Is the tide turning about Iraq? (in US)

[Wormwood]

My sentiments exactly. I think their intention was to focus and inflame terrorism over there, with this occupation. This is another reason why I struggle to understand why folks would think we're "losing" something here. It just seems to me they expected it.

We are losing something as a society, though we may not be losing the "war". We are losing our credibility, our global reputation as a defender of freedom and justice, and billions and billions of tax dollars that would be better spent building infrastructure of our own nation. I don't think we are losing the war, because there is no war. A war is a militray conflict between two armies; this is a glorified crime problem. However, we are certainly not winning this fake war either. We are trapped in a stalemate that will continue to drain our resources and the lives of young people for years to come.

 

Don't mistake this analysis for my being for it. I'd rather spread freedom with persuasion, not force. And I don't believe the middle east, or at least a handful of particular countries in that region, are rational enough, nor mature enough to interface with. They should be ignored.

 

I think we should move on to other energy sources so we can let that particular region of the world fade back into obscurity. I agree that many of these nations are not ready to join the civilized world and should be left to their own ends. If they want to kill their own citizens, and the citizens aren't smart enough to rise up against the unfair government as they have risen against us, then they deserve what they get. As I said, freedom can not be given or it isn't truly freedom.

 

 

 

We didn't crush a nation, ruin a government and put its leader to death over 148 people, we did it because we believed they had WMD's and it worked well with our ideas of fighting the war on terror, while putting a piece of the project for a new american century in motion. Bush ran on the Iraq issue, and I'm convinced the neocons had their minds on this before 9/11 and used it to further that end.

 

That's not how Saddams trial played out. At his trial, the focus was on 148 people killed in the 1980's. We put him to death for that, after killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. I am not saying this to mean anything other than what it is. This war is built on one bullsh*t excuse propping up another in such a long chain that no one can even tell what's really going on. By that I mean, Haliburton, all of the oil companies record proffits, and Bush's lies about motives are just the things we know about...

 

 

Actually, you can't fight an idea with the military. It's winable, but not with force. Winning hearts and minds is the most effective. Leading by example seems basic. And then there's always propaganda and the disinformation game.

So are you saying that it would be possible to rid the world of an abstract concept like hate or jealousy then?

 

I'm just not sure these people are really worth dealing with at this point. We've got the guys responsible for 9/11, we're on our way to kicking out the neocons, so I'd prefer to just pull out, concentrate on our own borders and trade with nations that are mature enough to deal with.

 

The people in control of either side wants this conflict to escalate for two reasons IMO. First, it gives them the fuel to create more hate (which in adolescent males isn't that tough to begin with) which gives them people to fight and die for their cause. The people controlling this conflict will stay safely tucked away while commanding young men to go fight and die for some bullsh*t cause. Which leads to reason two: the BS cause. Sure there is the oil, the fake WMD's, the fact that all of Bush's buddies are making obscene profits, the American troops in the holy land, and the western abuse of the middle east, but what both sides have in common is that they are both run by religious zealots. In an odd twist that has been building for centuries, these two particular religions have overlapping themes and characters with different culturally relevant traits. Bush, like many fundies, believes that there will be a great conflict between the religious forces of good and evil before his God can return to earth. The same is true of many imams. They want to see this holy war because they think it will lead to a new era of peace and heaven on earth. Most likely all they will get is a desert made of glass.

[ParanoiA]

How will we know when we have won ie what will be the state afterwards? Are we getting measurably closer to that state?

 

Not sure. I think they're going for "stability". I'm not sure what that would really look like and I don't believe we'll ever know because our media will sensationalize a slug crawling along the sidewalk if they could - it's their business. So' date=' if there's an insurgent with a sling shot and a pocket full of marbles, they'll still report it like it matters and we'll still interpret it as imminent defeat.

 

If we are not doing so then are we at a stalemate?

 

Depends. In WWII some of the fiercest fighting was towards the end of the thing. If we measured our success in 1945 with the same logic folks are using to claim defeat today, we would say we were losing the whole damn time. Gee...what a shock to receive a Japanese surrender after being so blatantly beaten by them...

