a Marxist spin on everything that's happening, somehow linking it back to the monopolies that exist in Iraq, when the Marxist view clearly does not apply in this case. Economics are clearly not the cause of the insurgency, whether it be monopolies, consumerism or what have you. If anything, it's a form of nationalism. It's a rejection of one culture, America's "Westernised Crap" (which I call that not because I'm not a fan, but because you're attempting to place your own cultural and moral ideals on people with a very different culture from yours, which is, incidentally, also what the right did when they went into the damn war in the first place), for another, Iraqi culture. Yes economics come into it, but only as a part of the bigger picture. And then your grand spiel about economic freedom and freedom of choice. Do you not understand how hollow and fruitless that rings? You're trying to remain an idealist, when a goddamn civil war is raging through the country. I can't imagine any Iraqi giving two shits right now about if they can sell their goods on the market due to Haliburton's monopoly. What they care about is the violence stopping and ending the occupation, because they don't want to be blown the fuck up. Fuck freedom of choice between working for a large company or a small business when there's a bomb sticking out my ass and some man in a uniform is about to light the fuse.
If I was to address the question of whether you should leave Iraq, then I'd say that you shouldn't, not yet. Regardless of the reasons you entered the war, the situation there now is that already prevelant sectarian violence will explode if the Coalition leaves. Since it's the invasion by the Coalition which removed Saddam and his army, which allowed sectarian violence to arise once again, I'd say that if there is any single thing that the coalition could to to help the situation, it's their damned duty to stay and try and hold the country together, because they fucked it up in the first place. I don't know, it seems selfish to leave now when it's your damn mess that was inflicted on people who didn't deserve a mess at all. So if there are things you can do by staying, then you need to damn well stay there and do them. When there are absolutely no possible ways in which to better the situation with your further involvement, then you leave. I don't know if you're at that stage yet, so I'm thinking you ought to stay in there.
If one can agree that we are only there for Money and Oil, and if also one can agree that Human Life is worth more than Money and Oil, knowing the longer we stay that more people will die for our "cause" , then the conclusion can be made that we should pull out immediately.
Who said human life is worth more than money and oil?
If one can agree that we are only there for Money and Oil, and if also one can agree that Human Life is worth more than Money and Oil, knowing the longer we stay that more people will die for our "cause" , then the conclusion can be made that we should pull out immediately.
Who said human life is worth more than money and oil?
It's worth a lot more when it's your life. The thing is of course, the wider point is the question of whether those two things will bring stability and net benefits to everyones lives. They're not going to, and there is no way at this point that they can really. It's also not like the benefit is getting shared around.
I only ever made one point and that was that your view of what the insurgency is doing in Iraq is overly idealistic and... I don't know, what's the word? Rosy-eyed? You get my meaning. You're too sentimental about it, each and every action being a grand rejection of America's goods.
I'm not as naive as to assume this, just as I am not so naive as to assume that every "Insurgent" is a Radical Muslim brainwashed into Hating America. If I am to believe that there are people in Western States that can see through Propaganda, then I have to believe that there are People in the Middle East that can do so as well. I said before, I am not there, I do not "know" anything. There are those that would have the American public believe that we are at War with Radical Terrorist "Crazies". I think my my suggestions are just as viable as that one.
You ask why an insurgent would blow up a market and then, unless my comprehension here is all wrong, you go into a conspiracy theory of Haliburton making some people blow up markets just to protect revenue flow? Because you're fucking nuts if you think that.
I wouldn't be the first person to theorize that the American Government Supported "Terrorist Groups"
Do you not understand the military tactics behind the insurgency? It's like terrorism 101. Blow shit up to cause chaos and unrest, and force the Americans to pull out because they're making no progress and the U.S.A is sick of the war.
It's like you're putting a Marxist spin on everything that's happening, somehow linking it back to the monopolies that exist in Iraq, when the Marxist view clearly does not apply in this case.
