Iraq War

ProfV is still here (just not responding to political threads anymore)

NOTE: I'll only make this one, off-topic post in this thread

Good God Ms Molly...
Prof, don't go!
I'm not going anywhere, I just not responding to political thread for a few months. It's not the first time I've done it and it won't be the last. Not worth cover the same old things over and over, which only annoys other members anyway.
I love to read your posts, and many others that post here on other subjects than just "the Greatest Boobjob on an Asian SheMale HC in a DVD only available in Germany/GB";...while I admit I read those posts and love it, they are not quite the intellectually stimulating fodder I so truly enjoy and have found (surprisingly) quite often on the FreeOnes site.
This is a very unique place, and you help make it so.
I'll still be in the other threads. I'm going back to mak'n love, not talking about war, mode. ;)
 

Legzman

what the fuck you lookin at?
So isn't Iraq in a state of civil war now? Rather than saying what I think, I'll just ask...what does this mean for the rest of the world?
 
i hate political threads on this forum as that was the reason why i was away from this forum... let us talk about girls and porn and beer and sports and other stuff! :p
 
The Iraq War? It should not have happened in the first place. That is what happens when we have crazy group of people in power. They are the real terrorists!!!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
i hate political threads on this forum as that was the reason why i was away from this forum... let us talk about girls and porn and beer and sports and other stuff! :p


you need to keep a balance in life.
 
One of the most intelligent posts ...

So isn't Iraq in a state of civil war now? Rather than saying what I think, I'll just ask...what does this mean for the rest of the world?
Since you made one of the most intelligent posts and just didn't dive into the hindsight and bashing of what's already happened, I've gotta respond here.

Thinking regional, it means the US may end up creating the "worst possible scenario" for the region. The biggest fear most surrounding countries had -- from Jordan to our NATO ally in Turkey -- was that we'd come in, kick Saddam out and then leave once the in-fighting got too violent for us. There's something to be said for the American arrogance that we can just push Democracy on a people and they'll peacefully accept the responsibility.

No, the US isn't directly responsible for the countless deaths. But to agree indirectly with Fox, more people are dying as a result of "hoping Democracy takes hold" after Saddam was removed than those who were dying before he was outsted. The only difference is that Sunnis are dying as well now, not just Kurds and Shites under Sunni rule.

One of my favorite quotes from the movie Black Hawk Down regarding this. I need to find the exact quote, but it's basically "did you really think if you kill Adid we'd just lay down our arms and adopt western-style democracy?"

Pure majority rule is going to fail just as bad as it almost did for the US. The US Constitution took several back'n forth argument sessions to get the smaller and larger states to agree, and the resulting Great Compromise. Today, we're still having the debate over the Electoral College and almost the 5-6 "power" city-states versus rural voters.

If we really wanted an unified Iraq to succeed, and this is still debatable (it might have not worked there either), we should have pushed for the Kurds, Shites and Sunnis to be equally represented. The initial insurgency was heavily Sunni-centric because they were not merely not being well represented, but their districts were not resource-rich and their ownership of the country not well represented. Now we have various Shite influences, including at the Executive, and many Americans (including myself sometimes) are at odds when we see our armies support some actions under the newer, autonomous Iraqi rule.

The bigger question is, leading back to the original statements, is that is all this posturing right now? That once we leave, the Shite majority will overtake the Sunnis in a civil conflict, while leaving the Kurds to do what they want, including cede from the union and create a Kurdistan that will virtually be at war with Turkey from Day 1. I'm sure that's the biggest fear right now for everyone, in and outside of Iraq in the region.

Or is it just the fact that Democracy is just to build a nation on? Most Americans don't realize we weren't all "rosey" in our first, few years or even decades for that matter. Uprisings, military abuses, citizens unrest, violations of the Bill of Rights, they happened! Is Iraq just going through that process, and we just need to let it happen? I'm not sure. In fact, I'd argue the difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship is the first executive leader that kept to the principles of the Republic. Washington for us. Ataturk for Turkey. And there are countless, other examples.

If anything, I don't agree with Bush on a lot, trust me, not much at all -- domestic or foreign! But at least I know where he stands, even thought I disagree strong in many cases. I'm not sure I agree with the current course. But that's not the point. I think we're in a bind and there is only one thing we can do.

The best we can do is let the Iraqi leadership make its own decisions, act like the autonomous entity we said we'd help and defend as long as they want our help, and that includes letting them order our troops. In just the past half-year, the US military has respected the autonomous authority of the Iraqi government, taking direct orders from it and shown that the government "is in charge." Despite all the rhetoric, pull out recommendations and countless other commentary, this is all we can do for now.

