The Iraq thread 4

[Jezz 0]

Quote[/b] ]After recent events we will be at war with N. Korea soon too...  

Not likly mate for that to happen north korea would have to attack the south or fire something at japan. The south and america will never attack the north without provocation for one huge reason, the north has the bomb and could easily hit Seoul, hell even large caliber artillery can hit Seoul the loss of life would be catostorphic. There is no doubt america would win a war v north korea but civilan casulties make it incredibly unlikly + there is also the problem of big brother china.

Also going by ACU america isnt planing to fight in anywhere green in the near future

Im always going to think that this current war was a very bad idea to get some cheap oil that back fired spectaculary. The argument that iraq was any kind of threat to the west is joke. Saddam was smart enough to realise that if any sort of attack in the west could be linked to him exactly this kind of thing would have happened so it was in his own best interest not to he may be dumb but not that frickin dumb

[sr4470 0]

A precise strike, targeting only the insurgents, carried out by Iraqi troops is likely to create much less resistance as a US siege of a city with civilians getting caught in the crossfire.

Bombing villages that contain 1 or 2 insurgents is overexcessive use of force. If any civilians die you will create more insurgents instead of disable the resistance movement. Areas where US forces operate have far more active resistance in them then in areas controlled by the other international forces.

Before Fallujah was besieged, there were estimated to be 4,000 resistance fighters - after word of the events in Fallujah spread, the numbers multiplied to over 100,000.

Source that.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

[Sophion-Black 0]

we are already in debt before the war.  The economy has been pretty good.

to add to that, the Clinton Admin was the only modern Admin to have the econimy at a surplus and not debt.

[looking over thread]

well, you guys aren't too acquainted with smart bombs are you? They are very accurate, up to ten feet if i can recall (but don't hold me to it, its been a while).

As many as people dismiss the notion that Iraq and Vietnam is not the same scenario. it is in some areas, only on the part that politics is now the battlefield. And that the people of Iraq is being threatened by neighbors, insurgents. In contrast, the people are actually trying to win in Iraq. [south] Vietnam was corrupt in many areas and picked at the US funding. Which significantly cut it down. But here, were going somewhere.

[turms 0]

A precise strike, targeting only the insurgents, carried out by Iraqi troops is likely to create much less resistance as a US siege of a city with civilians getting caught in the crossfire.

Bombing villages that contain 1 or 2 insurgents is overexcessive use of force. If any civilians die you will create more insurgents instead of disable the resistance movement. Areas where US forces operate have far more active resistance in them then in areas controlled by the other international forces.

Before Fallujah was besieged, there were estimated to be 4,000 resistance fighters - after word of the events in Fallujah spread, the numbers multiplied to over 100,000.

Source that.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm

That article said no such thing.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Clinton Admin was the only modern Admin to have the econimy at a surplus and not debt.

But if you look at debt as a percent of GDP you'll notice that only Reagan+Bush and dubya have managed to grow it.

Quote[/b] ]

well, you guys aren't too acquainted with smart bombs are you? They are very accurate, up to ten feet if i can recall (but don't hold me to it, its been a while).

Smart bombs do'nt do much good if you are trying to bomb guerillas hiding in a city of over million people.

Quote[/b] ]

Vietnam was corrupt in many areas and picked at the US funding.

As opposed to Iraq, the model of transparency and anti-corruption.

[JdB 151]

But here, were going somewhere.

Yeah, a civil war

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]Im always going to think that this current war was a very bad idea to get some cheap oil that back fired spectaculary.

The thing is, as brutal as Saddam was to his own people, he was by far a more secular leader and less resistant to incentives to give up cheap oil than most of the other hardline muslim leaders would be.

You'd think he'd be one of the last last people they'd need to invade, to get the oil train rolling so to speak. I think they knocked him over because they thought it'd just be easier than haggling with the guy, and then yeah... the whole thing just spiraled out of control.

After the invasion, et al. We find out the facilities that were supposedly part of his nuclear enrichment program had been inactive and dilapidated since the 80s, and I watched some idiotic documenary on television that dated before the invasion saying that Saddam just needed that "magical ingredient" to set off production and dissemination of nuclear WMDs, etc. And what with the blatant lying on behalf of the Bush administration about them having incontrovertible evidence about him possessing WMD of some type, I think we can assume it was done in the name of financial gain.

Either way, a muslim leader will emerge from this mess and he will probably hate the U.S on principal a lot more than Saddam did. Which was effectively like shooting themselves in the foot... what are they going to do? re invade?

Quote[/b] ]I don't see how we can criticize this war, the US and UK liberated the people of Iraq from a dictator that should have been removed in 1991...