 

Does a stalemate that keeps killing our troops count as anything other than losing slowly?

 

Yes, it's a stalemate when they're losing troops as well. We can't both be losing at the same time or else we're measuring winning and losing on a goofy measuring stick.

 

That's not how Saddams trial played out. At his trial, the focus was on 148 people killed in the 1980's. We put him to death for that, after killing tens of thousands of Iraqis. I am not saying this to mean anything other than what it is. This war is built on one bullsh*t excuse propping up another in such a long chain that no one can even tell what's really going on. By that I mean, Haliburton, all of the oil companies record proffits, and Bush's lies about motives are just the things we know about...

 

Nah, it's just official mumbo jumbo. We're not going to try Saddam on every person he killed in his miserable life - not enough time or energy to do such a ridiculous thing. Similar to how we don't try serial killers on all of their crimes here in the states. You just try them on plenty of counts to get the result you want, as there's not much point to the rest. Of course, this is also a strategic tactic here in the states as well.

 

Bush didn't lie about anything, he believed there were WMD's. They made complete asses out of themselves with that ordeal, it's obvious. I'm not sure their weren't WMD's. We only gave Saddam about 6 months or more to hide and move the freaking things. Besides, if he's willing to lie and all of these other criminal things people accuse him of - then why in the hell didn't he plant some WMD's on Iraqi soil? He's bad enough and evil enough to do all of these other things, but he's above planting evidence to cover his ass?

 

And Halliburton? Oil company profits? Why don't you just throw in your fav JFK conspiracy theory in the pot while you're at it? This war is horrible for oil companies in the long run. It's put more of a focus on getting away from oil than anything that's happened in the past - including global warming. Look at the hybrids hitting the market now. You think ANY of this would be happening without this "oil stain" war?

 

Out of the millions and millions of ways to make money in America, you think their grand scheme was an invented war? I have a hard time believing people would go to so much trouble to start wars, get smeared in the news, spill blood, ruin an already stigamatic view of the oil business - when they could have enjoyed just as much profit without a fraction of the effort in other business ventures. It just doesn't make sense. It's good thriller fodder, but not much else.

 

So are you saying that it would be possible to rid the world of an abstract concept like hate or jealousy then?

 

I don't know, probably not. But a more focused concept like hating jews, or hating black people can be virtually wiped out with enough time, patience and pursuasion.

 

The people in control of either side wants this conflict to escalate for two reasons...

 

Well that's certainly a fair enough analysis. Keep in mind though, that profits will be earned whether at war or peace - either way. It's not as if we need war to make money, it's that there is money in war. So, yeah Bush's buddies that bought and paid for him are making out like bandits for now. I firmly believe they are dedicated to the basic ideas in PNAC, and they have wormed themselves into a place to make profits while they put it in motion.

[Pangloss]

Wow, some really bang-up posts in this thread, especially from agentchange and geoguy. You guys are on fire. I don't entirely agree with all of your points, but I do agree with much of it and you really said it well.

 

I thought this was a real thought-provoker from geoguy:

 

The USA defeated the Japanese and helped to defeat the German Reich in less time than it has taken the USA to secure the road from the airport in Baghdad to the 'Green zone'.

 

Sad but true.

 

 

One thing that occurs to me is that it's unlikely that "get out now" poll numbers will go any higher. Some people just never change their minds and stubbornly hold the line regardless of the poll question or their actual feelings, and we see this in election polls all the time. So the number's probably just going to sit there from now until the end. I say this not because I think it's a good thing, but because I think it's a bad thing -- it can easily be misinterpreted.

 

I can see the White House Staff now: "Uh yeah, it's leveled off, but that's not a victory, Mr. President. It's just a polling plateau."

[Realitycheck]

Yeah, oil production is between 2 or 3 million barrels a day, which I believe is comparable to pre-war levels. Not much considering the Saudis output of 28 M barrels a day. Growing to fuller capacity and providing more jobs from that industry is probably going to take a while.

[Wormwood]

Nah, it's just official mumbo jumbo. We're not going to try Saddam on every person he killed in his miserable life - not enough time or energy to do such a ridiculous thing. Similar to how we don't try serial killers on all of their crimes here in the states. You just try them on plenty of counts to get the result you want, as there's not much point to the rest. Of course, this is also a strategic tactic here in the states as well.

