How will Bush extricate his country out of Iraq?

[crocodile deathroll]

If US troops were withdrawn right this minute then the area would inevitably erupt in civil war so and question of immediate withdrawal would be completely out of the question.

But the longer they remain in there then not only be there be mounting Gihadi resistance but also the cost of the war will mount and that will cause domestic pressure to mount at home as the deficit mounts and pressure to raise taxes mount. He will have no choice.

So how can he extricate his country out of this quagmire?

Any suggestions?

CDR

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
If US troops were withdrawn right this minute then the area would inevitably erupt in civil war so and question of immediate withdrawal would be completely out of the question.

But the longer they remain in there then not only be there be mounting Gihadi resistance but also the cost of the war will mount and that will cause domestic pressure to mount at home as the deficit mounts and pressure to raise taxes mount. He will have no choice.

So how can he extricate his country out of this quagmire?

Any suggestions?

CDR

I suggest that you place less reliance on the word mount and search dictionary.com for the definition of tautology. "Domestic pressure to mount at home " ? No sh*t Sherlock.

Regards,

AC.

[Mauler]

As the economy of Iraq improves, the less cost there will be for the US. It will also discourage Iraqi armed conflict against the reform as more and more internal functions are taken over by the Iraqis. It's only becomes a quagmire when progress stops.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mauler
As the economy of Iraq improves, the less cost there will be for the US. It will also discourage Iraqi armed conflict against the reform as more and more internal functions are taken over by the Iraqis. It's only becomes a quagmire when progress stops.

That's the whole problem. As the bombers and snipers have demonstrated, it doesn't take much to stop progress. With Iraq the current terrorist magnet, and weapons easy to find, terror and the threat of terror will keep a whole army tied down for years to come. They don't have to have any aim at victory in the formal sense to win.

I do agree, it is too early to say the US has lost the peace, but I bet there are plenty of worried people out there.

[Tricky]

I suspect a scenario like this: Bush leaves office (hopefully soon). The new administration looks at ways to trim the budget. It sees this enormous outlay for Iraq. New administration says "That was not our fault, so we shouldn't have to bust our budget for it." New administration withdraws troops, claiming that Iraq "had its chance" and now must fend for itself.

[Zep]

Lessons from history.

A chap by the name of T.E.Lawrence managed to so weaken the Turkish military involvement in the area from Medina to Damascus that it made it quite feasible for his commanding general Allenby to push north from Egypt and eventually overwhelm the city of Damascus almost unopposed.

Lawrence did this by simply snapping at the flanks of the Turkish occupiers - blowing up rail lines, dynamiting bridges, mining trains, sabotage, raiding, etc. It was carefully planned to never actually force the Turks to completely abandon their positions and railways, but to still make it extraordinarily expensive in men, materiel and morale to maintain the presence. (See Seven Pillars Of Wisdom for Lawrence's lucid explanation of this justification)

I wonder if people can see the parallel with the current-day US occupation of Iraq...

[Crossbow]

I doubt that Bush will be able to extricate the USA out of Iraq.

He wants more outside help in order to establish security, however he wants them to take orders from the USA. Naturally, these other countries are not so eager to offer their help if it means their troops will have to answer to foreign commanders.

He does not want any more US troops to go over there because he thinks the current force level is adequate. Of course, there are still the nearly daily attacks and deaths of US personnel, and the extended tours of duty of the people who are already there.

He wants Iraq to provide more people and resources to maintain security, however Iraq really does not have much to offer. Indeed, as was recently found out with the UN bombing, using Iraqis may be more trouble than they are worth.

He wants to rebuild Iraq so that it will have a strong economy and will be able to take care of itself and have real democracy to prevent a future Saddam from taking over the whole show. However, people in the USA are starting to get an idea of just how much this sort of thing will cost and they are not too happy about it.

And finally, it does look like Bush is starting to loose public support.

[Zep]

Hey! Who said this to JK on 14-March this year, BEFORE the war?But what's the expected result? A population currently indifferent for the most part with the US will have their worst nightmares realised and become a pain in the ass for the occupation forces. The US will have to continue to commit forces and resources to the arena to even maintain the status quo of "peace". The neighbours will not like the new tenants next door either - they already don't like the sound of them before they arrived. And finally, just like Bin Laden, there is no guarantee the "bad guy" will be caught or even have his wings clipped - he's a cunning and ruthless robber-baron who has outwitted much more crafty attempts on his life than this one. ME, that's who!

Wow! I should have applied for Randi's $1M - I REALLY saw the future, didn't I !! :D

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Tricky
I suspect a scenario like this: Bush leaves office (hopefully soon). The new administration looks at ways to trim the budget. It sees this enormous outlay for Iraq. New administration says "That was not our fault, so we shouldn't have to bust our budget for it." New administration withdraws troops, claiming that Iraq "had its chance" and now must fend for itself.

Do you think Bush has led the USA into another millitary fiasco like Vietnam? Accept this one may take even longer to win the peace if that is at all possible then the duration of the entire Vietnam war.

[Mr Manifesto]

I think it's the biggest fiasco since Vietnam, but it has topped Vietnam yet. Will probably take a few more large scale terrorist attacks before it tops that one.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I think it's the biggest fiasco since Vietnam, but it has topped Vietnam yet. Will probably take a few more large scale terrorist attacks before it tops that one.

Amen!

[Tmy]

Psssst, wanna know a secret? WE AINT NEVER LEAVING!!!! Bwaahahahahh.

Our foots in the mideast door and were gonna stay until we see fit.


ps. Finding good puppets takes time.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
So how can he extricate his country out of this quagmire?


How did we extricate ourselves from Germany and Japan? Well, we didn't.

The main question is not how to get out, it's how to make staying in work. Too many on the left seem to be hoping for our failure. But the world cannot afford for the US to fail at this point, everyone needs us to succeed, but countries like France are still throwing juvenile hissy fits because they didn't get what they wanted, so they want to take their ball and go home. It's in France's own interest to make sure we succeed, but they can't bring themselves to actually help out.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


How did we extricate ourselves from Germany and Japan? Well, we didn't.

The main question is not how to get out, it's how to make staying in work. Too many on the left seem to be hoping for our failure. But the world cannot afford for the US to fail at this point, everyone needs us to succeed, but countries like France are still throwing juvenile hissy fits because they didn't get what they wanted, so they want to take their ball and go home. It's in France's own interest to make sure we succeed, but they can't bring themselves to actually help out.

America is much more dependant on oil than France. France has a thing called public transport. It means their country doesn't live or die by oil. Companies might go bankrupt, but I'm sure the investors will find something else to spend their money on.

For someone who claims, 'everyone needs us to succeed,' you sure are ignoring the fact that America is right now crawling to the UN for support. The UN aren't saying, "Oh please let us help you, we need to make sure you're successful for world peace and the economy". In short, you've failed to demonstrate what business the US has in Iraq. That's what the left are complaining about.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


How did we extricate ourselves from Germany and Japan? Well, we didn't.

The main question is not how to get out, it's how to make staying in work. Too many on the left seem to be hoping for our failure. But the world cannot afford for the US to fail at this point, everyone needs us to succeed, but countries like France are still throwing juvenile hissy fits because they didn't get what they wanted, so they want to take their ball and go home. It's in France's own interest to make sure we succeed, but they can't bring themselves to actually help out.

So the reason de` jour is that we have to make the occupation of Iraq work is to save the world from itself, yes?

Can not you pro-war people ever come up with just one reason for the war and stick with it? There have been so many reasons for submitted for this war that I have had to make up a list of the reasons I can immediately recall --

1) Iraq has WMDs that can be deployed within 45 minutes (that turned out to be wrong),
2) Iraq is supporting terrorists (that turned out to be wrong),
3) Iraq was going to attack the USA (that turned out to be wrong),
4) Saddam is a brutal dictator who has to be stopped and most Iraqis would welcome the USA as liberators (this is somewhat accurate, but as events have shown it was in need of correction) ,
5) After it was established that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, the issue became that Iraq was working on nuclear weapons in the past (of course this program was deactivated over 20 years before and what was left was buried in someone's backyard for the last 11 years),
6) After it was established that Iraq did not have any bio or chemical weapons, the issue became that Iraq was very recently working on these weapons such as the two trailers (which contrary to the first Bush announcement, was quite wrong in the analysis of these trailers),
7) After the war it was decided that US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia would be re-based to Iraq because it is unlikely the Iraqis will make the fuss about them that the Saudis do (I have not heard too much about this issue in the last several weeks, so perhaps it was reconsidered),
8) After it has been made plainly clear that there are quite a few Iraqis that are not so happy about the invasion, now the USA is hiring former Secret Police Officers to help maintain internal security (which rather undercuts that whole 'USA liberation of Iraq' thingy).

