"war in Iraq can still be won" Yay! - wait a minute - can still be won?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Agathon
I think it may have gone too far for that. Bush has nailed himself to Rumsfeld's post.

Rumsfield will be gone in a year. It's on all the news networks.

[techumseh]

The Americans are not practicing free market policies in Iraq. Major contracts were given to companies friendly to the administration without competion, eg. Halliburton. Corporations from countries which didn't support the illegal invasion of a soveriegn country were denied the right to bid on those contracts that were actually tendered.

The application of neo-con economic policy in Iraq is not the source of the economic problems facing Iraq today. It's the absence of ANY economic policy at all, other than simple plunder.

When the Americans arrived in Baghdad, there was widespread looting, including most government departments. One department that was NOT looted was the Oil Ministry, which was secured immediately by US forces. Food supplies, hospitals, cultural and historic sites, social services and the telephone and electric systems were not secured. The Oil Ministry was, as was the petroleum industry in general.

The US economic plan, if that's what you want to call it, was simple: get control of the oil resources, sort every thing out later. Except they underestimated the will of the Iraqi people to resist.

The liberals on this forum continue to see the Iraqi mess as a failure of neo-conservative policy, instead of what it really is: outright imperialism. They don't condemn the invasion outright. They argue that more "humane" liberal policies would "win over" the Iraqi people. IMHO, the "liberals" are just as guilty as the neo-cons.

[notyoueither]

Guilty of what?

[techumseh]

I guess it depends on whether they rationalize support for the illegal war, in which case they are complicit, or if they blame it all on neo-conservatism, in which case they are mistaken. IMHO.

[notyoueither]

Fairly standard leftist speak.

Do tell, illegal based on what? That Gwyn Dyer says so in a loud voice? Will he hold his breath if someone disagrees?

And now if you are a Liberal from the same nation as the neocons, that makes you 'guilty' of the 'crime'?

How ****ed up do you want the discourse to be? 'Cause you aren't likely to harvest anything useful from the seeds you are planting.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"Scientists? They are no better than a professor who has turned into a radical atheist nut. Evolution my ass!" - Creationist P. Poopypants.

Then let me reverse this onto you.. what gives your "experts" so much more credibility then pro-war experts out there? It all comes down to opinion, and as your professor (who most likely has a degree of some sort) is influenced moreso by personal opinion rather then objectivity.

And, if you had actually read the article, you'd know that he doesn't say any of that. He is analyzing the casualty rates so far, that's it. And unless you're saying his numbers and assessment of medical care are wrong (and can provide proof of such), then you're just, as usual, wasting our time.

He's making a comparsion and trying to make a scare. I'm just tired of the Iraq and Vietnam comparsions. Iraq is nothing like Vietnam. We aren't facing a 500,000 member military. Iraq isn't Vietnam, and that's all that should be said. No rather you are wasting our time for posting such ****.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Fairly standard leftist speak.

Do tell, illegal based on what? That Gwyn Dyer says so in a loud voice? Will he hold his breath if someone disagrees?

And now if you are a Liberal from the same nation as the neocons, that makes you 'guilty' of the 'crime'?

How ****ed up do you want the discourse to be? 'Cause you aren't likely to harvest anything useful from the seeds you are planting.

I had this debate nealy a year ago with Micheal the Great. Attacking a sovereign country without sanction of the Security Council is a violation of the UN charter and is considered a violation of international law. Kofi Annan has said as much. I consider this a long settled issue and rehashing it is boring.

I am interested in challenging those who think the whole mess is due to the misguded beliefs of neo-cons. History shows that liberals have supported/justified/rationalized US agression time and again. In particular, those who argue that a more enlightened, 'liberal" policy towards the occupation whould have made everything turn out fine, are simply deluding themselves. I'm sorry if these aren't the seeds you'd like to harvest, but there they are.

[Giancarlo]

The United Nations was so deeply imbedded into corruption in Iraq they were invalidated as a legitimate organization in this matter. It is like a court of law. There was conflict of interests, and the UN was more interested in keeping their deals with Saddam quiet. The war against Iraq was very legal and very justified (not like that blood for oil **** people say around here which is a bunch of crap).

[notyoueither]

And your cherished international 'law' means **** in these situations when no one, including the UN, intends to be consistent and enforce it. You might as well be howling at the moon. It is meaningless.

It is especially meaningless when the US signed a cease fire with Saddam, and Saddam broke the terms of that cease fire. It isn't a metter for the UN at that point. It is a matter between two combatants.

