The Iraq thread 4

[chops 111]

Duke, can you think of any possible scenario, ever, when the USA attacking another country would be a bad idea?

Have you heard of Bill Hicks? I think he'll be just to your liking;

"Hey buddy, my daddy died for that flag."

"Really? I bought mine. Yeah, they sell them at K-Mart and shit."

"He died in the Korean War."

"Wow, what a coincidence. Mine was made in Korea."

No one – and I repeat, no one – has ever died for a flag. See, a flag … is just a piece of cloth. They may have died for freedom, which is also the freedom to burn the fucking flag, see. That's freedom."

I highly recommend this webpage as a stepping stone on your path to enlightenment.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Hicks

Best wishes

Chops

[Duke 0]

I highly recommend you reading my other post about my opinions and others that i posted like, 2 posts ago. Try reading it, comprehending to it, reading it some more. Hopefully you'll actually know what it's ment. I'm not going to believe anything you would like me to. I'm going to have my opinions like i do. And yes, we fight for the freedom so assholes can actually burn the flag. people like those that burn the flag and complai so much shouldnt even have a right. In many other countries you get caught burning a flag your ass is grass, no questions asked. In our country, people love their milk and honey but preach about some other way of living. What my belief is, is different then yours. Don't even try to get me to think otherwise. because I could care less about the 2 cents you have to say.

[ralphwiggum 6]

quicksand, chops, duke, all of you are post restricted for 24 hours. I warned twice not to go off topic, and frankly I should have dealt with this a lot sooner, but after second warning, I 've had enough patients.

All others who do not discuss Iraq but rather their own views of how the world should be or go to US politics should think twice.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Iraq is worse then Vietnam? lol. Yeah Ok.

Talk to some Vietnam Vets if you're so smart in that assumption.

Iraq is worse then the Soviets in Afghanistan? How?

What good could Russia possibly accomplish then and now? Rofl

You obviously misinterpreted what I wrote, so I shall explain. What I meant is, peace doesn't seem to be on the way to Iraq even after the international forces pull out, as opposed to Vietnam, which is I think a peaceful country now (haven't been there and don't know too much about it, but I'm not hearing that bombs go off in twos and threes on the streets of Saigon everyday, so I think Vietnam is better off than Iraq nowadays).

As for your questions about the russians, I was referring to the hard times the soviets went through in their conflict in Afghanistan in the mid-eighties, facing religious fanatic guerillas. Now, Iraq's radicals may not be backed by the US but they're backed by the world's crowd that doesn't like the U.S. If they weren't fighting amongst themselves as well they would be bearing all their destructive efforts on the international forces now stationed in Iraq. And the average iraqui oppinion on the streets of may be divided about Saddam being gone being a good thing or bad, but they all have the same feeling about the "occupation" forces - the sooner they're gone, the better. I never mentioned the russians doing or having or going to do anything at all.

I hope you understand now.

[Bordoy 0]

quicksand, chops, duke, all of you are post restricted for 24 hours. I warned twice not to go off topic, and frankly I should have dealt with this a lot sooner, but after second warning, I 've had enough patients.

All others who do not discuss Iraq but rather their own views of how the world should be or go to US politics should think twice.

Patience

Well I think thats how to spell it.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]Vietnam, which is I think a peaceful country now

the last major combat was at least 20 years ago. your comparing a flower to a seed here.

Quote[/b] ]What I meant is, peace doesn't seem to be on the way to Iraq

peace has never been seen in the middle east period. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire the allies divided up the middle east into countries regardless of their beliefs. A point I want to let everyone comprehend is that if you ever take a dictatorship and change it into a democracy, there will be factions that appear and there will be conflict. Just look at Russia the Soviet Union dissolved in '91 the same year the US invaded Iraq. You can still see civil war now. And they have quite a head start on getting peace. But they still haven't achieved it.

I heard an opinion the other day that made me laugh when I first heard it but later the concept made sense after I thought about it. It was that the coalition fence off the whole country and not let anyone in or out for at least three decades. not let any ideas come into the country, and not let any foreign goods come into the country. Make it completely independent. When I thought about it, the key thing that makes the success of a civil war possible... is foreign intervention. That seems to be the major problem now, but don't get me wrong I'm not saying the coalition should not be there.

you stop that, you stop the fuel to the fire and it will eventually be smothered or die down.

When Duke mentions Iraq turning into Vietnam after the US pulls out, I think he's talking about the "domino theory". If the insurgents win there, then they will get stronger and win in Operation: Enduring Freedom-Horn of Africa, then they will get even stronger and win in OEF-Philippines, then get stronger. the next target would be the US and Europe. A grim future for sure.

[Balschoiw 0]

Check back a few pages Sophion. I´d like to hear your reaction on my post about yours. Else it´s waste of time thinking about such in the future.

Quote[/b] ]I think he's talking about the "domino theory"

To be honest, I don´t think that Duke is thinking in complex patterns at all, judging from what he has posted here.

