Endgame

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by CB..

what i can't undertsand is why America still considers it self to be at war with Iraq???

it's done we won..what your doing is losing is the peace...
beats me--

Agreed.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

We booted out the dictator, they are turning it into a killing field. Blame us for their lack of sense?

The Sunni and Shi'a have been killing each other since the *start* of the religion. Saddam was just keeping the Shi'a population beat down so they didn't organize a revolt. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have the same problem: a Sunni minority ruling a Shi'a majority.

My point is that it was already a killing field. CNN just wasn't reporting on it, because Saddam would've denied them entry to the country and MSNBC would've had absolutely no moral compunction about picking up the "slack" in Iraq coverage. Iran is a killing field, as well as Pakistan. Not to even mention Indonesia and Kashmir. The only thing that is different is that media organizations feel it is now "good business" to report all the things which had previously been deemed "good business" to repress.


What I don't understand is why we didn't pull our 38,000 troops out of South Korea, and task them with defending the borders. Japan, Spain, Italy, and Germany don't want our military there either, so pull those ~25,000 troops out and rotate them through Iraq as well. Having 50,000 devil-dogs out running random patrols, hunting the jihadists crossing the borders from Syria and Iran, would have made all the difference in the world.

[DeepSix]

"Losing the peace" is the reason why I didn't want us to go there in the first place. Another being that we were aiming to accomplish something that would have been more practically accomplished in 1991 (IMO). But nevertheless we went; I think we made the best of it to a point (removing the tyrant). But we never had (not to my satisfaction, at least) a clear idea of what our political dog would do if and when it actually caught the car it was chasing.

There has to be a time to acknowledge the US has reached its effectiveness… I suggest doing it before we get in that sloping trap of things getting worse and not wanting to leave until they are turned around. Things are as good as they are going to get under our control.

Yes; I think we're already on that slippery slope, unfortunately. Past time for Iraq to start becoming a product of self-determination, IMO. We're squandering any political capital the military victory may have earned us, and the longer we stay, the harder it will be to find political leverage with Iran, Korea, etc.

Just my opinion.

[scandium]

Have to disagree with you Neal, point by point:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

We enforced a UN resolution

Only the UN security council has the authority to enforce security council resolutions. The usual retort to this is that the UN doesn't have the capability to enforce its own resolutions, but history says otherwise: the Persian Gulf War of 1991 was done on a UN mandate. To the other typical retort that the US doesn't need the UN to 'defend' its sovereignty, two points: (1) US Sovereignty wasn't being threatened by Iraq, and (2) Iraq didn't need the UN to invade Kuwait back in 1991, either.

made sure there were no WMDs

UN inspectors were on the ground looking for these WMDs when the US had them abruptly yanked to begin its invasion.

deposed the dictator

Only to setup an interim dictatorship of its own under the helm of Viceroy Paul Bremer that, during its short reign, privatized Iraqi industry, destroyed the country's economy, and disbanded the Iraqi army - all of which arguably poured fuel over the emerging insurgency.

helped the natives set up a democratic government

I would characterize it instead as powerless government presiding over a failing state that resembles an anarchy more than a democracy.

Plus we killed a lot of terrorists

Estimates I've seen put the number of killed civilians between 35,000 to 100,000 - so far. Undoubtedly some of them were terrorists. I suppose you could chaulk the rest up to "collateral damage", or even argue under the ideology of pre-emption that they've been pre-emptively killed to ensure they don't become terrorists. In either case I'm not sure this is the best way to fight terrorism.

No one will ever appreciate all we've done for them.

Depends on who the "them" is. If its Halliburton you're referring to who's making a killing off this through their no-bid contracts, then I'm sure you have their gratitude ($3/gallon gas may be a funny way to show it, but maybe they'll send you a xmas card); if you've had your life turned upside down by this though, losing friends, family members, your job or your business then you probably appreciate that too - after all, to quote Rumsfeld from 3 years ago, "freedom is messy".