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
America is much more dependant on oil than France. France has a thing called public transport. It means their country doesn't live or die by oil. Companies might go bankrupt, but I'm sure the investors will find something else to spend their money on.


They (along with Russia) also had some sweatheart economic deals with a bloodthirsty dictator which they're sorry to see disappear. Maybe their opposition to war based on that. That's the sort of logic you're following, why don't you follow it all the way through?


For someone who claims, 'everyone needs us to succeed,' you sure are ignoring the fact that America is right now crawling to the UN for support. The UN aren't saying, "Oh please let us help you, we need to make sure you're successful for world peace and the economy". In short, you've failed to demonstrate what business the US has in Iraq. That's what the left are complaining about.

The UN is being vindictive because it's filled with impotent beurocrats who want to establish their own relavance. I'm not sure why people admire it as an institution, as such it's incompetent and cowardly. And I've never failed to address what business we had in Iraq. I've said for a long time, and rather consistently, that we should be in Iraq to prevent Saddam from ever getting his hands on nuclear weapons. At this point you'll probably try to shout that he didn't have any. Well, I'm not talking about Bush's evidence for current nuclear ability, I'm talking about the certainty that eventually Saddam would have aquired nukes, and nobody has ever advanced a coherent argument for why he wouldn't in the long term. And though Saddam may not have had any ties to Al Quaeda, he had overt ties to Palestinian terrorists, something the radical left also willingly overlooks because they don't like Israel.

More immediately, the reality of the situation is that we ARE in Iraq. And it IS in everyone's interest (except the terrorists) that we succeed in keeping the peace, because nobody else can, and nobody else will if we pull out. That is undisputable. Do you think that France actually won't suffer as well if we fail in our mission? Do you think that it's in anyone's interest EXCEPT the terrorists for us to fail? But you want us to fail because you're hoping that will prove your opposition to the war was right. You'd rather be right than see peace. Way to go.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

So the reason de` jour is that we have to make the occupation of Iraq work is to save the world from itself, yes?


So you're incapable of separating what you want to have happened in the past from what needs to happen in the future given the reality of the situation, yes? So the rest of the world (along with the Iraqis themselves, which the left doesn't really seem to care about) won't suffer if we fail or withdraw and Iraq descends into chaos? It won't matter if terrorists bent on destroying modern civilization win? You didn't get what you wanted, we went in despite your opposition. Now grow up, and face the fact that the ONLY acceptable outcome now that we ARE in Iraq is for us to succeed. But just like Mr. M, you'd rather be proven right than see peace.


Can not you pro-war people ever come up with just one reason for the war and stick with it? There have been so many reasons for submitted for this war that I have had to make up a list of the reasons I can immediately recall --


Ah yes, back to this tired old argument. Because Bush lied, there can't POSSIBLY have been a good reason. What a beautiful logical falicy you've just demonstrated for us.

I have said CONSISTENTLY that in the long run, Saddam WAS going to develop nuclear weapons. The ONLY way to be positive he did not ever obtain nuclear weapons was to invade, and it was getting harder, not easier, to do so. The opposition to this consists of a strange combination of burying heads in the sand about how bloodthirsty and power-hungry Saddam was and what amount to defenses of the rights of dictators to run their own countries.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Too many on the left seem to be hoping for our failure.

Why do you choose to tell this lie?

It is false, offensive, and constitutes deliberate incitement of hatred toward the "left". (and also the center and moderate right, if truth be known)

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


So you're incapable of separating what you want to have happened in the past from what needs to happen in the future given the reality of the situation, yes?

Emotionally charged, insulting straw man.

So the rest of the world (along with the Iraqis themselves, which the left doesn't really seem to care about) won't suffer if we fail or withdraw and Iraq descends into chaos?

They will suffer a lot. So will a lot of other people in surrounding areas, the world economy, and lots of other things.

It won't matter if terrorists bent on destroying modern civilization win?

A shrill, hysterical attempt at fear-mongering that is simply not based in any facts surrounding IRAQ.

You didn't get what you wanted, we went in despite your opposition.

And?

Now grow up, and face the fact that the ONLY acceptable outcome now that we ARE in Iraq is for us to succeed. But just like Mr. M, you'd rather be proven right than see peace.

Your cartoon portrayals of those who disagree with you thoroughly discounts anything you might even think you have to say. This illicit logic and shrilly accusatory railling is simply uncalled for, and shows that you do not consider your debating opponents humans or worthy of even the slightest bit of respect.

Yes, now that we're there, we need to at least try to make it work. The situation, however, is much, much worse than Vietnam ever was. IN 'Nam, they didn't start out hating us. In Iraq, they started out hating us, each and every one.

Is there a solution? I hope so. I don't know it.

Ah yes, back to this tired old argument. Because Bush lied, there can't POSSIBLY have been a good reason. What a beautiful logical falicy you've just demonstrated for us.

No reason HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. No reason HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. No reason HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. Fact. Simple, obvious, disgustingly true fact. I repeat it 3 times for your benefit.

No, we don't know it all. That is proof neither for nor against.

I have said CONSISTENTLY that in the long run, Saddam WAS going to develop nuclear weapons. The

Sooner or later, Kim Il Jung was going to develop nuclear weapons. And we've done what about that?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by jj
Sooner or later, Kim Il Jung was going to develop nuclear weapons. And we've done what about that?

Not enough, I will certainly agree. But we have leverage against Kim that we simply did not have with Saddam, and were never going to get. Kim needs support from outside his country or his regime will implode, and he knows this. He cannot survive without western aid. Saddam was doing perfectly well with his smuggling, there was nothing we could do or threaten to do to unseat him without invading. He thought we were bluffing, and tried to call us on it by not coming into full compliance - if you let someone call your bluff, you cannot rely on that threat in the future. Either we invaded now, or face the fact that we can never get compliance based on the threat of invasion ever again. We have not yet reached that point with North Korea, and hopefully we won't. But the fact that we backed up our threats against Iraq is certainly going to weigh heavily on the minds of the North Koreans as they try to figure out exactly how far they can safely push us.

As for me being to harsh, hogwash! Plenty of people on the left are calling for us to immediately pull out of Iraq. But that would be an unmitigated disaster for the Iraqi's themselves, for their neighbors, and for prospects for peace in the middle east. That's why I accuse some (not all) on the left of actually being callous towards the Iraqis. If you want me to be more specific in the targets my criticism, I can oblige. But I will not for a moment stop attacking the delusions of those who would defend the rights of Sadam because of their own paranoia about Bush. I will not stop attacking the belief that we should pull out of Iraq, giving a victory and encouragement to terrorists who are trying to plunge the whole region into flames.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

But I will not for a moment stop attacking the delusions of those who would defend the rights of Sadam because of their own paranoia about Bush. I will not stop attacking the belief that we should pull out of Iraq, giving a victory and encouragement to terrorists who are trying to plunge the whole region into flames.

"Sadam" has no rights that I can think of, if that helps.

Well, maybe the right to be captured and given a speedy trial and execution by an Iraqi court ...

It would be inhumane, even for him, to give him to the fathers of the women his sons raped...

[Mocker Wall]

I have said CONSISTENTLY that in the long run, Saddam WAS going to develop nuclear weapons.

Do you have any evidence for this statement other than that he was working on one in the past? If not, this is just speculation on your part. I'm not saying you're wrong, but a statement of this type seems to indicate that you have some way to look into the future and tell us what's going to happen. Maybe you should try out for Randi's money? :)

[JAR]

The situation seems like a nightmare.

I've given up arguing with my family members. When all else fails, they bring up the fact that Saddam was a dictator who committed horrible atrocities against his own people. When they do that, they are basically using a left-wing argument for supporting the war.