Btw, transport the Afghanistan response over to the War on terror thread. I´ll be happily debating on there, if there´s still something to debate of course.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

BUZZARD @ Jan. 05 2007,19:00)]You obviously misinterpreted what I wrote, so I shall explain. What I meant is, peace doesn't seem to be on the way to Iraq even after the international forces pull out, as opposed to Vietnam, which is I think a peaceful country now (haven't been there and don't know too much about it, but I'm not hearing that bombs go off in twos and threes on the streets of Saigon everyday, so I think Vietnam is better off than Iraq nowadays).

As the US withdrew from Vietnam an unknown number of people were jailed and killed by Communist forces.  These forces then turned on their former allies in Cambodia the Khmer Rouge and invaded.  The Khmer Rouge itself slaughtered nearly 2 million people, although the former leader Pol Pot claims it was merely 800,000.

While this occured, there was little outrage or coverage in the US.  .

Ten years later in 1986 the Communist government in Vietnam implimented free-market reforms encouraging private ownership and freemarket reforms. Yes there is peace now, yes it happened on its own, and yes it was at a terrible price

How dose this relate to Iraq?  2 years ago I would have aggressivlely debated the differences between Iraq and Vietnam.  Now I must conceide that there are many similarities.

Stop.  Hold back from what you are thinking.  The point of my Vietnam lesson in the beginning of this post was to point out Americas warped view of the Vietnam war.  Our warped view of each of these wars is due to our dependence on the media for information.  

What you see on TV and read in the paper is like looking at the world through a toilet paper tube.  ....sorry now I'm just starting to rant.

My overall point is to encourage people to turn off CNN, put down Time magazine and pick up a history book.  The internet is also a great source, but keep your reading to historical and academic sources.  Don't be spoon fed by the media, learn and create your own opinions.

My one warning is that if you truly take on this task, you may not like what you see.  As the opiate of having someone else think for you wears off, you will suddenlly see the frauds to both your Left and Right.  Its lonely here in the middle, but my mind is my own.

[Stealth3 0]

Here's warnerd on Saddam:

link removed

[Sophion-Black 0]

Ok, go kill GW...

This one? (don't remember reading this so I'll just pick at it to show you what i see is wrong)

Quote[/b] ]He´s started an illegal war with weekly changing justifications... he´s guilty of sending 3000 servicemen and women to death. Hes also guilty of having killed about 100.000 iraqui civillians

By the order of the United States Congress in 1998 and by the approval of the US Congress in 2002 from This Resolution

Quote[/b] ]He also threatened to use NBC weapons, so kill him.

by that standard, every president from 1948 to now would be executed.

Quote[/b] ]On the big screen the US have been the ONLY ones to use nukes on civillians intentionally.

after dropping warning leaflets three days before the first bomb dropped saying "people of these listed cities get out, unimaginable destruction will occur very soon."

Quote[/b] ]The US better shut up before pointing fingers again.

the US hasn't been pointing fingers since the war of 1812... from then on they pointed guns. and from 1945 on we've been pointing nukes. A BIG deterrent.

EDIT:

Ah... found this:

Quote[/b] ]he´s guilty of not having any plan on how to stop that mess.

He did have a plan, it just didn't work.

[Garcia 0]

Ok, go kill GW...

This one? (don't remember reading this so I'll just pick at it to show you what i see is wrong)

Quote[/b] ]He´s started an illegal war with weekly changing justifications... he´s guilty of sending 3000 servicemen and women to death. Hes also guilty of having killed about 100.000 iraqui civillians

By the order of the United States Congress in 1998 and by the approval of the US Congress in 2002 from This Resolution

Quote[/b] ]He also threatened to use NBC weapons, so kill him.

by that standard, every president from 1948 to now would be executed.

Quote[/b] ]On the big screen the US have been the ONLY ones to use nukes on civillians intentionally.

after dropping warning leaflets three days before the first bomb dropped saying "people of these listed cities get out, unimaginable destruction will occur very soon."

Quote[/b] ]The US better shut up before pointing fingers again.

the US hasn't been pointing fingers since the war of 1812... from then on they pointed guns. and from 1945 on we've been pointing nukes. A BIG deterrent.

EDIT:

Ah... found this:

Quote[/b] ]he´s guilty of not having any plan on how to stop that mess.

He did have a plan, it just didn't work.

Ahhh, so what your saying is that UK easily can kick some french ass if they feel like (or the other way around for any frenchmen). All they have to do is get approval from their own country and warn the citizens in the other country, and if the citizens in the other country doesn't take the warning serious (which they probably wouldn't in this case), then UK could nuke Paris, and you wouldn't mind?