O_o I've talked about nothing besides a Free Market.
Economics are clearly not the cause of the insurgency, whether it be monopolies, consumerism or what have you. If anything, it's a form of nationalism. It's a rejection of one culture, America's "Westernised Crap" (which I call that not because I'm not a fan, but because you're attempting to place your own cultural and moral ideals on people with a very different culture from yours, which is, incidentally, also what the right did when they went into the damn war in the first place), for another, Iraqi culture.
Economics are why we went into the war, and why we stay. The Right would have you believe we went into the war to impose our Idealism. My argument, simply states that we are in fact not there to Impose the idea of Freedom, but that us being there is actually taking what Freedom they would have from them.
Yes economics come into it, but only as a part of the bigger picture. And then your grand spiel about economic freedom and freedom of choice. Do you not understand how hollow and fruitless that rings? You're trying to remain an idealist, when a goddamn civil war is raging through the country. I can't imagine any Iraqi giving two shits right now about if they can sell their goods on the market due to Haliburton's monopoly. What they care about is the violence stopping and ending the occupation, because they don't want to be blown the fuck up. Fuck freedom of choice between working for a large company or a small business when there's a bomb sticking out my ass and some man in a uniform is about to light the fuse.
What I'm talking about here is WHY people are sticking bombs in other people's asses in the first place. If you want to believe that all the violence is being caused by differing viewpoints over how to worship Allah, then so be it. Lots of people will use religion as a lighting rod for their cause, but as the world economies become more and more integrated everyday, I tend to believe a story based on money over one based on faith. Try reading Sea of Faith Yes, there has been "Holy War" in the Mediterranean for 2000 years, but how much of it is just Christians and Muslims or various factions of Muslims, just fighting for economic reasons under a pretension of religion?
If I was to address the question of whether you should leave Iraq, then I'd say that you shouldn't, not yet. Regardless of the reasons you entered the war, the situation there now is that already prevelant sectarian violence will explode if the Coalition leaves. Since it's the invasion by the Coalition which removed Saddam and his army, which allowed sectarian violence to arise once again, I'd say that if there is any single thing that the coalition could to to help the situation, it's their damned duty to stay and try and hold the country together, because they fucked it up in the first place. I don't know, it seems selfish to leave now when it's your damn mess that was inflicted on people who didn't deserve a mess at all. So if there are things you can do by staying, then you need to damn well stay there and do them. When there are absolutely no possible ways in which to better the situation with your further involvement, then you leave. I don't know if you're at that stage yet, so I'm thinking you ought to stay in there.
Can America really save face in this war at all, I don't think so. When asked "What can America do now to decrease the violence" The answer, is such, Leave.
Thaiboxer on
Playing WoW "only when you are bored" is like smoking "only when you are drinking".
The idea that Bush & Crew were being malevolent and planned the disaster from the start is a lie, its just that they ignored the facts that didn't suit their purposes. Essentially, they were going to invade Iraq, facts or truth be damned, and they managed to use their word to convince the public despite having no argument. Now they're cleaning up their tracks, blaming Al-Maliki and the Democrats, and setting up for the next time they can launch another criminally dumb invasion.
Whether it was incompetence or profiteering is irrelevant a this point. From either perspective they've epically fucked it up.
If I was to address the question of whether you should leave Iraq, then I'd say that you shouldn't, not yet. Regardless of the reasons you entered the war, the situation there now is that already prevelant sectarian violence will explode if the Coalition leaves. Since it's the invasion by the Coalition which removed Saddam and his army, which allowed sectarian violence to arise once again, I'd say that if there is any single thing that the coalition could to to help the situation, it's their damned duty to stay and try and hold the country together, because they fucked it up in the first place. I don't know, it seems selfish to leave now when it's your damn mess that was inflicted on people who didn't deserve a mess at all. So if there are things you can do by staying, then you need to damn well stay there and do them. When there are absolutely no possible ways in which to better the situation with your further involvement, then you leave. I don't know if you're at that stage yet, so I'm thinking you ought to stay in there.