Liberals have supported/justified/rationalized British imperialist, Soviet revolutionary, and assorted other aggressions. You don't have to have been a Yankee liberal to have seen the use of force to have been a good thing given certain circumstances.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


AH, I don't care how you massage the numbers the casualty rates are a fraction of Vietnam.

You go and look at them on a year by year basis. This is about 1965.

The bottom chart in the link tells the story.

http://thewall-usa.com/stats/

[Pekka]

Right, right, disregarding of is it righ, what's happening now etc, the absolutely worst tihng IMO for the Iraqi people is if Coalition leaves now just like that.

The people who have been aligning themselves against the attackers, are going to be all dead. And those are the only people in there who at least have, in theory, an open mind to west, or at least an open mind against fundamentalism right now. Those are basically the people who maybe were against Saddam the most, and should they be left alone NOW, believe me, it is the greatest victory for fundamentalism, like it or not, and it is the greatest victory to Saddam, and it is the greatest loss for the people of Iraq.

They were pretty moderate country, yes.. they were reasonably advanced.. yes.. even more so before first gulf war. Now? It's in the hands of fundies and criminals if it's left alone. We could be talking worse than Saddam here. At least he was able to whip some of the enemies away there holding his own disgusting dictatorship. It IS good that he is gone. But it is even worse if the power vacuum is left there unprotected.

Their army and police force will be ****ed very soon after. I suspect masses of desertion, and just 'I quit'. There will be some hardass dudes who continue, but they are the minority.

There are some plays to be doen if the power vacuum is left unprotected, like trying to set some rivalling wanna-be-in-charge against each other, but the plays are almost non-existent, the ones taht are realistic.

I think what is pretty obvious, or at least should be, is that the amount of troops, yes non-US especially, must be lifted up to totally new numbers. couple of hundred thousand more. It might still take a long time to make it work, but then there would be realistical tools.

Because the worst thing we could do is first **** it all up and not fix it. That was the plan in the begniing, yes? So after breaking it to pieces, it must be reassembled. Before that is done, if we leave, well, that's the worst for Iraqi people. And like it or not, that's the worst US image tarnishing possible. No one will ever trust for any US action for years to come after that, or any promises or plans. But it's difficult situation. What are you going to do, stay there if the situation should develop into worse with no escape? What's the poitn of getting all these soldiers in danger, getting killed and injured, if the result at the end will be the same.. better withdraw earlier, yes? I don't know. Basically I don't see how coaliton will step up the commitment to make it work, they would have one so already if they would been able to do it or willing to do it. So I just don't know.

But I HOPE that things start developing to the better and the Iraq will indeed be truly free in the future. This should be the goal. This would be the benefit later on for everyone. If not, then what else it was than a .. human meat grinding session?

[Pekka]

So to the topic itself, Iraq war can be still won? Yes I believe it can be won. With the current tools at hand? No.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
The United Nations was so deeply imbedded into corruption in Iraq they were invalidated as a legitimate organization in this matter. It is like a court of law. There was conflict of interests, and the UN was more interested in keeping their deals with Saddam quiet. The war against Iraq was very legal and very justified (not like that blood for oil **** people say around here which is a bunch of crap).

The funny thing never mentioned is that the vast mayority of the money that the senate speaks about was not actually even part of the food for oil program, but illegal trade with JOrdan and Turkey, two US allies, which the US never really complained about.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap


The funny thing never mentioned is that the vast mayority of the money that the senate speaks about was not actually even part of the food for oil program, but illegal trade with JOrdan and Turkey, two US allies, which the US never really complained about.

This is actually quite false as it has been quite established that it was in fact part of the oil for food program. Nice twist on the facts though... doesn't quite work out when you present no evidence to counter me.

[Giancarlo]

Lets take a look at the facts, and no liberal backwash: Iraq has industry, education and its economy was not decimated like that in Afghanistan. Iraq has enough men to start a conscription based army and enough of these men will be wanting to fight. Iraq has a stable source of revenue, which is petroleum. A great portion of Iraq's debt has been forgiven. Iraq will have elections. People will claim elections will not be possible like they did with Afghanistan, but will be proven complete morons once elections do happen and work out for the best like with Afghanistan. Afghanistan has many more ethnic groups then Iraq does.. in fact way more... yet it worked out just fine. And Iraq didn't have a long bloody civil war like Afghanistan and infrastructure is more or less intact. The basics are there and your piss ant liberals will continue on the same path of "no it is not possible" but you will be proven wrong.