And that includes leaving when the Iraqi leadership says to do such. I'm just afraid, even if unjustified, the actions over the last year, including the UN resolution to allow the coalition to stay more than one year, is all for not. Complaining about the past does nothing. All I can do is pray for the future, that Iraq will make it through the early years of its Democracy. For I do admit and accept the US would be to blame for attempting to introduce Democracy if it does not take hold.
 
But what is "politics"?

you need to keep a balance in life.
I don't know, "politics" isn't very helpful in general. Discussions of "leadership," yes. But no, not "politics."

If you don't know what I mean, research what "political science" actually educates someone in. As I always say, I had more economics classes in my engineering curriculum than a PS major gets! ;)
 
It's not so much a war as a police action and that's where the similarity to vietnam ends.
In my honest opinion, America went into this straddling a howitzer and yelling "Yeeehaw!!" rather than sitting down and working out a decent exit strategy first.
So what happens when you go in like you're playing a Real Life version of Doom?

I feel sorry for the grunts at ground level slogging through this crap, God be with you boys!
 
Re: One of the most intelligent posts ...

Thinking regional, it means the US may end up creating the "worst possible scenario" for the region. The biggest fear most surrounding countries had -- from Jordan to our NATO ally in Turkey -- was that we'd come in, kick Saddam out and then leave once the in-fighting got too violent for us. There's something to be said for the American arrogance that we can just push Democracy on a people and they'll peacefully accept the responsibility.
Agreed.

Part of the fear on our allies part however - was that the elimination of Sunni Saddam might just enhance the hands of Shi'a Iran and Syria. Which is exactly what has happened.

One of my favorite quotes from the movie Black Hawk Down regarding this. I need to find the exact quote, but it's basically "did you really think if you kill Adid we'd just lay down our arms and adopt western-style democracy?"
Just had to interject to insert the original quote:
Abdullah 'Firimbi' Hassan said:
Do you think if you get General Aidid, we will simply put down our weapons and adopt American democracy? That the killing will stop? We know this. Without victory, there will be no peace. There will always be killing, see? This is how things are in our world.

I don't agree with that assessment nor the quote - it is nothing short of ethno-centrism to assume that nobody but the West is capable of democratic/republican self-rule. BUT - given the current scenario in Iraq, I can understand why that quote seems apropos.

Pure majority rule is going to fail just as bad as it almost did for the US. The US Constitution took several back'n forth argument sessions to get the smaller and larger states to agree, and the resulting Great Compromise. Today, we're still having the debate over the Electoral College and almost the 5-6 "power" city-states versus rural voters.
:) Prof! Even if we may disagree on the State and American Foreign Policy - it is refreshing to read someone who has obviously bothered to read up a bit on American history.

Between you and me ~ I'm glad the "anti-federalists" won. I don't respect Hamilton one bit .... it was his influence that led to the rise of the immoral, abbhorent Federal Reserve.

Or is it just the fact that Democracy is just to build a nation on? Most Americans don't realize we weren't all "rosey" in our first, few years or even decades for that matter. Uprisings, military abuses, citizens unrest, violations of the Bill of Rights, they happened! Is Iraq just going through that process, and we just need to let it happen? I'm not sure. In fact, I'd argue the difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship is the first executive leader that kept to the principles of the Republic. Washington for us. Ataturk for Turkey. And there are countless, other examples.
Hey Prof,

Great analogies - though I beg to differ.

Iraq today is no 18th century America. The most fundamental, the most crucial, the most important difference --- the American Revolution was homegrown, supported and won. The primary trouble in Iraq today is that whilst we eliminated a tyrant like Saddam, the focus of the people of Iraq is that it was done for our interests rather than theirs.

So whilst we claim to keep doing things "for the benefit of Iraq" a significant section of the population is rightly suspicious and opposed to our motives. Our numerous bungles pre, intra and post invasion have just complicated matters.

If anything, I don't agree with Bush on a lot, trust me, not much at all -- domestic or foreign! But at least I know where he stands, even thought I disagree strong in many cases. I'm not sure I agree with the current course. But that's not the point. I think we're in a bind and there is only one thing we can do.
The NCO in me says that there is nothing militarily salvageable from Iraq. Our forces there are in nothing short of siege positions - isolated control centers leaving the countryside free for the locals to roam and control.

As such we are more vulnerable to a co-ordinated attack than most people realise! If the Iraqi insurgency grew half a brain (and I hope they don't!) - they could have our exposed grunts in serious trouble inside of a week....

The best we can do is let the Iraqi leadership make its own decisions, act like the autonomous entity we said we'd help and defend as long as they want our help, and that includes letting them order our troops. In just the past half-year, the US military has respected the autonomous authority of the Iraqi government, taking direct orders from it and shown that the government "is in charge." Despite all the rhetoric, pull out recommendations and countless other commentary, this is all we can do for now.
You mean support - as in calling the Iraqi PM and his subordinates and associates "weak", "incompetent" and a plethora of other suitable adjectives? All it does is to make Maliki look like a puppet of the US ... which he is, but that is besides the point.