I disagree. Firstly, I think it's pretty obvious by now that military force is not effective in reaching this theoretical goal. It's a delicate situation that requires diplomacy and tact, not to mention speaking the language would help. These 3 things are not what soldiers are trained for, though supposedly they're trying to provide supplemental training to the troops over there. Justifiably or not, it seems like the troops are seen more as occupiers than peacekeepers. As long as people are pissed off at the military presence, it would be hard for them to accept any social and economic reforms we try to implement. Which, as other people have mentioned, are our only chances at real, long-lasting peace. You can't force people into playing nice, you have to change the payoff structure in their society.
Secondly, we shouldn't keep putting troops in danger as long as the leadership is acting so clueless. Yes, it was the leadership's fault for getting involved in the first place, but, to slightly misuse a cliche, "two wrongs don't make a right." Or, I guess more accurately, "two mistakes don't cancel each other out." Just because they made a mistake in getting involved, it doesn't mean they have to make the mistake of pigheadedly staying there.
The idea that Bush & Crew were being malevolent and planned the disaster from the start is a lie...
If that is the case, then knowing what they knew, they should have never gone into Iraq. Cheney says it in that video 13 years ago, he has known at least that long exactly what would happen. That fact that they did know what would happen combined with the amount of profit that is being made out of this war, really doesn't lead to many other conclusions. If they want to deny that, when asked why are American troops in Iraq, the only answer they have left is "I don't know" they' have basically exhausted all other answers...
War time profiteering is nothing new, it's crazy to think it couldn't happen again and even more crazy to think that our Capitalistic "Free Economy" society could somehow be above the moral ground of initiating it.
Its really about the word "Malevolence". I mean, their motives aren't evil, they just want to do something. A cell of neo-cons persuaded themselves that they needed to invade Iraq at any costs, because it would, eventually, be good. These neo-cons somehow got into power. It isn't like their sitting in an armchair petting a kitten, they just had a singleminded goal, and the conviction to accomplish that goal was more important then fact or truth.
Its pretty creepy how effectively they seperated themselves from reality, but they did. The thread of ignoring if not outright fighting against facts/truth is pretty strong in the Republican party in general, from the Neo-cons setting up dozens of think tanks until one gave them the basis they needed, to the christian right speaking in absolutes and not willing to surrender any part of their position even though they are condemning people with Parkinson's disease to death in order to save seven cell pieces of goop (stem cells), to the business wing ignoring anything other then profit, it seems that the entire party is founded on ideology. Of course, a party that is entirely ideological will inevitably destroy the country if its in power, while staying alive by blaming the facts for the disasters caused by its ideology.
The idea that Bush & Crew were being malevolent and planned the disaster from the start is a lie...
If that is the case, then knowing what they knew, they should have never gone into Iraq. Cheney says it in that video 13 years ago, he has known at least that long exactly what would happen. That fact that they did know what would happen combined with the amount of profit that is being made out of this war, really doesn't lead to many other conclusions. If they want to deny that, when asked why are American troops in Iraq, the only answer they have left is "I don't know" they' have basically exhausted all other answers...
War time profiteering is nothing new, it's crazy to think it couldn't happen again and even more crazy to think that our Capitalistic "Free Economy" society could somehow be above the moral ground of initiating it.
Its really about the word "Malevolence". I mean, their motives aren't evil, they just want to do something. A cell of neo-cons persuaded themselves that they needed to invade Iraq at any costs, because it would, eventually, be good. These neo-cons somehow got into power. It isn't like their sitting in an armchair petting a kitten, they just had a singleminded goal, and the conviction to accomplish that goal was more important then fact or truth.