So you're saying that by comparison to other wars, the casualties incurred somehow mitigate the need for criticism as to why they were sent there? You don't seem to make any mention of the thousands of innocent people that have died, and continue to die as a result of the now rampant crime, sectarian violence and collateral damage from fighting by coalition forces and insurgents. The country is currently in a worse place for those living there, than it was pre-invasion. Civil infrastructure is practically nonexistent, there's not enough work to go around. That's ridiculous to imply that this little venture is beyond criticism because enough people haven't DIED yet.

Quote[/b] ]Seriously, he is pretty much Hitler of our time and the douche bag in North Korea is worst than Saddam.

So you're equating Saddam to a person who during his era was the most universally reviled man on the face of the earth, and then you say that Kim Jong Il is worse? (o mi gawd, double the worse!?   ) That makes little sense. On top of being a truckload of bollocks. Saddam was a bad man, yes, the world is full of bad men, ones especially worse than him, he himself posed very little threat to neighboring countries. He was content to live a life of luxury whilst terrorizing his own people, he tried the whole "invasion" thing twice as far as I know and both failed miserably. He was wholly an ineffective leader who was only good at keeping himself and his cronies in power.

He was as I mentioned before one of the most secular leaders in the middle east, more interested in money and power than religious persuits. Bin Laden and Saddam shared an enmity they did not work together!

Quote[/b] ]Al QAEDA was in South Florida

Huh?  

Quote[/b] ]and you wanna tell me they where not in Iraq, lol.  We definately know its not for oil because i'm paying 2.50 right now

Uh, no. You see that's not how it works. More oil is wanted to sustain their wealth, keeping prices high enough that people will still BUY oil is in fact very good for oil companies. Keeping the price of oil very low is not something they want to do. It was NEVER about helping the average american pay for gas, it was about making more money for themselves. You could cite trickle-down economics, but we all know that's a giant sack of lies.

Quote[/b] ]Especially the assholes that did it at the funeral.  That was not right.

Yeah, and those people were ironically far-right wing christians that are angry with prez Bush and his ilk and the whole country, not for being greedy warmongering twats, but because they weren't extremist christian enough for their liking. Do a web search for Fred Phelps. And yes, the world would be better off if him and his followers ceased to exist.

[harley 3 1185 0]

In case you're forgetting Baphomet, it took a long time for Hitler to become the "most hated man of his era". Hell, in 1941 there was a huge portion of the American public who thought that Hitler wasn't such a bad guy. Britain went to war not out of any personal animosity towards Germany and Hitler, but because it was the right thing to do. France had a long, violent history with Germany, and also tended to do what Britain did. By numbers, I'm betting that Stalin was probably hated my far more people than Hitler was.

Saddam may have been evil, but for example Kim Jong-Il poses far more a threat to US in the West than Saddam did. Seeing as the U.S. had sanctioned Iraq to death in the 90s, humanitarian concerns sure as hell weren't the reason we went to war. Saddam was a cruel bullying dictator, but the amount of terror his people are now inflicting upon one another is fast approaching all the evil he did in 25 years!

[Baphomet 0]

Oh I'm not saying Kim Jong Il isn't a threat, but it just goes to show where U.S priorities are that they go after the practically non existent threat, and completely ignore Kim Jong Il altogether.

Of course big brother china is also a factor, so it's just easier for them to knock over the Iraqi military, which proved to be easier than it was the first time around.

The point is Saddam never really had any serious chance at getting WMDs even his "super gun" was a monumentally useless waste of money. He was a selfish profit driven sociopath. But that could be said for a lot of world leaders. He was a threat to his own people, for sure, but there are a lot of oppressive regimes that have come and gone throughout the years. I didn't see the U.S going into Rwanda to prevent that genocide, or currently the killings going on in southern sudan, which the U.S government jointly deemed "not" a genocide scenario, to avoid having to deploy there.

Quote[/b] ]but the amount of terror his people

It's not just his people...

let's not conveniently turn a blind eye to the fact that torture has been conducted by coalition forces, and the sheer amount of incidents where innocent people had been killed in the ensuing chaos, intentional or not, still has a powerful effect on the lives of Iraqis. Absolving them of that responsibility is entirely wrongheaded. Yeah, they're doing a job over there, but that doesn't detract from any of the substantial damage this invasion has caused the country.

It's now just a big giant mess altogether, doing something about it, and not doing anything about it have roughly the same effect, and both are going to be fraught with death and discord. But that doesn't make them any more noble for it. It's a job, and it really really sucks for them right now. But, you know. The average Iraqi is just as bad if not worse off than they are, and they didn't voluntarily sign up for this war.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Don't worry, I'm not defending the invasion at all. I was just pointing out that Saddam did a far better job at keeping order than the Coalition even when they resort to torture, and their accidental shots end up intimidating many Iraqis into staying home.