And that includes leaving when the Iraqi leadership says to do such.
Leadership?! What about the populace???!!!


cheers,
 

DrMotorcity

Don Trump calls me Pornography Man
I supported wholeheartedly the decision to invade of Iraq.

Kill the tyrant, no question about it.


Nearly four years later and with 3025+ American deaths to show for the effort, I have to say that it has been a mis-managed affair as well as being a considerable foul-up. Bring 'em home, GWB, before Hillary does it for... those brave people and for their families.

:cry:

DrMotorcity
 
For whatever the reason it was done for this week, I was an initial supporter of the invasion. Yes Saddam was a butcher, yes he was a security threat in the region, yes the Mid East does need reformed, yes he did have Chem. and Bio. weapons...whatever. That being said, the problems first began a week after the finality of the invasion.

When you combine an incapable transitional authority that's given a blank cheque with half-assed subcontracting work, there's bound to be problems. When you have an insufficiently sized initial force to make a presence, keep the peace, and seal the borders effectively, there's bound to be problems. When you hand the authority of governance over to people who are more interested in religious sects than their own job of being a fully representational government, people who seem more concerned with comeuppance than progressive governing, people who, until a few years ago, had no concept or understanding of a democracy, then you're going to have problems. Finally, when you coddle and over-protect that government by not allowing it to be responsible to/for itself and stand on its own feet by solving it's own issues out of necessity, there's going to be problems.

I'm not going to get into the "what if" game, but the indisputable fact that this was has cost many thousands of lives, both military and civilian, along with hundreds of billions of dollars. It is my opinion that this was and is a worthy war to fight; however, due in majority to bad management as well as a lack of foresight and preparation, this war has become a lot costlier than it should have been.
 
We all don´t know what the main problem is. We hear oil,terror,safety,help for Iraq...I can´t say THIS is true and THIS false,only that G.Bush isn´t my favourite person.
 
God forbid the US is going to spend 1/6th of its federal revenue on all combined DoD expenditures -- including R&D. As I've repeated over and over on this board, please read up on the budgets of past Presidents and how much of a percentage their DoD budgets were. Also read up on GDP v. DoD spending, especially versus other nations (and remember why and how the only remaining, major capitalist nation can afford this).

There are 42 coalition nations that supported the US not merely because it's about Saddam or WMDs, but because they need the black gold even more (percentage-wise) than us. I'm getting rather tired of the US being the only country that is lambasted for what all other nations do, often far worse than us, except they don't have our military might. I mean ... hello?!?!?! Do you ever wonder why Blair and the PMs and leaders of other nations side with the US while their citizens are even against it more than American citizens? Again, I've been avoiding these threads as of late because people just want to bitch about the US, and not the greater realities of their own nation's selfish interests. Especially when they match ours.

There is differing with the President.
And there is undermining the Presidency.
And then there's even the reality that people just don't like the fact that a major capitalist nation like the US still exists.
Even though a good 1/4th of the world benefits and supports our actions, even if not publicly.
 
God forbid the US is going to spend 1/6th of its federal revenue on all combined DoD expenditures -- including R&D. As I've repeated over and over on this board, please read up on the budgets of past Presidents and how much of a percentage their DoD budgets were. Also read up on GDP v. DoD spending, especially versus other nations (and remember why and how the only remaining, major capitalist nation can afford this).

There are 42 coalition nations that supported the US not merely because it's about Saddam or WMDs, but because they need the black gold even more (percentage-wise) than us. I'm getting rather tired of the US being the only country that is lambasted for what all other nations do, often far worse than us, except they don't have our military might. I mean ... hello?!?!?! Do you ever wonder why Blair and the PMs and leaders of other nations side with the US while their citizens are even against it more than American citizens? Again, I've been avoiding these threads as of late because people just want to bitch about the US, and not the greater realities of their own nation's selfish interests. Especially when they match ours.

There is differing with the President.
And there is undermining the Presidency.
And then there's even the reality that people just don't like the fact that a major capitalist nation like the US still exists.
Even though a good 1/4th of the world benefits and supports our actions, even if not publicly.

The fact that a lot of Nations have backed the Iraq War (openly or hidden) dores not make it any better. There can be no reason whatsoever to start a War on another Country. (Self-Defense is not the same thing) Weapons of Mass Destruction aren't and Oil certainly isn't. Yes, Saddam has killed a lot of people. But so have other dictators, whose countries were not invaded by foreign troops afterwards. Don't get me wrong I'm glad he's gone.

