Why the pessimism?

[Sikander]

Re: Re: Re: Why the pessimism?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


This examplifies how conservatives demonise their opponents. Excellent job.

Brilliant argument.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai
What an individual soldier sees is usually quite different from the entire picture looks like.

The soldier who spends his nights inside the highly protected Green Zone may be completely oblivious to the routine gunfights occurring in the city.

Besides which, isn't Oerdin in psychops, the propagande side of the US military. Isn't it his job is to convince people that the US is great and will do wonders for the Iraqi people. Isn't it his job to say everything is beautiful.

So why don't you fill us in on those "routine" gunfights from your vantage point in...where are you again?

[Sikander]

Re: Re: Why the pessimism?

Originally posted by Ned

Two words: John Kerry. The fate of Iraq depends upon the election in November, not the transfer of power to the Iraqi governing council in June. The people of Iraq cannot feel comforted that the man who voted against the funding of the troops and the reconstruction aid, the man who calls the war on terror a so-called police action and the man who openly denigrates the allies of America who form the coalition as "the coerced, the bribed and windowdressing" is anywhere near close to being elected.

I can't but agree. It's clear that Kerry is planning to run entirely on the "strength" of the Dean angry liberals. Hence no platform and not even coherent attacks on the administration's policies, which should be child's play from almost any part of the political spectrum. I think Kerry is trying to depress the turnout by turning off independents with relentless negativity, and banking on bad news to depress republican turnout on election day. If he wins, defeat in Iraq may be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On the merits as things are progressing now I think things will be ok in Iraq. The U.S. isn't trying to divest itself of a worldwide empire (as per EST's example), it can afford a bit of focus in Iraq. Also Iraq is not Nigeria, it is not even Egypt. It has a comparitively more educated populace which has every reason to be sick of strong man rule. It does have a national identity amongst the Arabs, and the Arabs have a foothold in the northern oil region, which just may be enough incentive for the Kurds and the Arabs to get along. It wouldn't take much imagination for the Kurds to realize that perhaps with neighbors like Iran and Turkey that Kurdistan might be better off with the Arabs in Iraq than without them, especially if the Kurds get their fair share of the economic pie and enough autonomy.

It can be lost, but it should be won.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
Two words: John Kerry. The fate of Iraq depends upon the election in November, not the transfer of power to the Iraqi governing council in June. The people of Iraq cannot feel comforted that the man who voted against the funding of the troops and the reconstruction aid, the man who calls the war on terror a so-called police action and the man who openly denigrates the allies of America blah rant etc etc...

The cheapest political shot I've seen from you Ned.

1) There are no people of Iraqi origin posting pessimistic messages in this OT.

2) I cannot believe that most Iraqis give a toss over who wins the next US election, or indeed know that one is due. A lot of people in the UK are similar uninformed and uninterested over which rich git gets the hot seat in the White House.

It is much more likely Iraqis are more concerned with their own security, their own government and ultimately their own elections.

Originally posted by Ned
Clearly a lot of the pessimism is linked to the recent events in Spain.

There it is again. "Spain got bombed so they quit Iraq".

1. Spain voted for a govt which did not manipulate the truth about the bombing.

2. Spanish troops are still in Iraq and will stay their until at least June.

3. You are assuming that most posters are down because a lot of people where killed and injured. You could be right... but I say a lot of people get killed and injured every day of every year.

Over 100,000 people die on Europe's roads every year. I don't see many people depressed over that statistic.

Originally posted by notyoueither
...Cruddy says that pessimism is good...

More a case of I said what works for me. I'm not recommending it as a easy lifestyle choice.

[notyoueither]

But it works!

[Skanky Burns]

Why the pessimism?
Perhaps because the more optimistic members don't post in the OT as often.

[East Street Trader]

Originally posted by Patroklos

your chance of bieng killed in Iraq by the enemy is LESS than that average American's chance of bieng killed in a car accident

I am sure that must be true.

And, as Kontiki pointed out, the danger you and yours are in from motor cars is many orders of magnitude greater than the danger you and yours are in from being blown up or otherwise hurt by terrorists.

My point about the relative danger of war does not focus on the present situation in Iraq (much as I hope Oerdin manages to keep his head sensibly down) but rather on the danger posed by war generally.

By now maybe a couple of tens of thousands of people have been killed, down the ages, by terrorists. By now deaths from car accidents, world wide, must run to a couple of million. But deaths from war must be measures, down the ages, in countless millions.

And that danger grows ever greater as weapons grow steadily more powerful.