Its pretty creepy how effectively they seperated themselves from reality, but they did. The thread of ignoring if not outright fighting against facts/truth is pretty strong in the Republican party in general, from the Neo-cons setting up dozens of think tanks until one gave them the basis they needed, to the christian right speaking in absolutes and not willing to surrender any part of their position even though they are condemning people with Parkinson's disease to death in order to save seven cell pieces of goop (stem cells), to the business wing ignoring anything other then profit, it seems that the entire party is founded on ideology. Of course, a party that is entirely ideological will inevitably destroy the country if its in power, while staying alive by blaming the facts for the disasters caused by its ideology.
This is what makes the whole thing so sad - invariably there aren't huge conspiracies and evil people, just fuck ups and ideologists.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
IIRC the whole "Shia vs. Sunnis" thing didn't reach a boiling point until Bin Laden's man on the ground (Z-something) decided it was Sunnis against the world, and instituted a policy of "kill every Muslim that isn't a Sunni." Before that they were able to coexist peacefully for the most part.
If I was to address the question of whether you should leave Iraq, then I'd say that you shouldn't, not yet. Regardless of the reasons you entered the war, the situation there now is that already prevelant sectarian violence will explode if the Coalition leaves. Since it's the invasion by the Coalition which removed Saddam and his army, which allowed sectarian violence to arise once again, I'd say that if there is any single thing that the coalition could to to help the situation, it's their damned duty to stay and try and hold the country together, because they fucked it up in the first place. I don't know, it seems selfish to leave now when it's your damn mess that was inflicted on people who didn't deserve a mess at all. So if there are things you can do by staying, then you need to damn well stay there and do them. When there are absolutely no possible ways in which to better the situation with your further involvement, then you leave. I don't know if you're at that stage yet, so I'm thinking you ought to stay in there.
I disagree. Firstly, I think it's pretty obvious by now that military force is not effective in reaching this theoretical goal. It's a delicate situation that requires diplomacy and tact, not to mention speaking the language would help. These 3 things are not what soldiers are trained for, though supposedly they're trying to provide supplemental training to the troops over there. Justifiably or not, it seems like the troops are seen more as occupiers than peacekeepers. As long as people are pissed off at the military presence, it would be hard for them to accept any social and economic reforms we try to implement. Which, as other people have mentioned, are our only chances at real, long-lasting peace. You can't force people into playing nice, you have to change the payoff structure in their society.
Secondly, we shouldn't keep putting troops in danger as long as the leadership is acting so clueless. Yes, it was the leadership's fault for getting involved in the first place, but, to slightly misuse a cliche, "two wrongs don't make a right." Or, I guess more accurately, "two mistakes don't cancel each other out." Just because they made a mistake in getting involved, it doesn't mean they have to make the mistake of pigheadedly staying there.
Well you see until they're forced to leave(which will happen eventually) they can't be forced to admit it was a mistake.
Correct me if I am wrong, my participation was limited during this period, but wasn't the Iraqi governing council of (04-05?) a fairly effective body? Or am I confused?
I'm honestly surprised it's taken this long. I mean, even members of the Bush Administration knew that this war was a bad idea from the get go.
Just the other day, The Daily Show showed a clip of Cheney from over ten years ago, talking about when we were ready to go to war with Iraq during the original Bush Administration. He was commenting with a reporter on how it was a bad idea, cause, and these were his words, "If you take down the Iraqi governmenet, what are you going to put in it's place?".
Honestly. It's been nothing but a tremendous fucking pack of lies and it's good that the people who make sense are finally getting their way and trying to put an end to this.
Goatmon on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
I believe the correct technical term to use when referencing the Iraq occupation is "clusterfuck."
Honestly. It's been nothing but a tremendous fucking pack of lies and it's good that the people who make sense are finally getting their way and trying to put an end to this.
Are they though? If the Daily Show clips are to be believed, the Democrats brought in on a wave of public dissatisfaction with the war are just maybe thinking about the possibility of voting on whether they should write a strongly worded memo to the President asking him to decrease the number of troops a little.
Honestly. It's been nothing but a tremendous fucking pack of lies and it's good that the people who make sense are finally getting their way and trying to put an end to this.