The U.S.A. have started a crusade to enforce their views and political system on people who obviously don't want them.

They also spit on Human rights by imprisoning people and torturing them, without any possibility of getting legal advice or letting them know what they are being charged of... Not to forget the kidnapping of citizens of other (even allied!) countries and bringing them to third countries for "interrogation"
So how can they say "we are the good guys"?

In the Nünberg Trials German Generals were sentenced for attacking other countries without reason. But obviously for the U.S.A. there are other standards...

Anti-U.S. ?

Maybe, but I still think I'm right about this
 
How can it be compared to Vietnam?
- Vietnam was fought by a military that in part had to be drafted v. an all volunteer military in Iraq. And recruitment hasn't stopped since the start of the GWoT. So people join knowing and in a lot of case wanting to join the fight.
- The military is on a much tighter leash now than it was in Vietnam. Even rumors of misconduct today will have a unit yanked out of the field and investigated. No more burning villages and killing woman and children. we're making every effort to avoid "collateral damage" in this war.

If the "body count" is the only way anyone can make a connection between the Vietnam war and the Iraq war, then they don't look much past the surface.
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Hi everybody.
Some of you people really scare me. And what scares me even more is your attitudes towards the Bush administration and the global situation( aka 10's of millions of people have VOWED to kill us all,),represent the majority of U.S. citizens attitudes as well.
Why do so few of us realize the U.S. and British military, under president Bush ,has drove the taliban out of afgahnastan, captured or killed dozens, even hundreds of top leaders of al qaida, taliban, hezbolah and other terror orginizations who's only objective is to kill you, me and our families. And basically put the terrorist orginizations hell bent on our destruction on the defense instead of the offense.

Under President Bush the U.S. military has captured Saddam Hussien and removed his dictatorship from Iraq. You remember Saddam, a man who killed and totured millions over his lifetime? I can go on. I can give a speech about all the reasons this country needed to go on the offensive, I can ask why the previous president did nothing to defend this country. But I really dont want to write a novel(but i probably will).

I cannot understand the people of this country's hatred and mistrust of President Bush. I mostly blame it on the obviously Democratic party controlled news media. Many even blamed a damn hurricane on him. wtf?

Do you not think that if we didnt go on the offensive after 9/11 and put the terror groups on the run, that we would not have been attacked again by now? On probably an even larger level than 9/11.
Do you not think the terror orginizations are not seeing how the american people, democratic politicians, and the news media are trying to destroy the president and his effort to defend this country, and just laughing their asses off?
And do you not think they are just hoping waiting for Mrs. Clinton to be sworn in? With her extremely weak stance on defense thats like giving them license to do whatever they want. And they know it.

and also what do you think president Clinton would have done if the events of 9/11 happened during his presidency? We know he did nothing after the first attack on the trade center, as well as the U.S.S Cole and 2 U.S. embassies being blown up.

Anybody got any better Ideas to prevent another 9/11 or an even more serious attack on American soil?
I havent heard one Democritic politician come up with a plan. It seems there only adjenda is "whatever Bush does, go against it".

3100 american lives lost is beyond words. Idont like it as much as anybody.We lost almost 6000 boys on 6/6/44 alone, one day. And fighting the germans in france, and germany never attacked us. I dont recall the american people calling for president roosevelts impeachment. But society has changed and so has its conception of reality.
I did write a novel,I'm done, Soon the american people will have what they want.Bush will be gone, Hillary will be pres., and the rest will be history. Good Luck.
 

Legzman

what the fuck you lookin at?
Since it was bumped, I have one thing to add...the war is still going on and will be for quite sometime, let's just leave it at that!
 

Philbert

Banned
There are a lot of complex factors involved in International politics, and never for a moment forget that those very politics determine life and death for millions of people.
There are world trends that defy immediate definition, but history has always shown us what happens in human affairs...the job of any leader is to, in effect, write "future history".Two things I am very interested in right now...the "Scooter Libby" (watergate burglars, anyone?)situation, and the Saud/Hamas alliance.
I find the Saud connection the more disturbing, but both bear watching.

This article is from a source known for it's good information...I have other sources that verify that they have good info...opinion is a different thing; I troll there for background on events.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1255

Iraq is what it is...and one thing it is, is another "proxy" battlefield. Iraq is an opportunity for conflict without direct confrontation, Iran and others fighting the West.
Very tricky times to be making the major decisions for the immediate and far future.
I want to see our leaders making sure my home and family are safe and well, and then the other people in the world, after that. So, hopefully the future of many of us is in alliance and cooperation, not nuisance value.
Any leader not looking out for his constituant's future is not a leader.
Simplified, we must not leave Iraq too early or stay too long.
:2 cents:
 
Top