However, the troops on the ground are for the most part just "following orders" to use the phrase, and most of the time those orders don't involve anything so repuganantly blatant as Saddam's orders to gas a town or kill a mayor and whatnot.

[Jinef 2]

"That makes little sense. On top of being a truckload of bollocks."

Thankyou mate, I needed that laugh.

My view on the whole thing is simple, we went to war because we were bored and to benefit some fat bastards in a mansion somewhere.

My ideas:

>The fat bastards will make profits.

>Many people will die, leaving devastated relatives and a trail of insurgency behind them.

>The military will be built up now and then left to decay.

>There will still be no proper health services in the USA.

>Average living quality in USA, UK and Iraq will go down as their efforts are on killing each other, instead of something productive.

>Historians will chuckle in a few years time and say "Those silly bastards never learn".

Don't you think it is quite immature and idiotic that we are still doing this shit? I am truly afraid of having children simply because I am ashamed of the world I would be briging them into.

Fuck the human race.

[Stendac 0]

Saddam was a bad man, yes, the world is full of bad men, ones especially worse than him, he himself posed very little threat to neighboring countries.

The neighboring countries might disagree.

I don't think the US invaded Iraq just for the oil.  But it certainly was a nice bonus.

Anyway,

let's all do our part to end America's addiction to foreign oil.  Recycle your bottles, turn off your lights, and buy a Prius.

[EiZei 0]

Saddam was a bad man, yes, the world is full of bad men, ones especially worse than him, he himself posed very little threat to neighboring countries.

The neighboring countries might disagree.

Past 1991 i'd say they do'nt.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]The neighboring countries might disagree.

Oh come on, Saddam got royally spanked by the Iranians during their little set-to. Of course Kuwait is an other blue-chip oil-rich nation, so they're got all the help they needed to put him in his place.

The kurds had it shitty, but no more than some of the african nations during the 90s. You didn't see the U.S or anyone running up into those places and shutting it all down to save their asses. By comparison to other individuals who committed atrocious acts in conflict ridden areas of the world. I don't think he's especially worse, it's just the fact that so much attention was brought to him. He was just a selfish twat with a lot of money and a cold heart, he wasn't terribly smart with what he had though.

What I'm saying is, if the U.S was dead serious about addressing REAL threats to their national security, they would have forgotten all about Iraq and focused on a nation that's, you know, actually got weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraq invasion pretext was rife with lame excuses and outright lies, there is an ulterior motive there and it wasn't the philanthropic deed the administration tried to spin it as to drum up support. That was just a bullshit afterthought aimed to shore up any uncertainty. At the most you could call it a generic attempt at imperialism, nation building.

As far as Iran goes, I seriously think that this whole Iraq mess has exacerbated the problems with them, because they see themselves as the next target, which is why I think it spurred them on to start or expedite the development of a nuclear deterrent strategy. From my perspective the Bush administration is going to have to lie in the bed it's made as far as the political landscape of the middle east is concerned, and right now... it's looking like some kind of nasty stained, flea-bag hotel kinda bed. Not pretty. However it was for the most part, avoidable.

[Donnervogel 0]

What I'm saying is, if the U.S was dead serious about addressing REAL threats to their national security, they would have forgotten all about Iraq and focused on a nation that's, you know, actually got weapons of mass destruction.

Or maybe they were just right with Iraq in that sense. Wouldn't running out of (cheap) crude oil be a threat to national security for a nation that is so largely dependant on automobiles with no major alternate public transport infrastructure? A nation that consumes by far the most oil per capita (dunno about total numbers but they will surely rank high up too despite the relatively small population density in the USA)? A nation that produces about 1/4 of the world's CO2 emissions and refuses to switch to major alternative power sources? Imagine the riots if, god forbid, the people would have to pay the same gas prices as europeans. Imagine the economic breakdown when oil becomes unavailable/unaffordable for many smaller companies.

All that poses a risk to national security. So what you want to do when you have a strong military and no will to reform? Yes! Invade those filthy oil rich bastards and secure the oil reserves for yourself so you can continue as you did all the time and don't have to worry about making inconveient changes to your life.

Ok this was a slightly onesided rant. I'm sure there are many other reasons why it was profitable to go into this war for certain people but I truly don't think it had anything to do with protecting iraq's neighbours or the oh so powerful iraqi military threatening anyone except it's own citizens.

[Nemesis6 0]

Just what I needed: Another leftist rant from a person of Germanic origin. No, seriously, I need that every now and then to remind me why I don't conform to the belief of the hippies whose signs I see every time I pass by the ministry building where I live, and here you come to make it crystal clear to me why I shouldn't live in the left's world of lollipops, puppies, and global communism.