 

True.

His death toll still pales in comparrison, which was my initial point. I think that taking out Saddam and his sons personally was just revenge for Saddam putting a hit out on Bush Sr. At any rate it has nothing to do with actual justice.

 

Bush didn't lie about anything, he believed there were WMD's. They made complete asses out of themselves with that ordeal, it's obvious. I'm not sure their weren't WMD's. We only gave Saddam about 6 months or more to hide and move the freaking things. Besides, if he's willing to lie and all of these other criminal things people accuse him of - then why in the hell didn't he plant some WMD's on Iraqi soil? He's bad enough and evil enough to do all of these other things, but he's above planting evidence to cover his ass?

Or he knew that the American people are too apethetic to really do anything about it and we would quickly forget about it and go on about our lives. Maybe he did think that and maybe he didn't...it's irrelevant. India has WMD's why have we not tried to dismantle their government yet? If that is the sole reason needed to go to war, then why have we not attacked Russia, France, England, Pakistan, China, and Isreal which we know for a fact have WMDs? There is more to the story here obviously. He piggy backed this war on 9/11 making us think Saddam was a threat which clearly he was not, which implies an agenda.

 

And Halliburton? Oil company profits? Why don't you just throw in your fav JFK conspiracy theory in the pot while you're at it? This war is horrible for oil companies in the long run. It's put more of a focus on getting away from oil than anything that's happened in the past - including global warming. Look at the hybrids hitting the market now. You think ANY of this would be happening without this "oil stain" war?

Which was going to happen anyway if you look at attitudes outside of this country. The oil comapnies have had record profits for the last 5 years while Americans are being robbed at the pump as if there is still some sort of shortage. They are going out with a bang, then they can gut their multi billion dollar companies, or buy out the competition and only release the technologies which will be similarly profitable. Even if my projections are wrong, I hardly see how you can say this is bad for the oil companies in ANY capacity.

 

Out of the millions and millions of ways to make money in America, you think their grand scheme was an invented war? I have a hard time believing people would go to so much trouble to start wars, get smeared in the news, spill blood, ruin an already stigamatic view of the oil business - when they could have enjoyed just as much profit without a fraction of the effort in other business ventures. It just doesn't make sense. It's good thriller fodder, but not much else.

 

Well it makes sense when you also own arms companies and companies to rebuild the nation and have no idea how to formulate decent domestic policy. A war answers all of these things; it creates a "war economy" which makes it look like we are making some sort of progress when you manipulate statistics correctly, it creates a need for military hardware and technology, and creates an need for "nation building" which just happens to cater to Bush co and friends. It sure does seem mighty convenient for some people. All they needed was 9/11 to use fear to keep people in a state of hesitant confusion. Then once you're in..."ok I made a mistake, but we can't cut and run now". To this day, they use a mix of patriotism and fear to muster support for this BS cause.

 

I don't know, probably not. But a more focused concept like hating jews, or hating black people can be virtually wiped out with enough time, patience and pursuasion.

 

Is that our right or place to ensure that the world has been socially engineered to meet our standards or to like us? Besides, they are only "terrorist" because they are against us invading and have had to resort to tactics that we haven't had to. If a foreign government invaded, destroyed our military, killed our leaders and citizens, and just hung around like an occupying force, Americans would be blowing them up and we would be terrorists. It has become a meaningless moniker like "commie" during the red scare.

 

Well that's certainly a fair enough analysis. Keep in mind though, that profits will be earned whether at war or peace - either way. It's not as if we need war to make money, it's that there is money in war. So, yeah Bush's buddies that bought and paid for him are making out like bandits for now. I firmly believe they are dedicated to the basic ideas in PNAC, and they have wormed themselves into a place to make profits while they put it in motion.

I think the true motives for this war will only surface after most of the parties directly involved have died. I am not supporting some conspiracy theory, but I am not dismissing one either. All I can say is that the american public seems to be the victim of intentional misdirection and subterfuge as to the true events leading to this war (whether a conspiracy or just idiocy), and that there are many things that seem to be too beneficial for the right people to be a coincidence. Maybe Bush didn't realize the full scope of what was happening, but I think the people that put him in power certainly did.