The longer we stay there, the more it will look like we "lost" when we do pull out, just like Vietnam. Let the Iraqis have what they say they want, control of their destiny.

To have that you need opportunity and for that you need some measure of economic prosperity (no matter how meagre) and security. Since Iraq has neither, I don't see them having control over their destiny any time soon.

Iraq, you're on your own. Best of luck to ya!

I think they'll need more than luck.

[Skybird]

I do not share some people'S relative optimism on Iraq's future, and that this future is not decided. It very much is. The only question is to what degree American companies that tried to secure a foothold in the Iraqi oil business and other sectors they seized during the massive privatization wave under Bremer (as Scandium referred) can keep that foothold and preserve their influence.The argument that it was worse under Saddam I find to be almost insane. No, it has not been as bad under Saddam as it is now. There was not that ammount of murder and torutre as we see now, there was not that ammount of organized crime, there was not that masisvely climbing influence of religious ultraorthodx wings (in Baghdad people now get shot for selling Falafels on the street - for in Muhammad'S time, so is the argument, there were no Falafels). Under Saddam there has nopt been an industry of orgnaized kidnappings (couting by the thiusands poer quarter of a year), there has not been such a lack of water, eletcricity, sec urity on the streets. and last but not least, it was Saddam keeping the Iranian Mullahs and Taleban-style extremists out. Saddam is gone, fine - but that is only of concern for Saddam. If I had to choose in what Iraq I had to live, before or after 2003, my vote would clearly go for "before 2003".But all that is decided now, it is history, and the future will be a logical conseqeunce of the current state. I am not surprised by the outcome, how could I. The important question now is if and when Bush will bring home his people's sons and daughters. It's high time, and every further death is an even more useless one. For many of them a diffrent kind of battle will begin once they arrived back "home" - if they are able to think of it as that anymore. I repeat what I said repeateldy before: psychological consequences of traumatitzation by war action and stress in war can be very very massive and can ruin the whole rest of your life. American casualties are without doubt in the high tens of thousands, if not higher.the only winner of this is the American defense industry. They get payed for replacing detsroyed equipement, and repair and maintain all the equipement that after three years action must be very much worn out. the looser: the Iraqi people, and the American young generations. The taxes that are spend on Iraq are those taxes that not only are not available for their education and future life, but who are added to the monumental debt bill that has been added to the already high debts of the US, and that future generations will need to serve.Or should we assume that it never was planned to pay back national debts? Saw a movie yesterday, where one man said: why borrow money, if one has the intention to pay it back? Crazy planet this is. The older one gets, the less fun it makes.

[Drebbel]

If I had to choose in what Iraq I had to live, before or after 2003, my vote would clearly go for "before 2003".

Why ? You think it was safer, more properous, more comfy ?

[Skybird]

Ouh, and someone mentioned that terroists were killed. Yes. And for each one several other spopped up. By numbers we have more terrorists now in the world than before. In past months two or three times I remember to have red from American and British newspaper that assessements by US authorities cam to the conclusion that today there is more terrorist activity on a gloabl scale than before, and that the world has become less instead of more safer. If you fight with a hydra, you do not measure success by number of heads in your bag.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Drebbel

Why ? You think it was safer, more properous, more comfy ?

I understand that as an attempt to be funny!?

[Drebbel]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I understand that as an attempt to be funny!?

Not at all. Why would you prefer living in Iraq before 2003 instead of after ?

--- litle later --- reread thread ---

Ah, missed it at first, now read it. Always get confussed with long parts of text.

Iraq before 2003 was only relatively safe and comfy for people that keep their mouth shut. People that protested would end up dead.

And protesting, when they come to get our fellow citizans, we must all do, even when it does not concerns outrselves , otherwise we will be next. Never forget what Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote in 1945 !

- - - - -

Under Saddam there has nopt been an industry of orgnaized kidnappings

Are you serious ? Was probably one of the specialities of all the secret services. What you think happened to all those people that disappeared ?