[xawery 0]

Just what I needed: Another leftist rant from a person of Germanic origin. No, seriously, I need that every now and then to remind me why I don't conform to the belief of the hippies whose signs I see every time I pass by the ministry building where I live, and here you come to make it crystal clear to me why I shouldn't live in the left's world of lollipops, puppies, and global communism.

Global communism... Obviously the ultimate goal of all those who hold left-of-centre views. While we're discussing balanced political insight, why don't we dig up the global Zionist conspiracy?

Incidentally, why do you deem it significant to mention that the 'leftist rant' came from someone of 'Germanic origin'? Imagine the havoc that would ensue if I dismissed your rant because you are Jewish...

At least Donnervogel had the decency to recognise the one-sided nature of his little rant.

Back on topic: some claim that the war in Iraq was not about oil. They point to the rising petrol prices as proof. The problem with this reasoning is that these people incorrectly assume that the consumers would be the beneficiaries of a war waged for oil. Not the people, but the oil companies are profiting. Incidentally, this is isn't the first time in history that the US government has favoured the oil industry, while leaving the bill in the taxpayers' mailbox. In the 70's, the oil import quotas were instituted, supposedly for reasons of national security. Who benefited? The oil industry, of course, while the consumers footed the 5 bn dollar bill in higher petrol prices.

Why wouldn't the government be willing to do something similar now?

(You can read more about the oil import quotas in this article: http://scholar.google.nl/url?sa=....&q=http

[theavonlady 2]

Incidentally, why do you deem it significant to mention that the 'leftist rant' came from someone of 'Germanic origin'? Imagine the havoc that would ensue if I dismissed your rant because you are Jewish...

Then he would not be ranting.

He would be qvetching.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]McCain, Feingold pressure Iraq’s leaders, Key senators tell officials that American patience is growing thin

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12010122/

To paraphrase: omfg, fix the mess we've made of your country already... or else.

My question is exactly what else?

I guess they're playing a range of their diplomatic cards on this one, ranging from empty threats, to asking "pretty please"  trying to cover any effective means of keeping this from spinning out of control.

Ya think it's going to work?

[Nemesis6 0]

How convinient... two reports from AP - The agency which we all know to be:

* Unbiased

* Balanced

* Objective

[Supah 0]

How convinient... two reports from AP - The agency which we all know to be:

* Unbiased

* Balanced

* Objective

What do VB runtime errors have to do with reporting?

[EiZei 0]

How convinient... two reports from AP - The agency which we all know to be:

* Unbiased

* Balanced

* Objective

So because AP called a terrorist "militant" we should now believe that Mccain did not indeed go to Iraq and say those things?

Get a grip.

Quote[/b] ]

What do VB runtime errors have to do with reporting?

Try google cache, on the other hand, you are not missing much.

[Donnervogel 0]

Just what I needed: Another leftist rant from a person of Germanic origin. No, seriously, I need that every now and then to remind me why I don't conform to the belief of the hippies whose signs I see every time I pass by the ministry building where I live, and here you come to make it crystal clear to me why I shouldn't live in the left's world of lollipops, puppies, and global communism.

only I'm nowhere near a hippy nor communist and at best slightly left of the centre. Oh and my origin is eastern european jewish.

So much about your knowledge of people

So anything to comment on the matter or just wanting to bash at me?

[Baphomet 0]

How convinient... two reports from AP - The agency which we all know to be:

* Unbiased

* Balanced

* Objective

You're missing the point, any perceived political bias is irrelevant to the core of the articles which describe both Bush and McCain behaving like impotent jackasses spouting off using two different methods to achieve similar goals.

The point is it's just inconsequential showmanship on their part. Bush is in effect preaching to the choir with his attempt at an optimistic spin, and McCain is trying to shift blame to the interim government for the current mess in this country, both try to effect public opinion in the U.S about where the governing party and it's leadership are going. Which is important I guess, what with Bush and his administration waning in approval.

Unless of course you're implying that these articles are outright lies. At which point I'd say you live in the same logical realm as Bill O'fuckchop-Reilly.

[harley 3 1185 0]

No offense, but how the hell can a website created by a bunch of people devoted to helping Israel every which way they can be considered any less biased than the AP?

Indeed, America's patience is growing thin. Except unlike Vietnam they have no strong puppet to blame - only their brave misguided attempts at creating a democratic government under fire which is not the best way to solve any problems.

The United States, and Britain, should realise that any problems are Iraq are essentially of their doing, and that no amount of posturing with the new political leaders of Iraq is going to remove that responsibility.

Iraq will either deteriorate or improve, commensurate with the level of aid and committment from Washington or London.