You got some neat things called international laws...if US congress says it ok, that still doesn't mean USA can go ahead bombing whoever they want. And if you warn people that a certain place is going to be bombed, be it by a nuke or just regular bombs, that neither means it's ok to go bomb whoever you want.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Sophion-Black and Garcia, both of you are PRed for 24 hrs. I hardly see any Iraq related discussion in both of your posts.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Sc@tterbrain, I still think that we cannot compare a politically-motivated war with a religiously-motivated one. In Iraq, it's the Shiites vs the Sunnites, not the Commies vs the Non-commies... and if the Kurds start fighting to make Kurdistan out of a piece of Iraq, then the whole thing will go FUBAR... Nevertheless, as I stated before, and concurring with your theory of using history books as reference, political conflicts have always been short-lived in comparison to religious conflicts, so there's the reason why one should not compare Iraq to Vietnam.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Well said Buzzard.  I think you are entirely correct.  I should have seen that angle as being a stonger point myself, especially considering my rant on history.  Perhaps a comparison of the two wars is misguided, but I stand by my statements pertaining to Americans narrow view of the world around them and the influence of the media.

Thanks for correcting me in an academic-like rather than condecending tone.

Heres a model for all of you thinking about telling someone they are wrong.  Do it respectfully and back it up.

[Baff1 0]

Religion and politics are too intergrally linked in Iraq to disassociate the two.

In the north, the rival groups are seperated by tribe, politics and religion. Their leaders are also their political leaders and their spiritual leaders.

In south on the other hand, most of them are of the same sect but are still infighting politically and tribally. It's not as simple as Sunni vs Shia, it is also Shia vs Shia and Sunni vs Sunni.

The religious divide is simply an easy demarcation between the tribes of the north.

Similarly the cold war enemity between communism and capitalism has more to do with the clashing goals of rival empires/peoples than it does conflicting political systems.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

will adding more troops help? im not that convinced.  didnt a republican politician call it "the worst blunder in US foreign policy since Vietnam"? im not sure what to think anymore.  i think the problem can be solved with extra troops, but that would mean LOTS of extra troops.  And i mean LOTS.  Its the same through all history, take away a suppressive goverment and put in democracy and you have anarchy.  People in those circumstances just arnt used to that freedom and it just dosnt work.  Name a country that created a suchcessful democracy after getting rid of a oppressive goverment without excessive bloodshed.  The russian revolution and french revolution show my point better. I mean in russia a  goverment was overthrown because it was so pathetic, the only thing stopping that in iraq is international presence.

sorry to go a bit OT but i think my points relavent.  there isnt really a solution to iraq anymore.  The best thing the US can do is pull out and say oops.  The civil war seems inevatable in Bagdad itleast (perhaps you could chop the south of and create a Soviet of the peacekeeping forces, Local Police and the sunni army which name i forget) , its too late to stop it.  Its just like Jinnah said to Ghandi.  God more leaders should try picking up a histroy book, maybe this madness wouldnt have happened if the world learned from its mistakes.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Name a country that created a suchcessful democracy after getting rid of a oppressive goverment without excessive bloodshed.

[OT: Take a look at Portugal and Spain... in Portugal only 1 person died during the '74 revolution, and in Spain there was a bloodless transition, IIRC - although I wouldn't really say that the democracy in Portugal is working correctly... /OT]

@ Baff1: Of course you're 100% right in pointing out that my presentation of the conflict was a bit simplistic, but I was just talking about it in a "generallistic macro-view" to make my point that religion seems still to have more weight than only pure politics in the Middle East, AFAIK...

[simba 0]

EVERYBODY even Bush know that sending more troops won't have much influence , Bush and his team just want to save their ass as long as they can (and eventually prepare even more to " remote control " Irak), so the only way to stop US occupying Irak is to force Bush to understand that his situation is gonna be even worse if he doesn't pull out quickly !!!

here is the plan:

1°capture Jeff Gannon:

2°once Bush comes to rescue him , force Bush to go in Irak as a grunt.

3°Since the only way for Bush to leave is to stop the war , that's what he will do.

or more seriously, GET UP americans, like you already did !

[Duke 0]

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

the problem i have is Bush seems so blind to opposition, and there dosnt seem anyway to actually stop the dam man. its an elected dictatorship for sure in terms of foreign policy.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]and there dosnt seem anyway to actually stop the dam man

There is aword going around in the US, it´s called Impeachment.

Up to now there should have been enough evidence collected to impeach him.

[simba 0]

Quote[/b] ]There is aword going around in the US, it´s called Impeachment.

Up to now there should have been enough evidence collected to impeach him.

do you have any article to elaborate?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

impeachment is hard, its never been suchcessful. i suppose Nixon would have been thrown out if he didnt resign.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

I can't beleive this debate has been on going since 2003. This seriously has to be the longest internet debate ever. Someone should call guiness.

[EiZei 0]

I can't beleive this debate has been on going since 2003. This seriously has to be the longest internet debate ever. Someone should call guiness.

4 years is nothing, have you any idea how long evolution debates have gone on the internet?