According to the leftist mentality, when there are people who are worse off than you, it is your job to go over and help them until they aren't worse off than you and if you don't do that, then it is the job of the government to force you to help them or to punish you for not helping them.

So the leftists are interested in using the government to force people to be self-less individuals who go out of their way to help others.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


So you're incapable of separating what you want to have happened in the past from what needs to happen in the future given the reality of the situation, yes? So the rest of the world (along with the Iraqis themselves, which the left doesn't really seem to care about) won't suffer if we fail or withdraw and Iraq descends into chaos? It won't matter if terrorists bent on destroying modern civilization win? You didn't get what you wanted, we went in despite your opposition. Now grow up, and face the fact that the ONLY acceptable outcome now that we ARE in Iraq is for us to succeed. But just like Mr. M, you'd rather be proven right than see peace.



Ah yes, back to this tired old argument. Because Bush lied, there can't POSSIBLY have been a good reason. What a beautiful logical falicy you've just demonstrated for us.

I have said CONSISTENTLY that in the long run, Saddam WAS going to develop nuclear weapons. The ONLY way to be positive he did not ever obtain nuclear weapons was to invade, and it was getting harder, not easier, to do so. The opposition to this consists of a strange combination of burying heads in the sand about how bloodthirsty and power-hungry Saddam was and what amount to defenses of the rights of dictators to run their own countries.

So, I guess the lesson is that we had to make war to save the peace.

Well, I find that a bit difficult to accept since Iraq was under such close scrunity since the end of the first Gulf War., to wit:

There was a no-fly zone in the north,
there was a no-fly zone in the south,
there was an aircraft carrier battle group in or near the Persian Gulf,
Iraq was surrounded by about a division of American soldiers,
there was a large air wing readily available, and
Iraq was under enforced trade sanctions.

Now then, I would think that it would be quite difficult, if not impossible to develop a nuclear bomb under these circumstances. Separation and refinement facilities are quite large for example.

However, if it looked like Saddam had a bomb, or was about to get one before too long, then I doubt that anyone would have seriously opposed invading Iraq. But the real problem is that Iraq was invaded before such a thing did happen.

I do agree with your sentiment that we now have a very strong obligation to have a successful occupation; but just because we agree on that point does not mean that I will stop my critiscm of this war.

[Tony]

Anyone who says this is a quagmire approaching the severity of Vietnam is just plain ignorant. Vietnam went on for 9 years resulting in the deaths of 50-60 thousand Americans. The "war" in Iraq has been going on for 5 months and last I heard 192 American soldiers had been killed.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I think it's the biggest fiasco since Vietnam, but it has topped Vietnam yet. Will probably take a few more large scale terrorist attacks before it tops that one.


Not unless the next few terrorist attacks manage to kill 50 thousand soldiers, which is doubtful.

Look, just because you want Iraq to be another Vietnam, doesn’t mean it will. The factors couldn’t be more different.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony
Anyone who says this is a quagmire approaching the severity of Vietnam is just plain ignorant. Vietnam went on for 9 years resulting in the deaths of 50-60 thousand Americans. The "war" in Iraq has been going on for 5 months and last I heard 192 American soldiers had been killed.

How many died in the first 6 months in 'nam?

Compare apples to apples, Tony.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



Not unless the next few terrorist attacks manage to kill 50 thousand soldiers, which is doubtful.

Look, just because you want Iraq to be another Vietnam, doesn’t mean it will. The factors couldn’t be more different.

Tony, please show us all who WANTS this to be like 'nam.

And you're right, the factors are very different. Everyone didn't hate our guts in 'nam, only some.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj

And you're right, the factors are very different. Everyone didn't hate our guts in 'nam, only some.





:rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


How many died in the first 6 months in 'nam?



Thats a question you need to ask the people that are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, not me.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

So, I guess the lesson is that we had to make war to save the peace.


Sometimes, yes. Against some foes, there can be no reasoning, there can be no bargaining, and there can be no appeasement. Saddam wanted to dominate the middle east by any means he could. There is nothing we could give him to disuade him from this goal, and letting him achieve that goal was unacceptable. And it was clear he did not really believe our threats.


There was a no-fly zone in the north,
there was a no-fly zone in the south,


Which many who opposed the war also wanted us to do away with. Which the UN didn't support, despite it being the only thing keeping Saddam from masacring more Kurds and Shia. And Saddam was repeatedly shooting missiles at our planes enforcing the no-fly zones. Is that not an act of war?


and Iraq was under enforced trade sanctions.


Enforced? Tell that to Syria, I bet they'll get a kick out of that. Sanctions were eroding, the French and Russians wanted them lifted. And smuggling through Syria was turning them into a joke. We could not rely on sanctions to keep Saddam contained when nominal allies were trying to undermine them.


Now then, I would think that it would be quite difficult, if not impossible to develop a nuclear bomb under these circumstances. Separation and refinement facilities are quite large for example.


Enrichment facilities need to be large to be efficient, but they can be small and scattered if you're willing to sacrifice efficiency. We could not depend on knowing that Saddam was not developing nukes. The IAEA didn't find out about their first effort until after gulf war 1. We could not depend on them to find hidden weapons now. They are only as effective as Iraq was willing to let them be, and Saddam never cooperated fully. Why would anyone think he would in the future? What possible reason did Saddam have for cooperating with them?


However, if it looked like Saddam had a bomb, or was about to get one before too long, then I doubt that anyone would have seriously opposed invading Iraq.


Yes, that's true. But it also supposes we would know. There is no reason to believe we necessarily would, and there was a very significant risk we would not. I don't consider it a mistake to decide not to take that risk, just so that the sovereignty of a dictatorship can be upheld.


I do agree with your sentiment that we now have a very strong obligation to have a successful occupation; but just because we agree on that point does not mean that I will stop my critiscm of this war.

Be my guest. I, likewise, will continue to defend the war. And do not let that fool you into thinking I defend Bush himself.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mocker Wall

Do you have any evidence for this statement other than that he was working on one in the past? If not, this is just speculation on your part. I'm not saying you're wrong, but a statement of this type seems to indicate that you have some way to look into the future and tell us what's going to happen. Maybe you should try out for Randi's money? :)

Yes, maybe I'm wrong. But that's the most logical conclusion for the likely future, and the risk of me being right about Saddam is simply not worth taking. So what's some of that evidence? Well, let's start out with what we know about the man himself. Saddam has shown repeated aggression towards his neighbors or, during lulls between these wars, against his own people (the Shia and the Kurds). He has shown a willingness to kill civilians en mass. He is, one could say, a VERY bad man. It is safe to assume he would remain a very bad man, and would (if able) also resume agression towards his neighbors and his own people.

Now, what could allow him to resume such hostilities? Maybe the threat of something so terrible that we would not dare to intervene. Maybe a nuclear weapon. Therefore Saddam must never, EVER, be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Now, how much of a concern is it that he might get a nuke? Well, he tried before. We know that. He had the expertise, he was in the process, and (this is a key point overlooked by many) the IAEA DID NOT KNOW about his nuclear program until AFTER gulf war 1. He got caught with his pants down, we found out about his secret program, and stopped it. But we know he had the potential capability. He had the scientists who could pull it off. And we know that he wanted nukes. So: he wants nukes in the past, he has the capability to run a nuke program, and he's a very bad man. The ONLY safe thing to conclude is that he probably STILL wanted nukes. Any other conclusion is just burying your head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away.

And finally, Saddam NEVER complied fully with UN security council resolutions. He never turned over all the documents and hardware from his nuke program. In other words, there is no reason to believe we truly disuaded him from seeking nuclear weapons. And we now know that he kept some plans and part hidden in hopes of restarting the program. These weren't extensive, but all that means is he wouldn't get them quickly, it does not mean we wouldn't get them. Sanctions were eroding, the UN was getting tired of enforcing them and many members wanted them abolished, and smuggling through Syria was rendering them ineffective.