Are they though? If the Daily Show clips are to be believed, the Democrats brought in on a wave of public dissatisfaction with the war are just maybe thinking about the possibility of voting on whether they should write a strongly worded memo to the President asking him to decrease the number of troops a little.
Like it would matter, anyway? Nothing will stop Bush if he's capable of dismissing it by any means. This war has been done in the face of the U.N., congress, and the senate. Pretty much no one wanted in on this, aside from the politicians who were trying to suck the public's dick because they thought it was the popular thing to support.
I have to say it's pretty fucking gimp that Bush hasn't been put on trial for this shit already. DJ. Simpson kind of says it well here.
Goatmon on
Switch Friend Code: SW-6680-6709-4204
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Honestly. It's been nothing but a tremendous fucking pack of lies and it's good that the people who make sense are finally getting their way and trying to put an end to this.
Are they though? If the Daily Show clips are to be believed, the Democrats brought in on a wave of public dissatisfaction with the war are just maybe thinking about the possibility of voting on whether they should write a strongly worded memo to the President asking him to decrease the number of troops a little.
What part of 'cloture' is so difficult for people to understand? I mean, yeah you can get some pithy quips and good jokes about it, but it isn't as though the Dem's have any substantial power and they're just sitting with their thumb up their asses rather than deal with Iraq.
Posts
Hm... Well, I'd like to propose an alternative theory: Militant groups are purposefully restricting the flow of supplies into the community as a show of power to those within. In other words, they're telling the other residents of the city, "You don't get to eat unless we say so, so you'd better fall in line and obey our wishes." I'll be the first to admit that I have no clue how the internal politics are playing out, but it seems a probable motive in theory. Of course, resentment of American involvement is probably a big part of it as well, but I don't know that it's necessarily a "Baghdad Tea Party." Anyway, just playing devil's advocate.
Honestly I'm convinced that any positive outcome from Iraq was probably lost within the first 2 weeks after they rolled into Baghdad, and it turned out no one had actually tried to plan for how they were going to control and provide for the city. And then things got a metric fuckton worse when they dismissed the former security forces (of course that was the CPA, since the military was expecting to have them).
What's completely mad is that Iraq is more or less a picture perfect corporate dystopia. Insurgency and military troops in constant warfare, corporations doing stupid and wasteful stuff to bill the government some more money and operating with the backing of effectively corrupt officials, and the ability to simply put their personnel in a position to die real easy if they don't do what they say.
Edit: Fareed Zacharia had a good idea a few months ago. If you restarted Iraq's state run companies you could create about 200,000 jobs overnight.
That does sound like a pretty decent idea. The security of a government rests on it's populace having a vested interest in maintaining it. 200,000 jobs is a nice jumping off point for that kind of policy.
Making the oil fields completely private actually seems like a bad idea to me. Either government or private run, there is a large risk that the money will go mostly to the top with very little trickle down. With private, it's a guarantee. With government, there is atleast a chance the money will go back into the state.
Also, not a penny of any of that money should ever touch Haliburton or whatever dummy corporations they've set up so that people don't know all the money is being funnelled to Haliburton.
Not one fucking penny. They've defrauded our government for more than enough.
That is a viable argument, that type of thing happens all the time i.e Charles Taylor in Liberia, however, we are not just talking about food here, we are talking about every consumer product, textiles, building materials, medicine and food.
If we are talking about a group of people using force to coerce people in to behaving a certain way, then how is the US military any different? So do we continue to let Haliburton use the US military as their own personal security guards, or do we pullout and let another sect take over and control the local govt/economy? Somebody has got to right?
I question if it's too late to really create a government that the people are going to follow. Trouble is on the US' part it seems like we never really cared. We didn't keep the parts of the old government that worked. Our leaders seem utterly ignorant of the sectarian groups and conflicts in the country.