[ParanoiA]

I think that taking out Saddam and his sons personally was just revenge for Saddam putting a hit out on Bush Sr.

 

You don't believe an assassination plot against a former president of the united states deserves a response? I'll back up and say perhaps it doesn't warrant the destruction of the country and it's citizens, but I don't see retaliation for Bush Sr. as a poor excuse.

 

Is that our right or place to ensure that the world has been socially engineered to meet our standards or to like us?

 

No. You said you can't fight an idea and I responded that you can. I never said you should. I've said, quite consistently, irrational nations don't deserve any attention. I do believe freedom is a fundamental desire of humans and the best state in which to enjoy quality of life. Of course it would be nice to spread this idea, but that's best done by example. Military force is not freedom.

[webplodder]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3359764&page=1

 

A recent spat of Republican mind-changing regarding the situation in Iraq has the White House in "panic mode", according to ABC.

 

Do you feel like public opinion on the situation in Iraq is finally changing to the point that a drastic departure from past strategy is on the horizon, or will the "crack in the dike" among Republican opinion be patched up by more Tony Snowballing?

 

 

Speaking as a Brit, and with all due respect, I find it difficult to understand why the US would engage in such a problematic foreign crusade in view of the Vietman experience! And what's worse from my viewpoint is the UK's involvement, courtesy Senator Tony Blair! But then, what do I know?

[geoguy]

Speaking as a Brit, and with all due respect, I find it difficult to understand why the US would engage in such a problematic foreign crusade in view of the Vietman experience! And what's worse from my viewpoint is the UK's involvement, courtesy Senator Tony Blair! But then, what do I know?

 

It's right out of Shakepearean tragedy. The tragic main character (the USA) destroyed by his own hubris. King Lear. Macbeth, the USA, etc. delusional and looking under rocks for answers when ithe answer is in the mirror.

 

On the positive side. Iraq isn't all that significant in the scheme of world geo-politics. Better for the USA to reinforce the humiliation of the Vietnam defeat via Iraq than in a more serious misdadventure. Americans are intelligent and this debacle might keep the gun in the holster next time the nation gets tanked up on nationalistic hysteria. Freedom Fries have given the American jingoistic bowells the runs and they won't be dining on the same propaganda for many years to come.

 

As for the Brits. The motive was quite different. Blair took the gamble that the foreign policy of the UK is best served by maintaining strong relations with the USA. Smile and say 'yes, sir' because one day the UK may need to call upon the Americans for military help. Blair has assured that the Americans will be there in time of need. Blair is like that annoying little suck up sidekick in 1930's movies. Fortunately for the Brits, most of the world differentiates between Blair and the UK. The UK is like like your favorite old uncle you can't get mad at. Unfortunately for the Americans, in contrast, the very image of the USA as a dangerous bully transcends individual leadership.

[Sayonara]

I have trimmed this thread so that it once again resembles a discussion of politics and international affairs.

 

Can I remind everyone that the "report this post" feature is for posts which break the site rules, not for posts or links to articles that you disagree with.

[Pangloss]

Has anyone heard whether the United Nations has changed its requirement that a national (three-faction) agreement regarding distribution of oil revenue be in place in Iraq before exporting will again be allowed? This was the case the last I checked (maybe a year ago) but I haven't heard anything about it in quite a while.

[webplodder]

It's right out of Shakepearean tragedy. The tragic main character (the USA) destroyed by his own hubris. King Lear. Macbeth, the USA, etc. delusional and looking under rocks for answers when ithe answer is in the mirror.

 

On the positive side. Iraq isn't all that significant in the scheme of world geo-politics. Better for the USA to reinforce the humiliation of the Vietnam defeat via Iraq than in a more serious misdadventure. Americans are intelligent and this debacle might keep the gun in the holster next time the nation gets tanked up on nationalistic hysteria. Freedom Fries have given the American jingoistic bowells the runs and they won't be dining on the same propaganda for many years to come.