Why WOULDN'T Saddam try to restart his nuke program? Probably not right away, safest thing to do is yank our chain until we start ignoring him, using France and Russia as cover to keep us from actually invading. But when we got tired of that, when Saddam was confident about how far he could push us, how much he could hobble inspections, then he would resume. And we could not count on knowing when that happened. Acting on suspicion alone was getting harder, not easier. Yes, maybe this isn't how it would play out. But the risk is far too high, and the consequences far too dire, to not act upon this possibility. And diplomacy with Saddam reached a dead end years ago.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by jj

Tony, please show us all who WANTS this to be like 'nam.


Iraq is a messy place, but we are not defeated, or even close to being defeated. Pulling out now, however, would be an unmitigated disaster for the Iraqi's themselves. So when someone says that this is turning into Vietnam (despite the fact that it's not) and calling for a withdrawl (despite the chaos that would cause), the only conclusion I can draw is that they do want it to be like Vietnam. Want an example? Ted Rall. That wingnut wants this to be like 'nam.


And you're right, the factors are very different. Everyone didn't hate our guts in 'nam, only some.

What, do you seriously believe everyone in Iraq hates us? That's propaganda. Many people in Iraq are frustrated with us, but not many hate us. The people that really hate us do not want what's best for Iraq anyways, which is why they attack infrastructure. The Iraqi's also know that the rest of the arab world betrayed them by supporting Saddam for so many years, despite his brutal repression, and continues to betray them by their sympathy for terrorists who make the lives of Iraqis miserable. Those continuing these attacks do not represent Iraq, or even a sizeable portion of Iraq. They have no interest in the welfare of Iraq.

In Vietnam, we supported one unpopular government in the name of fighting the communists. In Iraq we deposed one VERY unpopular government, and are working towards establishing one which hopefully will be popular. Could this eventually descend into a Vietnam-like mess? Sure, if things go badly enough. But we're not close yet, despite the hopes of wingnuts like Rall. He wants us to turn tail and run, give the country over to the terrorists, let them win. He argues for appeasment of a group that cannot be satisfied by anything less than our total destruction.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

He has shown a willingness to kill civilians en mass

Unlike America.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
"He has shown a willingness to kill civilians en mass"

Unlike America.

Yes, unlike America. We do not deliberately target civilians. Saddam does. You should be ebarrased for suggesting otherwise. Or do the tens of thousands of Shia he killed, plus the over one hundred thousand Kurds, somehow count less than the Iraqi's we killed? Why do you have such trouble identifying who the bad guy is? Is it because in any fight that Bush is involved in, no matter how bad the other guy is you still NEED to find a way to label Bush as the villain?

And jj accused me of being to incendiary.

[JAR]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
If US troops were withdrawn right this minute then the area would inevitably erupt in civil war so and question of immediate withdrawal would be completely out of the question.
[snip]
Iraq already has erupted in civil war. I think you mean to say that if the U.S. leaves there right now, it will be less likely that a regime it likes will end up ruling the place.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by JAR

Iraq already has erupted in civil war. I think you mean to say that if the U.S. leaves there right now, it will be less likely that a regime it likes will end up ruling the place.

Iraq has not erupted in civil war. Whatever made you think that nonsense?

Our withdrawl would lead to a regime that could only come to power in a massively bloody struggle, which would not be able to maintain its power without brutal repression, and which would probably be sympathetic to terrorists. Yeah, I'd say the US wouldn't like such a regime, and with good reason. And neither would most Iraqi's. So what exactly is your point?

[JAR]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Iraq has not erupted in civil war. Whatever made you think that nonsense?
[snip]
On the news there has been stories of American troops being attacked by Iraqi people who don't want the U.S. to be in Iraq and are fighting independently from Saddam's forces. That's a civil war pitting the U.S. and it's allies against those who don't want the U.S. to be there.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by JAR

On the news there has been stories of American troops being attacked by Iraqi people who don't want the U.S. to be in Iraq and are fighting independently from Saddam's forces. That's a civil war pitting the U.S. and it's allies against those who don't want the U.S. to be there.

A handful of malcontents, regime holdovers, and foreign terrorists is a problem, but it is not a civil war. The people engaged in fighting against us do not represent the Iraqi people, and do not have their best interests at heart. The numbers involved are fairly small, and most of the action has been in a relatively small region of Iraq that formed the backbone of Saddam's support.

Do not trust the impression that the press is giving you - it's not an interesting story to tell you things are going OK, it's a story to tell you that there are all these problems. So that's what the press is going to focus on. They're trying to sell product, the information content is secondary. Are the problems real? Sure. But the press can easily mislead you about the scale and significance of the problems. This is not a conspiracy as such, and it's not really a pro- or anti-war bias either, it's just a sensationalistic bias.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony



Not unless the next few terrorist attacks manage to kill 50 thousand soldiers, which is doubtful.

Look, just because you want Iraq to be another Vietnam, doesn’t mean it will. The factors couldn’t be more different.

Who said I wanted this to be another Vietnam? Oh, you're putting words in my mouth. Well okay.

As much as you want America to look like wild-west heroes come to save the poor villagers from the bandidos, the rest of the world is looking at America right now, and they don't like what they see. It may not be a military quagmire, but it is certainly a political one. And pretty soon, it will also be an economic one as well.

Meanwhile, if America is so worried about countries like Iraq slinging nukes at their neighbours, how come they don't seem to be doing anything about the India/Pakistan conflict? Unlike Iraq, both of these countries are in full possession of operational nuclear weapons. And it looks as though it'll only be a matter of time before they stop 'testing' them and start tossing them.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony
Anyone who says this is a quagmire approaching the severity of Vietnam is just plain ignorant. Vietnam went on for 9 years resulting in the deaths of 50-60 thousand Americans. The "war" in Iraq has been going on for 5 months and last I heard 192 American soldiers had been killed.

Er, Tony if you will kindly take a peek at the statement that originally gave you the jitters about Vietnam you will see that it says Iraq is the "the biggest fiasco since Vietnam" and I do think that is a fair assessment.

To explain, the current Federal Budget Deficit will be about $400 billion, next year it will be about $500 billion, and the total cost of the war is expected to be in the $700 billion range. And while the USA involvement in Vietnam went on for some 28 years (1945 to 1973) the involvement of the USA in this war (which is really an extension of the First Gulf War in 1991) is certainly the largest, most protracted, and most expensive military action by the USA since Vietnam.

[Diamond]

"Welcome to Baghdad. Now twinned with Saigon"

Sorry. I forsee airlifts from the roof of the US Embassy...

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tricky
I suspect a scenario like this: Bush leaves office (hopefully soon). The new administration looks at ways to trim the budget. It sees this enormous outlay for Iraq. New administration says "That was not our fault, so we shouldn't have to bust our budget for it." New administration withdraws troops, claiming that Iraq "had its chance" and now must fend for itself.

No one would be that stupid.


A more likely scenario is that a Democract (Dean) get's elected, and is able to then go around and apologize to world leaders and say "Hey, its not my fault, I would have waited for help." then they make nice and teh UN and other nations come on board to help in the peace process, we stop the sweatheart deals with Americans comapnies, cut our losses there and everyone is happy except the companies adn billionairs that had the deals and they then assissnate our new and great president :p

[Jon_in_london]

Basically the only way its going to come right is if there is a new Iraqi government heade up by an IRAQI with an effective Iraqi police force backed up by an effective Iraqi army.

Both of these now need to be trained up from scratch. It will take a few years and a hel of a lot more commitment than the US seems willing now to put in but its by no means hopeless.

[crocodile deathroll]

Bush and is oil company business mates were banking on oil revenues to pay for the war effort, but this has been since complicated by sabateurs blowing up oil pipelines and as a consequence the cost to America is mounting astronomically. So unless they invest in burying to pipelines deep underground or send in huge army divisions to gaurd them, it is a complete fiasco.

[Iamme]

A new Iraqi run government is what is neede, and talked about, before we can get out...obviously.

So what is the hang up? Why hasn't there been an election held already? Are we afraid that if a fair election were held today, that a similar Husein-like government would win out? Do any of you know the answer to this riddle?