Personally I think our government should start sending Halliburton the bills for every failing public works project they fuck up in Iraq(read up on it there's ALOT).
2 very simple things.
De-Baathification.
Disbanding the Iraqi army.
If we didn't do that we could very well have pulled out in victory by now.
Why do you want to bankrupt Haliburton? (IE there are so fucking many it would destroy them.)
I would so "because god damn at this stage it should've happened already"
I wasn't implying we were. I'm just hypothesizing that militant groups may be doing things out of motives other than "Fuck off, America."
If you consider it as an abstract moral problem, it might be nice for the US to try to help Iraq set up a viable social infrastructure so that Iraqi civilians get to live in peace. However, I don't think that would be a realistic course of action because:
1) It's a highly complex cultural and historical conflict and no one knows the solution or even what one might look like.
2) I don't think it's fair to ask American citizens to give their lives for this abstract goal that no one knows how to achieve. Would the world be a better place if there were peace in the Middle East? Yes. Would America benefit from an economically and politically stable Iraq? Most likely, yes. But the problem is no one knows how to make it happen, and what's going on right now is certainly not working.
I really think the most responsible thing to do as a self-proclaimed democracy is to pull the troops out. I'm a big believer in the fact that people in general are stupid, and need the government to tell them what's best for them, and I won't completely rule out the far-fetched possibility that Bush knows something he can't tell us which makes it imperative that we stay in Iraq no matter how bad things look, but it seems like Bush is just being pigheaded and needlessly wasting American lives.
It has been proven that our Government knew full well that decapitating the government of Iraq would create Chaos by way of Sectarian violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
That video proves they knew full well the consequences.
So why then did they not only decapitate but destroy the "parts of the old government that worked"? So that Bushco could put in their own perhaps? They were not ignorant, they knew what they were doing, don't let them of the hook like that.
You can't send them the bill, that is unless you are willing to deduct it from the Huge check that we cut to them.
Hrm, that would be an interesting Invoice:
Supplies for our massive war - Screwed up projects = Still Billions.
WHY?! They're been in cahoots from day one! They're all getting rich off of it!
As for starting jobs that would have been a good idea but come now, we're 5 years in.
A good analogy I've seen for the war has been what happened with that mine collapse. They just announced they've completely called off the search. Now let's think what happened, the mines initially traps several workers and over the course of a week they try and dig them out, then the mine collapses again because SURPRISE! the mountain is on a fault line, and kills/traps more men. So eventually they stop digging. Now can you imagine if those people just kept going and going causing more and more cave ins and losing more men? Stating they had to "stay the course" and what not?- People would say they were nuts, but we see it with the war because we adapt what is called a sunk cost effect.
You figure you'll already invested so much that you MUST keep going until you gain, even if it's obviously a losing bet.
As far as Al Queda is concerned they're already winning because they can't exactly invade us or anything. But they can bankrupt us and send the nation into a depression or chaos.
EDIT- To add "It doesn't help that our government has been giving a big sloppy blowjob to the Shia leadership since the start. We never even tried to create the illusion of being impartial."
- Which of course baffles everyone when the Sunnis rise up in armed revolt!
Could it be we fired them all bureaucrat and solider alike and handed their government over ot the Shias?
If that is the case, then knowing what they knew, they should have never gone into Iraq. Cheney says it in that video 13 years ago, he has known at least that long exactly what would happen. That fact that they did know what would happen combined with the amount of profit that is being made out of this war, really doesn't lead to many other conclusions. If they want to deny that, when asked why are American troops in Iraq, the only answer they have left is "I don't know" they' have basically exhausted all other answers...
War time profiteering is nothing new, it's crazy to think it couldn't happen again and even more crazy to think that our Capitalistic "Free Economy" society could somehow be above the moral ground of initiating it.
You're arguing against points I never even made. I only ever made one point and that was that your view of what the insurgency is doing in Iraq is overly idealistic and... I don't know, what's the word? Rosy-eyed? You get my meaning. You're too sentimental about it, each and every action being a grand rejection of America's goods.
