Insurgents in control

[Sava]

Originally posted by child of Thor
what you say DanS, lets sign up for a tour?

no way, republicans like dans (more specifically known as chicken-hawks) want others to fight their wars

[GePap]

This is what you get when you don't have a clue about what the final aims are supposed to be, and your tactics simply are unable to match your rhetoric.

Our problem in Iraq is simple, removing Saddam form power is a simple aim that American military power could achieve, period. Creating a stable, democratic Iraq is a goal that only Iraqis themselves could achieve. We could create a stable Iraq with highly undemocratic means, but we won't. So in the end our stated policy goal is one in which American military power can play at best only a supporting bit. We are at the mercy of the Iraqis themselves, and sadly it is not clear that Liberal democracy and the territorial integrity of Iraq is what a majority of Iraqis want.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Sava
no way, republicans like dans (more specifically known as chicken-hawks) want others to fight their wars

I'd admire his grasp of economics, with him in the same unit as me i doubt i would ever run short of ammo

@Gepap, i've been thinking that maybe Iraq could work like Northern Ireland did for the uk military. The US has the most powerfull military in the world, but doesn't have much 'real world' experience - not over extended periods of time. So maybe 'behind the scenes' is a push for the US to make the middle east its training ground?(with added benefits eg oil)

[C0ckney]

well the 'oil' part of the 'plan' is certainly going well, what with petrol fast approaching £1/litre over here

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by C0ckney
well the 'oil' part of the 'plan' is certainly going well, what with petrol fast approaching £1/litre over here

Who said you where part of the plan?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by child of Thor


I'd admire his grasp of economics, with him in the same unit as me i doubt i would ever run short of ammo

Only you'd end up with so much ammo that there wouldn't be any left for the other units.

[Sava]

Originally posted by C0ckney
well the 'oil' part of the 'plan' is certainly going well, what with petrol fast approaching £1/litre over here

that is part of the plan...

let oil prices rise..

btw have you checked how oil companies' profits are doing this year?

[Agathon]

This is so great. Not only is Shrub being humiliated, but, given their incessant warmongering, all the right wing nuts on Apolyton are too!!!!

[DinoDoc]

Eh, I'm just hoping for the demise of Liberal IR now that we see where it leads.

/me looks at Imran

[lord of the mark]

questions now

1. How real is the evidence of a civil war among the Iraqi sunnis? IE sunnis fighting against the Zarqawi terrorists? WaPo had an article this Saturday, indicating the Zarqies are killing Sunni Arab leaders who are calling for Sunni participation in future elections, in both Mosul and Ramadi, and at least in Ramadi the Sunnis are fighting back.

2. What will the proposed constitution look like? It appears theyve compromised the Islam issue, and real question is federalism. The Shiites and Kurds seem to have agreed on a federalism-lite constitution, but have not received signoff from Sunni arab parties. They appear likely to pass it in anyway, apparently in the hope that its relatively moderate terms will attract Sunni support.

3. What will the constitutional referendum look like - the Sunni arab parties are strongly pushing for Sunni arabs to participate, which is good thing (though AQ will still try to keep turnout down) OTOH that doesnt mean theyll support the draft constitution, and if majorities in 3 provinces oppose it, that means new elections and back to the drawing board.

3A. Note well - given poor Sunni turnout in the January elections, the Sunnis have plenty of incentives to want NEW elections, in which they are likely to do MUCH better. There relatively hardline stance on federalism probably owes much to this tactical consideration

3b - theres a lot to be said for new elections, which would likely weaken the Shiite Islamist parties (SCIRI and Dawa) both because of increased Sunni turnout, and disillusionment with their performance in office.

4. How long can the US military stay there, in what numbers? The Army says they can keep 100,000 troops there for 4 years, and this would seem consistent with the expansion of the army to 43 brigades. Others point to problems especially with NG recruitment.

[Agathon]

Wake up and smell the coffee LoTM. You're losing, and it's a good thing. The absolute best thing that could happen for world peace is for the neocon idiots to be completely discredited. They are a menace to humanity, and if they succeed we will be essentially back in 1914, and only an idiot would want that.

[Sava]

you know, i generally would like US efforts in iraq to succeed...

but agathon makes a good point

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Do you think Shrub didn't feel joy over his invasion of Iraq, regardless of all the little people who were going to be killed? Not that I think we should set our standards of what is acceptable by that man.

It's only natural that the rest of the peoples of the world feel joy at an American defeat. Not merely because we are the top dog, which means everyone wants to see us taken down a peg or two, but also because it is in their best interests that the hegemon be defeated. All other countries will be freer to act when Rome is afraid to use its power.

Not really. Most of the rest of the world is committed to the ideal of the UN: a world of international law. Of course, this is still largely an ideal, and the UN is a "profoundly cynical organization", but it's the only real alternative we have to the system alliance blocs that caused so much trouble before. If there's any joy, it's joy at the fact that an American defeat will put an end to this stupid pre-emptive, coalitions of the "willing" crap.

If you want a third world war, vote for Bush, because that is where his idiotic policies are leading us. The sad thing is that his father was one of the finest examples of people who understood what the UN was for and what its limits were.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sava
you know, i generally would like US efforts in iraq to succeed...

As would I, if it could be done at no expense to the fragile international system of law. But right now it can't.

No-one likes the Saddams and Kim Jong Ils of this world, but we simply do not have the ability to do anything about it without consensus of the great powers that won't throw us back into the jungle.

Fascist dictators are treated like everyone else at the UN for a good reason: we don't have the resources or the realistic prospect of fighting them all and defeating them, and it is better to have them there than not.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
This is what you get when you don't have a clue about what the final aims are supposed to be, and your tactics simply are unable to match your rhetoric.

Our problem in Iraq is simple, removing Saddam form power is a simple aim that American military power could achieve, period. Creating a stable, democratic Iraq is a goal that only Iraqis themselves could achieve. We could create a stable Iraq with highly undemocratic means, but we won't. So in the end our stated policy goal is one in which American military power can play at best only a supporting bit. We are at the mercy of the Iraqis themselves, and sadly it is not clear that Liberal democracy and the territorial integrity of Iraq is what a majority of Iraqis want.

Well said....