I agree with posters above that we just can't up and pull out. But...we can't stay indefinitely either, for economic and world opinion reasons. The economic reason is self-explanatory. Regarding world opinion? It is not in our long-term interest to be an occupier of a mideast country, I don't believe. This would spell trouble, eventually, I feel, where the tensions in that region, with other arab nations, plus the Israel-Palestinian fiasco...the U.S.-Israeli collusions...it would sooner or later come to a big head I think. We have no reason to belong over there, other than for us to liberate, and get out...if we want to save face.l

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Iamme
So what is the hang up? Why hasn't there been an election held already? Are we afraid that if a fair election were held today, that a similar Husein-like government would win out? Do any of you know the answer to this riddle?Wouldn't that be interesting considering how we've been told and shown pictures of people cheering that Saddam was gone? If that were true, why would we be worried that they would voluntarily return to a similar system?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Meanwhile, if America is so worried about countries like Iraq slinging nukes at their neighbours, how come they don't seem to be doing anything about the India/Pakistan conflict? Unlike Iraq, both of these countries are in full possession of operational nuclear weapons. And it looks as though it'll only be a matter of time before they stop 'testing' them and start tossing them.

This argument amounts to "what did Iraq ever do that was so bad?" I'm assuming you know the answer, I'd hate to think I actually had to tell you.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Er, Tony if you will kindly take a peek at the statement that originally gave you the jitters about Vietnam you will see that it says Iraq is the "the biggest fiasco since Vietnam" and I do think that is a fair assessment.


You can't use dollar figures and deployment sizes alone to judge whether this is a fiasco. Would you call our involvement in WWII a fiasco? No, it wasn't. Vietnam was a fiasco because we sunk so many resources (human and economic) with almost nothing to show for it. We may very well have quite a lot to show for toppling Saddam. The fact that he's gone is already a huge positive development, for us and for the world. Yes, this is an incredibly expensive endeavor, but if we succeed it won't be a fiasco at all. And despite the problems we're having, we're not failing yet, and we're not on the verge of failure either.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

You can't use dollar figures and deployment sizes alone to judge whether this is a fiasco. Would you call our involvement in WWII a fiasco? No, it wasn't. Vietnam was a fiasco because we sunk so many resources (human and economic) with almost nothing to show for it. We may very well have quite a lot to show for toppling Saddam. The fact that he's gone is already a huge positive development, for us and for the world. Yes, this is an incredibly expensive endeavor, but if we succeed it won't be a fiasco at all. And despite the problems we're having, we're not failing yet, and we're not on the verge of failure either.
But what have we got to show for it? Yes Saddam is gone, but we have managed to kill a lot more people than he did in the last ten years in doing it. Terrorism doesn't seem to be on the wane. The US has not increased its prestige or diplomatic guild, in fact just the opposite. Americans are losing freedoms. The economy has taken a big hit with no forseeable end in sight. All this because Saddam might have been able, if left completely alone, to develop nuclear weapons?
No, it is a fiasco by almost any measure. Tap dancing around it won't change it. It would take the whole Riverdance ensemble to tap dance their way out of this one.

[CapelDodger]

From lamme:
So what is the hang up? Why hasn't there been an election held already?
It's too early for that; what concerns me is that doesn't even seem to be any progress towards a new consitution. At least a constitutional convention was quickly organized in Afghanistan - but on that occasion the US was not acting, in effect, alone. It had a lot more advice available. In Iraq we seem no further forward than before the war. As I understand it, Iraq has an inoperative democratic constitution. A Constitutional Convention should be set up to examine the existing constitution, determine why it was undermined by the Ba'athists and produce a new, more robust one. That would show some progress. As it is every day seems just like the last, unless it's worse.

There would be less bad feeling if people realised that "the left" to Ziggurat et al doesn't mean we lefties, it refers to a mental construct. To this construct is assigned all possible stupid, ill-willed and self-serving opinion that can be imagined.

Ziggurat accusing the French of hissy-fits ...:rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

But what have we got to show for it? Yes Saddam is gone, but we have managed to kill a lot more people than he did in the last ten years in doing it.


Depends on how you want to count. That also ignores all the people he was likely to kill in the future - or do you really think we managed to pacify that bastard? We were not going to keep him contained, the international will to do so was slipping.


Terrorism doesn't seem to be on the wane.


It's too early to tell. Many of the terrorists entering Iraq are going there because they're getting flushed out by crackdowns in Saudi Arabia. It's easy to be misled about the scope of the terrorist problem if you only look at the activity level today.


Americans are losing freedoms.


That's a separate issue from the war in Iraq. Do not conflate the two.


The economy has taken a big hit with no forseeable end in sight.


Long term, Bush's tax cuts are a much bigger problem than this war spending. This is a massive and expensive endeavor, but the cost will be worth it if we succeed.


All this because Saddam might have been able, if left completely alone, to develop nuclear weapons?


No, and you're burying your head in the sand. If left competely alone, it is absolutely certain he would develop nuclear weapons. His continued noncompliance indicates he would try developing them even if we didn't leave him alone. You're trying to introduce uncertainty about this because it backs up your position, not because you actually have any real reason to doubt this.


No, it is a fiasco by almost any measure. Tap dancing around it won't change it. It would take the whole Riverdance ensemble to tap dance their way out of this one.

That's funny - I still have yet to see any evidence or even a good argument that we're actually going to fail in our mission. Seems to me like some people just want us to fail. It's the only explanation I can think of for why people say we've already failed when things are really still just beginning.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

There would be less bad feeling if people realised that "the left" to Ziggurat et al doesn't mean we lefties, it refers to a mental construct. To this construct is assigned all possible stupid, ill-willed and self-serving opinion that can be imagined.


I wish I had a better term for it, and if someone has any suggestions I'd be happy to hear a substitute, but the majority of the opposition to the war is coming from a segment of the left, not much from the right. On most social issues I consider myself a leftist. What I deplore is a willingness to sit on the sidelines while evil flourishes. I do not accept a subserviance to the superficial forms of internationalism if that subservience undermines the very thing internationalism is supposed to provide, namely collective world security. I do not believe that all foes (meaning Saddam) can be reasoned with. I do not believe that states have inherent rights, only people do. I believe that sometimes force is necessary, and killing cannot always be avoided. I believe that some who opposed the war did so with a patronizing and false concern for the Iraqi's themselves. They would gladly let Iraq rot under Saddam so that they could "protect" the people from our invasion. And I believe that some who opposed the war have failed to come to grips with the fact that we face in both Saddam and in fundamentalist terrorists an implacable foe that is determined to destroy us completely by any means. This does not cover every stupid and ill-willed concept, but only a certain subset that is infecting some leftists like Chomsky and Ted Rall.

But if it makes anyone feel better, Coulter is a nutjob and I have no intention of voting for Bush.:rub:

[CapelDodger]

From Ziggurat:
What I deplore is a willingness to sit on the sidelines while evil flourishes. I do not accept a subserviance to the superficial forms of internationalism if that subservience undermines the very thing internationalism is supposed to provide, namely collective world security
Absolutely with you there. I have no truck with the idea of absolute sovereignty. Unfortunately every sovereign state is ruled, and no ruling organisation or group wants to give up their status as a sovereign ruler. Thus the UN could only be created - by sovereign states - in a form which made it impossible for it to work as intended. Catch 22. The hope was that it would be a start, and it's done great things with UNICEF and such, but the sovereignty problem remains.

Saddam Hussein and his regime should have been ejected. It's good that they have gone. But they haven't gone because they were terrible, they've gone because the Bushies wanted them gone for their own reason - and it ain't that. The Iraqis know that; they may have no better knowledge of the actual motivation but they know thay have no reason to feel grateful. Why feel grateful when nothing's been done for you? If the US had said "Saddam's a bastard, we're gonna remove him then you people can sort yourselves out" things would be different, but if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.

To speak to the thread title (extricate out of? Redundancy, boy. See me after class.) I don't think Bush will. I decided this afternoon, after much consideration, to put twenty pounds on Bush losing to A N Other. In the meantime things will stay pretty much the same because, frankly, the Bushies aren't up to the job.

[CapelDodger]

from Ziggurat:
But if it makes anyone feel better, Coulter is a nutjob and I have no intention of voting for Bush
Come on all you Americans out there, would it kill you to vote against him?