It's one of these things, definitely. A rejection of the American occupation. It is not, however, grand. It's a simple military tactic. No, Islamic Radicalism is not at fault every time a supply train is blown up, in so far as not every insurgent is an Islamic radical. You ask why an insurgent would blow up a market and then, unless my comprehension here is all wrong, you go into a conspiracy theory of Haliburton making some people blow up markets just to protect revenue flow? Because you're fucking nuts if you think that. Do you not understand the military tactics behind the insurgency? It's like terrorism 101. Blow shit up to cause chaos and unrest, and force the Americans to pull out because they're making no progress and the U.S.A is sick of the war. There's no message there beyond the obvious: a lot of people in Iraq want the U.S gone because we're messing up their damn country. It's like you're putting a Marxist spin on everything that's happening, somehow linking it back to the monopolies that exist in Iraq, when the Marxist view clearly does not apply in this case. Economics are clearly not the cause of the insurgency, whether it be monopolies, consumerism or what have you. If anything, it's a form of nationalism. It's a rejection of one culture, America's "Westernised Crap" (which I call that not because I'm not a fan, but because you're attempting to place your own cultural and moral ideals on people with a very different culture from yours, which is, incidentally, also what the right did when they went into the damn war in the first place), for another, Iraqi culture. Yes economics come into it, but only as a part of the bigger picture. And then your grand spiel about economic freedom and freedom of choice. Do you not understand how hollow and fruitless that rings? You're trying to remain an idealist, when a goddamn civil war is raging through the country. I can't imagine any Iraqi giving two shits right now about if they can sell their goods on the market due to Haliburton's monopoly. What they care about is the violence stopping and ending the occupation, because they don't want to be blown the fuck up. Fuck freedom of choice between working for a large company or a small business when there's a bomb sticking out my ass and some man in a uniform is about to light the fuse.
If I was to address the question of whether you should leave Iraq, then I'd say that you shouldn't, not yet. Regardless of the reasons you entered the war, the situation there now is that already prevelant sectarian violence will explode if the Coalition leaves. Since it's the invasion by the Coalition which removed Saddam and his army, which allowed sectarian violence to arise once again, I'd say that if there is any single thing that the coalition could to to help the situation, it's their damned duty to stay and try and hold the country together, because they fucked it up in the first place. I don't know, it seems selfish to leave now when it's your damn mess that was inflicted on people who didn't deserve a mess at all. So if there are things you can do by staying, then you need to damn well stay there and do them. When there are absolutely no possible ways in which to better the situation with your further involvement, then you leave. I don't know if you're at that stage yet, so I'm thinking you ought to stay in there.
Who said human life is worth more than money and oil?
I'm not as naive as to assume this, just as I am not so naive as to assume that every "Insurgent" is a Radical Muslim brainwashed into Hating America. If I am to believe that there are people in Western States that can see through Propaganda, then I have to believe that there are People in the Middle East that can do so as well. I said before, I am not there, I do not "know" anything. There are those that would have the American public believe that we are at War with Radical Terrorist "Crazies". I think my my suggestions are just as viable as that one.
I wouldn't be the first person to theorize that the American Government Supported "Terrorist Groups"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky
Of course it's just a Theory. I couldn't prove that it's currently happening, could you prove that it's not?
War time profiteering, blossoms in Chaos.
O_o I've talked about nothing besides a Free Market.
Economics are why we went into the war, and why we stay. The Right would have you believe we went into the war to impose our Idealism. My argument, simply states that we are in fact not there to Impose the idea of Freedom, but that us being there is actually taking what Freedom they would have from them.
What I'm talking about here is WHY people are sticking bombs in other people's asses in the first place. If you want to believe that all the violence is being caused by differing viewpoints over how to worship Allah, then so be it. Lots of people will use religion as a lighting rod for their cause, but as the world economies become more and more integrated everyday, I tend to believe a story based on money over one based on faith. Try reading Sea of Faith Yes, there has been "Holy War" in the Mediterranean for 2000 years, but how much of it is just Christians and Muslims or various factions of Muslims, just fighting for economic reasons under a pretension of religion?