 

As for the Brits. The motive was quite different. Blair took the gamble that the foreign policy of the UK is best served by maintaining strong relations with the USA. Smile and say 'yes, sir' because one day the UK may need to call upon the Americans for military help. Blair has assured that the Americans will be there in time of need. Blair is like that annoying little suck up sidekick in 1930's movies. Fortunately for the Brits, most of the world differentiates between Blair and the UK. The UK is like like your favorite old uncle you can't get mad at. Unfortunately for the Americans, in contrast, the very image of the USA as a dangerous bully transcends individual leadership.

 

 

Perhaps future incumbents of the White House might learn from the mistakes of George Bush and adopt the credo: 'evolution, not revolution'!

[ParanoiA]

Has anyone heard whether the United Nations has changed its requirement that a national (three-faction) agreement regarding distribution of oil revenue be in place in Iraq before exporting will again be allowed? This was the case the last I checked (maybe a year ago) but I haven't heard anything about it in quite a while.

 

A committed liberal at work told me yesterday that America has demanded access to half of the oil available by Iraq, or something to that effect. Or maybe it had to do with revenue. I can find no information on this at all. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?

[waitforufo]

I still resent the preemptive strike. I realize there are some technicalities in the past that might qualify as attacking countries that didn't attack us - like Germany in WWII - but the american way was never to attack first. That's a stain we'll never get rid of.

 

War of 1812

Mexican-American War

Spanish-American War

Vietnam

Grenada

Panama

 

Now what was that about the american way?

[ParanoiA]

War of 1812

Mexican-American War

Spanish-American War

Vietnam

Grenada

Panama

 

Now what was that about the american way?

 

I already tipped my hat to that. Oliver North has sported that list for years. So, tell me why everyone made such a big deal out of Iraq compared to these others. There is a difference because these other conflicts involved direct issues, direct events - recent events - that led to these attacks.

 

Iraq was seemingly right out of the blue. Iraq had commited no war sin with us at all. Nothing.

 

He was in trouble with the UN, and we in the US acted like it was our problem, because we wanted to invade for other reasons.

[waitforufo]

Two prior presidents were in the habit of dropping bombs on Iraq. The president of Iraq tried to kill one of these presidents. Iraq has a habit of shooting missiles at our air force patrolling the no-fly zone. Iraq won’t comply with agreed to conditions to end the Persian Gulf War. Iraq completely corrupts the UN through the food for oil program…..

 

You’re correct, it was just right out of the blue.

[ParanoiA]

Two prior presidents were in the habit of dropping bombs on Iraq. The president of Iraq tried to kill one of these presidents. Iraq has a habit of shooting missiles at our air force patrolling the no-fly zone. Iraq won’t comply with agreed to conditions to end the Persian Gulf War. Iraq completely corrupts the UN through the food for oil program…..

 

You’re correct, it was just right out of the blue.

 

I will agree with the point that Saddam tried to kill one of our presidents, and we passed the opportunity, apparently, to retaliate.

 

But Iraq violated UN resolutions, not US ones. Iraq corrupted the UN through the oil for food program, correct, not the US. Iraq shot missles at our air force under UN command, not the US (which is partly why I don't agree with these ridiculous pre-alignment arrangements like the UN, we lose our sovereignty basically).

 

Again...Iraq was in trouble with the UN, not the US.

 

The US, making it our problem, was right out of the blue...

[Realitycheck]

Eureka!

 

We finally get some relief, see some confidence, possibly even get the straight story.

 

 

PM: Iraqis can keep peace without U.S.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[Pangloss]

War of 1812

Mexican-American War

Spanish-American War

Vietnam

Grenada

Panama

 

Now what was that about the american way?

 

Gosh we're evil. I had no idea I was so bad. I will just hang my head in shame from now until I die, which will hopefully be soon because the world will clearly be so much better off without me in it.

[geoguy]

On Fox today. News of new means to kill Iraqi civilians:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289380,00.html

 

Can't wait for the news media to lap it up: "23 insurgent killed today when the reaper.....' Fortunately the rest of the world sees the real victims...bodies of children ripped apart by American bombs. In the U.S. media it will be talking-head generals talking about how effective this magical new weapon is.