[Malachi151]

while evil flourishes

There is no such thing as evil. There certianyl is such a thing as injustice. Two totally difference concepts, and one can be unjust when trying to remedy the injustice of others.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
To speak to the thread title (extricate out of? Redundancy, boy. See me after class.)
I was bothered by that too, but what do you expect from those dumb Aussies? Us Americans got much gooder grammar.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151
There is no such thing as evil. There certianyl is such a thing as injustice. Two totally difference concepts, and one can be unjust when trying to remedy the injustice of others.

That is a semantic game with no fundamental relavance. You can attribute it to whatever you want - insanity, not being hugged enough as a child, gas pains, whatever you want to come up with to explain it under your own world view. But Saddam was a terrible dictator who did terrible things, and was going to continue to do terrible things. He could not be placated, and he could not be enlightened. The horrors he committed (the word "injustice" is too weak a word) were not simply matters of ignorance or fear on his part, either, nor were they some sort of passing phase, brought on only by the peculiarities of a particular situation. The horrors Saddam committed and WANTED to commit were a fundamental part of him. I choose to use the word "evil" to describe what he is because the word fits. When people say that Saddam was not evil, they're either trying to rationalize Saddam's actions or strip the word of any meaning. Well, the word does have meaning. You cannot strip it of its meaning, so take care that you do not rationalize his actions in your attempt to reform the English language.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Iraq is a messy place, but we are not defeated, or even close to being defeated. Pulling out now, however, would be an unmitigated disaster for the Iraqi's themselves. So when someone says that this is turning into Vietnam (despite the fact that it's not) and calling for a withdrawl (despite the chaos that would cause), the only conclusion I can draw is that they do want it to be like Vietnam. Want an example? Ted Rall. That wingnut wants this to be like 'nam.

In other words, even though the situation in Iraq at the start is much worse for us, it's not like 'nam.

In other words, if someone disagrees with you, they want it to be bad?

Now, I don't think we can even concievably pull out now that we've gone and done it, it's like, oh, never mind.

But the situation is very similar, we're in a hostile country, surrounded by a population that hates us and that is heavily supported by all the neighbors, who also hate us, and in fact we've ruined most of their infrastructure, and the same creeps who hate us more have deliberately ruined the rest and made us look responsible.

We've gone in dumb, and now we're going to pay the price. I'm glad I don't have any early teen-age boys.


What, do you seriously believe everyone in Iraq hates us?

It's obvious, I think. They hated Saddam, too, mind you, but they've been raised in a situation where the only emotion that comes up is hate. They hate everyone. This plays into the radical islamic movement as well as anything else I can magine in this world. It's not solving a problem, it's making 100 problems.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by jj

But the situation is very similar, we're in a hostile country, surrounded by a population that hates us and that is heavily supported by all the neighbors, who also hate us, and in fact we've ruined most of their infrastructure, and the same creeps who hate us more have deliberately ruined the rest and made us look responsible.


You keep saying that they all hate us, but I'm just not seeing any evidence of that. And you aren't providing any, you only assert it.

And we didn't destroy their infrastructure, the vast majority of the infrastrucutre problems are because of systematic neglect from Saddam, who never cared about the welfare of his people. How stupid do you think the Iraqi's are? They know what's been going on. Of course they want us to work faster, it's no surprise that many aren't satisfied with the rate of progress, but the vast majority of Iraqi's do NOT want us to just pull up stakes and leave. They're looking out for themselves, but they know for now that means they need us.


It's obvious, I think. They hated Saddam, too, mind you, but they've been raised in a situation where the only emotion that comes up is hate. They hate everyone.


What a peculiar brand of racism. Most Iraqi's do not hate everyone, and any suggestion otherwise is offensive in the extreme. Again, how stupid do you think they are?


This plays into the radical islamic movement as well as anything else I can magine in this world. It's not solving a problem, it's making 100 problems.

Is your proposed solution to radical islam then to just retreat so that they don't hate us? That's a recipe for disaster. It MUST be confronted. It CANNOT be appeased. And the best way to confront it is to demonstrate, by force if necessary, that radical islam is a fantasy, which cannot provide anything to its followers, not even victory. You want to know what would breed more terrorists? Us pulling out. That would demonstrate that they can win, that their methods work. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand about this issue, even if you're determined to.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


That is a semantic game with no fundamental relavance. You can attribute it to whatever you want - insanity, not being hugged enough as a child, gas pains, whatever you want to come up with to explain it under your own world view. But Saddam was a terrible dictator who did terrible things, and was going to continue to do terrible things. He could not be placated, and he could not be enlightened. The horrors he committed (the word "injustice" is too weak a word) were not simply matters of ignorance or fear on his part, either, nor were they some sort of passing phase, brought on only by the peculiarities of a particular situation. The horrors Saddam committed and WANTED to commit were a fundamental part of him. I choose to use the word "evil" to describe what he is because the word fits. When people say that Saddam was not evil, they're either trying to rationalize Saddam's actions or strip the word of any meaning. Well, the word does have meaning. You cannot strip it of its meaning, so take care that you do not rationalize his actions in your attempt to reform the English language.

Evil is a bogus word, I don't regonize it as relevant to any discussion asside from the super natural. I don't consider anyone or anything evil, its a totally bogus concept.

If it wasn't then you would be able to describe it in some way other than evil.

Evil is a word that conves imparts no rational exaplantion for behavior to no viable motive and always assuumes that the "evil" one is motivated purely by malice and has no objective other than to promote malice.

The devil evil, Darth Vader is evil, the forces of dark in the Lord of the Rings are evil. In real life, there is no evil.

The "horrors" of Hussein are only remarkable out of context.

#1 The majority of the killing and torture that Saddam did was with the approval and in same cases request of the CIA and Pentagon. The majority of this he killed and tortured were Communisits and Saddam was part of the American anti-Communist agenda that was at work in the Middle East from the 1950s through the 1980s. The majority of his brutality during this time was USA directed, and it accoutns for the majority of the stuff that you see now listed as the bad thingds that he did. It was all at the request of the CIA.

#2 Americans has done comperable things first hand themselves over the years and even within the past 40 years. Americans have tortured thousands and killed millions as well. 2 million civilians dead in Vietnam, little girls covered in napalm, what do you call that?

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Those men walk free in America today, honorably discharged.

#3 Its all relative to time frame. Not all the world develops together in unison. Saddam is a product of his culture, which was the product of brutal British rule. 300 years ago the type of stuff that Saddam did was common action all over the world, even in America against blacks, by the people who were considered the most astute and respectable members of society. Were they not evil they would be now?

Its quite simply not evil at all.

No, Saddam was motivated by a desire to have absolute power in Iraq and to make Iraq a more powerful and wealthy nation by any means necessary. His primary obstical in this were the organized Marxists and so he was able to ally with the CIA against them. He was motivated by his desire to create a powerful country for his people, that's what motivated many leaders. To to this he also developed the best Arab education system in the Middle East, the best Arab healthcare, and a strong Arab economy.

When you call people evil you assume that they are motivated purely by malace. This is almost always wrong. In doing that you fail to actually understand what really motivates them and how they view the world. Also, in labeling someone evil you protray yourself as good and that anything that you do to that person or regime as justifiable, when in fact your motivations may be just as unjust yourself. Just because someone is unjust does not mean by defintion that the person who opposes them is just, however that is how people like to paint it when they talk of evil.

I don't consider Hitler evil. He honestly believed that he was doing the right thing in eliminating the Jews. He really viewed the Jews as a threat to humanity. In his mind he was saving humanity. That's not evil. To be evil you would have to believe that you are doing something bad and doing it on purpose.

Saddam, Hitler, and Stalin all believed that what they were doing was for the good of mankind or at least their own country. They did what they did out of the belief that it was the right thing to do, just like you may set out mouse traps and kill mice in your house because you beleive that it is the right thing to do. I'm sure that to you and me killing mice in our house is not really a question of right and wrong, its obviously the good thing to do. These people held the same kinds of views about certian people, and many people in America have held and acted on the same kinds of views too, namely people in the CIA and Pentagon over the past 50 years, as well as Americans who viewed the Native Americans in that way.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You keep saying that they all hate us, but I'm just not seeing any evidence of that. And you aren't providing any, you only assert it.

Look at the news. I don't mean the bombing of the embassy, either, I mean the obvious contempt that we're getting demostrated for our attempts to rebuild.