Can America really save face in this war at all, I don't think so. When asked "What can America do now to decrease the violence" The answer, is such, Leave.
Whether it was incompetence or profiteering is irrelevant a this point. From either perspective they've epically fucked it up.
yeah.
that was a bit of a fudge.
I disagree. Firstly, I think it's pretty obvious by now that military force is not effective in reaching this theoretical goal. It's a delicate situation that requires diplomacy and tact, not to mention speaking the language would help. These 3 things are not what soldiers are trained for, though supposedly they're trying to provide supplemental training to the troops over there. Justifiably or not, it seems like the troops are seen more as occupiers than peacekeepers. As long as people are pissed off at the military presence, it would be hard for them to accept any social and economic reforms we try to implement. Which, as other people have mentioned, are our only chances at real, long-lasting peace. You can't force people into playing nice, you have to change the payoff structure in their society.
Secondly, we shouldn't keep putting troops in danger as long as the leadership is acting so clueless. Yes, it was the leadership's fault for getting involved in the first place, but, to slightly misuse a cliche, "two wrongs don't make a right." Or, I guess more accurately, "two mistakes don't cancel each other out." Just because they made a mistake in getting involved, it doesn't mean they have to make the mistake of pigheadedly staying there.
Its really about the word "Malevolence". I mean, their motives aren't evil, they just want to do something. A cell of neo-cons persuaded themselves that they needed to invade Iraq at any costs, because it would, eventually, be good. These neo-cons somehow got into power. It isn't like their sitting in an armchair petting a kitten, they just had a singleminded goal, and the conviction to accomplish that goal was more important then fact or truth.
Its pretty creepy how effectively they seperated themselves from reality, but they did. The thread of ignoring if not outright fighting against facts/truth is pretty strong in the Republican party in general, from the Neo-cons setting up dozens of think tanks until one gave them the basis they needed, to the christian right speaking in absolutes and not willing to surrender any part of their position even though they are condemning people with Parkinson's disease to death in order to save seven cell pieces of goop (stem cells), to the business wing ignoring anything other then profit, it seems that the entire party is founded on ideology. Of course, a party that is entirely ideological will inevitably destroy the country if its in power, while staying alive by blaming the facts for the disasters caused by its ideology.
Well you see until they're forced to leave(which will happen eventually) they can't be forced to admit it was a mistake.
Just the other day, The Daily Show showed a clip of Cheney from over ten years ago, talking about when we were ready to go to war with Iraq during the original Bush Administration. He was commenting with a reporter on how it was a bad idea, cause, and these were his words, "If you take down the Iraqi governmenet, what are you going to put in it's place?".
Honestly. It's been nothing but a tremendous fucking pack of lies and it's good that the people who make sense are finally getting their way and trying to put an end to this.
Are they though? If the Daily Show clips are to be believed, the Democrats brought in on a wave of public dissatisfaction with the war are just maybe thinking about the possibility of voting on whether they should write a strongly worded memo to the President asking him to decrease the number of troops a little.
Cheney even uses the word Quagmire back in 1994...
Like it would matter, anyway? Nothing will stop Bush if he's capable of dismissing it by any means. This war has been done in the face of the U.N., congress, and the senate. Pretty much no one wanted in on this, aside from the politicians who were trying to suck the public's dick because they thought it was the popular thing to support.
I have to say it's pretty fucking gimp that Bush hasn't been put on trial for this shit already. DJ. Simpson kind of says it well here.
What part of 'cloture' is so difficult for people to understand? I mean, yeah you can get some pithy quips and good jokes about it, but it isn't as though the Dem's have any substantial power and they're just sitting with their thumb up their asses rather than deal with Iraq.