There was not that ammount of murder and torutre as we see now

How can one say that ?? Will we ever get reliable statistics of the pre-2003 years ?

it was Saddam keeping the Iranian Mullahs and Taleban-style extremists out.

One group of criminal extremists keeping the other groups of criminal extremists out. Well done Sadam !

[Skybird]

I base my statements that you quote on evaluation of people observing at location. Even representants of Iraqui authorities and institutions have been quoted repeatedly since let'S say roughly one year, saying that the ammount of torture being used by the present secret polices easily rivals that being used under Saddam, both in quantity and "quality". that the institutions are also infiltrated with agents of the isnurgents, and the various ethnic factions, does not help to make it less harmful. It seems that also a lot of open bills currently are settled. In no way I have the impression that survival and caring for a family is easier today than it was under Saddam. At work I know a woman from Iran, mother of a family. Although they fled because Saddam, their family agrees on what I say here, that today it has become worse than it was before. there was not that ammount of violance than there is today, simply that, and for most people, that is my impression, the supply situation with goods of the daily need was better - ironically especially during the sanctions - something that often has been stressed by correspondents in that time. It comes down to this - survivial and caring for my family has not become easier, but more difficult in the grim reality of today. Iraq has become the Lebanon of the Gulf. With the products from it's terrorist creation program we will have fun for many many years to come.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Drebbel

One group of criminal extremists keeping the other groups of criminal extremists out. Well done Sadam !

Maybe you remember years ago I argued like you and said that it is a bad idea to accept tyrants in power. I have changed my mind in the face of the threat of Europe being islamized. Saddam was no danger for anyone in the West, no matter what the propaganda tried to make us believe. the mullah regime that Iraq without any doubt will get sooner or later - that is a threat and a challenge that we cannot deal with. I see it pragmatic. Better one Saddam, than one more Mullah-Regime. Look at Egypt. western demand for democracy - elections - and suddenly the ultra-Islamic Muslim brotherhood seized every fifth seat in parliament (it would have been far more if Mubarak really would have allowed free elections). Is this what you want? Be careful what you wish before you answer. And I predict one thing: it is only a question of time until Afghnaistan falls back to where it was, too. I see it as almost inevitable.

[Drebbel]

Better one Saddam, than one more Mullah-Regime.

I rest my case, what was I thinking, I always thought it was a Sadam-regime, and now it turns out it was just 1 guy. Did we start a war for that ?? Ridiculous !!

[Skybird]

Judging by the outcome: indeed. Leave the hairsplitting to others, Drebbel, you know better what I was meaning. I don't want to fight with you about nothing.

[Drebbel]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Judging by the outcome: indeed. Leave the hairsplitting to others, Drebbel, you know better what I was meaning. I don't want to fight with you about nothing.

Good, I do not want to discuss either with people that call my opionion/arguments hairsplitting.

Drebbel: - out

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Drebbel

Iraq before 2003 was only relatively safe and comfy for people that keep their mouth shut. People that protested would end up dead.

The 35,000 - 100,000 civilians killed since 2003 won't be doing much protesting.

And protesting, when they come to get our fellow citizans, we must all do, even when it does not concerns outrselves , otherwise we will be next. Never forget what Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote in 1945 !

Who is this "we" you refer to? Were you ever in Iraq protesting Saddam Hussein's regime? Are the Iraqis your "fellow citizens"? You are confusing an invasion and occupation by a foreign power with an internal uprising. They are not the same thing.

How can one say that ?? Will we ever get reliable statistics of the pre-2003 years ?

Will we ever get reliable statistics from the post-2003 years? The most reliable looking estimates I've seen so far put the number of casualties at between 35,000-100,000 ... in other words, 70,000 dead plus or minus a few tens of thousands.

One group of criminal extremists keeping the other groups of criminal extremists out. Well done Sadam !

With such a low bar to set the expectations at you'd almost think the US couldn't possibly do any worse... by the way, how many severed heads have they found over there this week? 4 is it?