They're looking out for themselves, but they know for now that means they need us.

That doesn't rule out hatred, or intense contempt, perhaps.

What a peculiar brand of racism. Most Iraqi's do not hate everyone, and any suggestion otherwise is offensive in the extreme. Again, how stupid do you think they are?

Facts in evidence:
They have been raised in a hostile environment where the strong rule, where might makes right, and life is cheap.
They have been oppressed by Saddam, now they're occupied by us.

Reports would make it seem that they are having trouble recognizing which is which.

Pointing this out is not "racism" and it is dangerously dishonest ofyou to suggest any such thing.



Is your proposed solution to radical islam then to just retreat so that they don't hate us?

It is profoundly dishonest of you to suggest that, given that I've said that we can't do that now that we're there. Why do you engage in this sort of dishonesty?

(more propaganda excised)


I presume, given that you chose to lie about my position, that you have nothing to offer.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Evil is a word that conves imparts no rational exaplantion for behavior to no viable motive and always assuumes that the "evil" one is motivated purely by malice and has no objective other than to promote malice.


Yup, that's pretty much a spot on description of Saddam. And it sounds like you're gearing up to appologize for Saddam's actions. Let's watch the appology unfold, shall we?


The "horrors" of Hussein are only remarkable out of context.


Step 1: it wasn't a big deal.


#1 The majority of the killing and torture that Saddam did was with the approval and in same cases request of the CIA and Pentagon. The majority of this he killed and tortured were Communisits and Saddam was part of the American anti-Communist agenda that was at work in the Middle East from the 1950s through the 1980s. The majority of his brutality during this time was USA directed, and it accoutns for the majority of the stuff that you see now listed as the bad thingds that he did. It was all at the request of the CIA.


Step 2: blame the CIA. They're a convenient scapegoat for every conspiracy theory.

If the CIA came to you and asked you to kill your neighbors, would you do it?


#2 Americans has done comperable things first hand themselves over the years and even within the past 40 years. Americans have tortured thousands and killed millions as well. 2 million civilians dead in Vietnam, little girls covered in napalm, what do you call that?

Those men walk free in America today, honorably discharged.


Step 3: blame america in general. Our past sins somehow forgive Saddam.


#3 Its all relative to time frame. Not all the world develops together in unison. Saddam is a product of his culture, which was the product of brutal British rule. 300 years ago the type of stuff that Saddam did was common action all over the world, even in America against blacks, by the people who were considered the most astute and respectable members of society. Were they not evil they would be now?


Back to step 1: it really wasn't that bad.

Sorry, but that's absolute bull.


No, Saddam was motivated by a desire to have absolute power in Iraq and to make Iraq a more powerful and wealthy nation by any means necessary. His primary obstical in this were the organized Marxists and so he was able to ally with the CIA against them. He was motivated by his desire to create a powerful country for his people, that's what motivated many leaders. To to this he also developed the best Arab education system in the Middle East, the best Arab healthcare, and a strong Arab economy.


Step 4: actually, he's really a swell guy, just misunderstood. Bull. Every "achievement" you list he scrapped without hesitation to keep his lavish lifestyle going.


Saddam, Hitler, and Stalin all believed that what they were doing was for the good of mankind or at least their own country.


This is the biggest lie yet. Saddam never gave a crap about his country or his people. He sold them out. He built palaces and monuments to himself while his people starved.


They did what they did out of the belief that it was the right thing to do, just like you may set out mouse traps and kill mice in your house because you beleive that it is the right thing to do.


He did what he did because he was selfish, calous, violent, power hungry, egotistical, vindictive, and petty. Or do you not believe in those words either? Don't give me this "he thought it was the right thing" crap. You're a Saddam appologist, plain and simple.:nope:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by jj

Facts in evidence:
They have been raised in a hostile environment where the strong rule, where might makes right, and life is cheap.
They have been oppressed by Saddam, now they're occupied by us.

Reports would make it seem that they are having trouble recognizing which is which.


Oh yes, they have trouble telling which is which, because, you know, these Iraqis are stoopid.

Jeeze, after the 2000 elections I thought I'd never have to tell a liberal not to trust the impressions the press gives you. The press likes a spicy story more than it likes to actually inform you. It's boring to keep telling people that resistance is localized to a small region and the numbers involved are small. Big numbers make a story sell, so they're going to try to make the numbers sound as big or important as possible.

[Malachi151]

Facts in evidence:
They have been raised in a hostile environment where the strong rule, where might makes right, and life is cheap.
They have been oppressed by Saddam, now they're occupied by us.

And what do you think Saddam grew up in?

Kareem Kassem took power in a bloody coup, became a tyrant, and abused the people. Kassem was supported because prior to him King Fascil was in power, who was a British puppet, which the majority of Iraqis hated. Fascil took power because the previous king was assisnated by the British secret service. The king before him was the first British puppet, who the people didn't like. Prior to tha tit was direct oppressive British military rule which was taken by deceiving the Arab people with secret agreements with the French.

So, you see this is how one thing leads to another.

And no I'm not a Saddam apologist at all, I just don't consider him, or anyone, evil.

Do you consider the Shah of Iran "evil"?

Do you consider members of the CIA who torture people "evil"?

Do you consider people who killed women and children in the setteling of the American West "evil"?

What's the difference?

I don't consider evil even a real word. Its just something that applies to the supernatural and thus only describes fiction.

Saddam is more like Vito Corleone (the head of the Godfather family), except on a much larger scale.

And no, despite what you seem to imply I don't approve of any of that kind of behavior or those kinds of people. I still don't call them evil though. I'm extremely against the use of violence in all ways, and always support open democracy. You mistake understanding for approval.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Oh yes, they have trouble telling which is which, because, you know, these Iraqis are stoopid.

I said nothing of the sort, and it you continue your dishonest behavior when you repeat this lie.

Perhaps unlike you, I have been privy to (and lived in) areas, places and times where the civil order wasn't very good, where economics were bad (and highly skewed), where people were taught from youth that "might makes right", and where social position and the clamber for it was used quite conciously and willfully as a control mechanism to keep others down (below you for the upper class, down to your level for someone in your own class). The fact is that people learn at a young age what works and what doesn't. It is hard to change people's learning when, for instance, a government or society changes. When the individual's situation changes for the worse, and people have learned that there is no value in the long term (something that is true in arbitrary, corrupt dictatorships like Saddam's), they have learned not to care why, only what.

This has nothing to do with people being stupid in any fashion, it has to do with what people are TAUGHT. The situation that they live in, the social climate, etc, are all things external to the person, and have nothing to do with a person being smart, stupid, or anything else beyond born in a particular place and time.

That is the bigger tragedy of Iraq, we will have to teach them how to live a free, independent life, something that a whole generation (at least) has not learned how to do.

As has been shown in many places around the world, that's not easy to do.

Jeeze, after the 2000 elections I thought I'd never have to tell a liberal not to trust the impressions the press gives you.
It is further dishonest of you to suggest that I'm a liberal.

That dishonest statement is just more of your hate campaign.

To summarize the issues:
1) The Iraqi people have not had a "free" environment for a long time, and as a result have no idea how to deal with one.
2) The Iraqi people see, regardless of the REASON, that their standard of living, which was going down due to Saddam, is even worse under the Americans.
3) The Iraqi people see even MORE disruptions in the social order.

They have no reason NOT to hate, intensely dislike, or feel great contempt for us.

This in no way denies that they are in a totally unpleasant position that is frankly very little their fault.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


Thats a question you need to ask the people that are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, not me.

You're the one who made the comparison like it meant something, Tony.

What's wrong, won't take responsibility for your own words?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by jj

I said nothing of the sort, and it you continue your dishonest behavior when you repeat this lie.


No, you didn't say it, but you implied it, whether you meant to or not. You said they all hate us. But they don't all have reason to hate us unless they're all stupid. Perhaps I mistook your flawed reasoning for something else, but the claim that they all hate us is without merit.


It is further dishonest of you to suggest that I'm a liberal.


I will retract the label, but I think you misunderstand me. I consider myself a liberal.


They have no reason NOT to hate, intensely dislike, or feel great contempt for us.