The decision by Bush and Blair that the US and the UK would invade Iraq seems to me to have harked back to the days when nation states were considered wholly sovereign; entirely free to pursue their own interests. But laterly we have made some steps towards curbing that sovereignty and recognising that it causes less friction and trouble if nations subject themselves to a more disciplined approach; the beginnings of a rule of law for nations.

And, it seems to me, that the situation now emerging in Iraq is sparking the sort of discussion which may well get us back into that way of thinking.

When colonial powers sent a gunboat they sailed away afterwards with no thought that they were obligated to stay and to sort out some of the mess that their forces had left behind them. When the UK sent a punitive expedition to Benin, it marched in, stole the bronzes, killed a few people then marched out again. When it mounted a punitive expedition against China the troops marched to the winter palace, looted and destroyed it, and marched back the way they had come.

In the present situation I have no doubt that Bush and Blair would love to do likewise. Bush needs some new macho action to revive his strong man act and Blair knows that every reminder of his actions over Iraq costs him a few more votes.

But they may find it difficult just to march the troops out.

If somehow all the goodwill that can be seen in Oerdin's posts - his evident desire to help the people in Iraq and their optimism that things can be better in their country - can be harnessed then the whole thing may turn out better than seemed initially likely. If, in particular the US were to start to think that working with and through the UN (frustrating as that no doubt can be) is better than unilateral action then I will start being more optimistic about the human race's chances in the "war on war".

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Care to try again, moron?

That's quite a good conservative circle jerk you have going there, in your mind. Now, would you care to sample reality?

Sorry for invading your lalaland Kitty.

(No, I won;t "counterargue"- attack posts like this don;t merit it..But I can laugh at you..)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


WHAT?!

Did you live a different timeline than the rest of us? We had felt like we 'won' Vietnam in '67? Who?

Hmm....the military commanders. Do try to one day read the news accounts of the time. In early 1967 most news form Vietnam were positive-for all the anti-war protests, the military was claiming all was going well, and we were on the cusp of victory. Maybe you have forgotten why the Tet Offensive, even if a military failure for the VC, was such a HUGE political victory-becuase it showed all the pronouncements from the military about how everything was on the up and up and we were on the verge of ending the insurgency to be false.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Besides which, isn't Oerdin in psychops, the propagande side of the US military. Isn't it his job is to convince people that the US is great and will do wonders for the Iraqi people. Isn't it his job to say everything is beautiful.

If there was anyone that was in a better position to understand the mood on the ground it should be psychops as they need to understand the effectivity of said "propoganda".

[DanS]

In the present situation I have no doubt that Bush and Blair would love to do likewise.

Speak for your own leaders. That's not the US M.O. I have a notion that everybody state-side has a pretty clear idea that war and occupation is a tough, messy, expensive business. That's why Bush 41 didn't take out Saddam (the punitive action).

If, in particular the US were to start to think that working with and through the UN (frustrating as that no doubt can be) is better than unilateral action then I will start being more optimistic about the human race's chances in the "war on war".

The problem is that you equate working through the UN as multilateral and working through groups of allies as unilateral. This is an unrealistic view. You're subordinating your perception of reality to an attempt to spin together a higher law of nations.

[lightblue]

The main reason is that when Iraq is in the news, it will be an attack on troops or civilians. It's the same with all news, good news doesn't make good copy (unless it's sport). Blood, gore and fire sells.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Yea, that's his job on Apolyton.

No, no no, thats MY job on Apolyton

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I agree SirRalph, but I have a problem aligning the reports I am inundated with and the apparent optimism of the Iraqi people themselves. Something does not add up, and I suspect it is not the Iraqi people who are mistaken.

my impression is that folks in Baghdad are QUITE pessimistic. The optimism is in the Shiite zone from Hilla south (despite the recent mosque bombing) and in Kurdistan. The Sunni triangle West of Baghdad is in almost open rebellion, while in the Sunni Triangle north of Baghdad the insurgency is sputtering out. While the press has gotten better lately at showing regional differences, the mass of their coverage is still of Baghdad. Also much of the optimism is long - term - things will get better NEXT year - accompanied by intense griping about how bad things are now.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Hmm....the military commanders. Do try to one day read the news accounts of the time. In early 1967 most news form Vietnam were positive-for all the anti-war protests, the military was claiming all was going well, and we were on the cusp of victory. Maybe you have forgotten why the Tet Offensive, even if a military failure for the VC, was such a HUGE political victory-becuase it showed all the pronouncements from the military about how everything was on the up and up and we were on the verge of ending the insurgency to be false.

well the VC WAS gutted during Tet. But then the NVA came in to continue the war. Who plays the role of the NVA in Iraq (in any case Iraq even in the worst months hasnt been as bad as VN routinely was in '66 and '67)