Not true at all. They know we got rid of Saddam. They know, better than most people, just how much of a bastard that man truly was, and just how terrible he made life for the vast majority of Iraqis. They're quite glad to be rid of his tyranny. And unlike, say, France, they know that us invading was the only way Saddam was ever going to be deposed. So why, exactly, would they all hate us for doing that? They don't trust us, that's to be expected. But they don't hate us. There is neither reason nor evidence for that.

[Malachi151]

2) The Iraqi people see, regardless of the REASON, that their standard of living, which was going down due to Saddam, is even worse under the Americans.

Actually the Iraqi people knwo very well that the standard of living rose under Saddam until 1991 and Desert Storm, which they blamed both on Saddam and the US.

They know we got rid of Saddam. They know, better than most people, just how much of a bastard that man truly was, and just how terrible he made life for the vast majority of Iraqis.

They also know that the US supported Saddam. They hated the US even prior to this, why should it change now? They blamed the US as the primary reason for the sanctions, right or wrong. They blamed the US for giving arms and weapons of mass destruction to Saddam. They blamed the US for supporting Saddams tortures and encouraging them. They blamed the US for backstabbing them 2 or 3 times duirng Saddams rule when they said they would support and overthrow of Saddam, and then backed off after the people had commited themselves.

The Iraqi people aren't stupid, they are more aware of the American involvement in Iraqi politics than most Americans are.

[nightwind]

Well the only way I can see us ever getting out is if we capture or kill Saddam. And even then it is going to be a battle because the people have been so used to being oppressed.
I think it will be a step in the right direction to train Iraqs to take care of the situation, but still I believe that we are talking about years and a permanent occupation. This can of worms perhaps should have never been opened.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


No, you didn't say it, but you implied it, whether you meant to or not.

No, I did not imply it in any fashion.

You created it purely of your own imagination and laid it at my feet.

Your action is simply dishonest.


You said they all hate us. But they don't all have reason to hate us unless they're all stupid.

That is YOUR conclusion, and YOUR conclusion alone, and it is purely illicit of you to try to hand responsiblity for your completely inappropriate, illogical conclusion at my feet.

Perhaps I mistook your flawed reasoning for something else, but the claim that they all hate us is without merit.

You have yet to show any flaw in my reasoning, so do not claim otherwise. You show disagreement, that is fine, but you haven't shown a flaw, you disagree, rather, on the premises. This is not "flawed reasoning", but a disagreement on premises.

I will retract the label, but I think you misunderstand me. I consider myself a liberal.

I'm a loudmouthed, annoying centrist. I know I'm doing a good job when Malachi is calling me a nazi and Shanek is calling me a commie dupe. :roll: (note, I don't think either has used those words, only the implication thereto)

Not true at all. They know we got rid of Saddam. They know, better than most people, just how much of a bastard that man truly was, and just how terrible he made life for the vast majority of Iraqis.

Agreed. But they know we helped put him there, too. (sigh)

They're quite glad to be rid of his tyranny.

And agreed again, I'm sure.

And unlike, say, France, they know that us invading was the only way Saddam was ever going to be deposed. So why, exactly, would they all hate us for doing that? They don't trust us, that's to be expected. But they don't hate us. There is neither reason nor evidence for that.
We provided rather extravigant promises about how we'd put things together again, and we're not. That's why, and I think the evidence shows in the simple, obvious contempt we are facing.

Note, I am not saying this is a REASONABLE action, but the Iraqi people haven't been in any REASONABLE situations for a great long time, either.

[jj]

Originally posted by nightwind
Well the only way I can see us ever getting out is if we capture or kill Saddam. And even then it is going to be a battle because the people have been so used to being oppressed.

Yep, and YES YES YES. Sad but true.

I think it will be a step in the right direction to train Iraqs to take care of the situation, but still I believe that we are talking about years and a permanent occupation.

It's at least like the occupation of Japan in spirit, and even then the population had been asked to cooperate, instead of "Resist to the last man".

This can of worms perhaps should have never been opened.
I'm not sure of that. I do not like the WAY that W started the war, but I'm still not convinced that there was any other solution to Saddam, and I do think that despite his own bad relations to the Islamic fundamentalists, there was a really strong potential for an "enemy of mine enemy" thing of major proportions.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Do you consider the Shah of Iran "evil"?

Do you consider members of the CIA who torture people "evil"?

Do you consider people who killed women and children in the setteling of the American West "evil"?

What's the difference?


Yes, I consider them evil, though in terms of magnitude, Saddam is really near the top for who's alive today. What's your point?


I'm extremely against the use of violence in all ways, and always support open democracy. You mistake understanding for approval.


Pacifism does not work as an international policy. It can only work in situations where everyone has some standard of decency beyond which they will not act. There was no limit to the violence and inhumanity that Saddam was willing to commit. I'm not sure you realize just how dangerous to the entire world someone like that is.

[Malachi151]

JJ you are not a centrist. You are an extremeist in a variety of different directions. You are far right on some issues, far left on others. That's not really a centrist, and at any rate I agree that anyone who thinks is either left or right. Centrists generally are people who have no idea what they are talking about and are simply uninformed and unopinionated.

Centrists are just people to burp up what the mass media feeds them.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Pacifism does not work as an international policy. It can only work in situations where everyone has some standard of decency beyond which they will not act. There was no limit to the violence and inhumanity that Saddam was willing to commit. I'm not sure you realize just how dangerous to the entire world someone like that is.

Well, on some things we agree.

There is, and will always be, I fear, a bully who sees the chance for short-term gain by taking instead of building.

That's why we have an army, navy, and air force. Hm, oh, and maybe the marines. :)

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
JJ you are not a centrist. You are an extremeist in a variety of different directions. You are far right on some issues, far left on others. That's not really a centrist, and at any rate I agree that anyone who thinks is either left or right. Centrists generally are people who have no idea what they are talking about and are simply uninformed and unopinionated.

Centrists are just people to burp up what the mass media feeds them.

Malachi, you do NOT understand. I'm an extremist in the direction I seen us needing to move.

That's how effective centrists function, my dear fellow.

And I am a centrist, and you must admit that I do a wee bit more than 'burp up what the mass media feeds them', yes? Well, I do burp it up and set it on fire sometimes, I suppose....

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by jj
We provided rather extravigant promises about how we'd put things together again, and we're not. That's why, and I think the evidence shows in the simple, obvious contempt we are facing.


What evidence? I see NO evidence for anything other than fringe resistance. Where is all this "obvious" contempt you keep refering to? You seem to have concluded this simply because that's what you thought would happen, and you've seen some news stories with anecdotal evidence about discontent. But that's all you've got.


Note, I am not saying this is a REASONABLE action, but the Iraqi people haven't been in any REASONABLE situations for a great long time, either.

And yet you can't conceive that they'd be able to figure out that maybe things are different now. You don't give them enough credit.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


What evidence? I see NO evidence for anything other than fringe resistance. Where is all this "obvious" contempt you keep refering to?

Have you read the tales of woe from the people who are trying to rebuild, how their employees demand payment at 10AM and then just walk off the job until tomorrow, where the same routine is repeated again?

How they sabotage the work they did yesterday, and then do it over, never moving forward?

Have you read the tales of woe from the people trying to deal with criminal activities?

I'm not talking about the freaks that bombed the UN embassy here, even though they MAY be included (or may indeed be outside provacateurs, wouldn't surprise me a bit there).

You seem to have concluded this simply because that's what you thought would happen, and you've seen some news stories with anecdotal evidence about discontent. But that's all you've got.

ALL we have here is press anecdotes, and they all seem to be pointing to a public that is resentful, uncooperative, and self-destructive.

Why else would you shield a murderer from the cops, even though the murderer is on another side from your side?

And yet you can't conceive that they'd be able to figure out that maybe things are different now. You don't give them enough credit.
It's time you stop telling me what I can and can't concieve. You fail miserably, and you create nothing but offense.

I give them credit for not being 10 times worse. (And I'm relieved it's not that way, yet, too.)

[CapelDodger]

From Malachi151:
Actually the Iraqi people knwo very well that the standard of living rose under Saddam until 1991 and Desert Storm, which they blamed both on Saddam and the US.
Actually the Iran-Iraq war was what broke the system. Prior to that the Ba'ath government had made sure that good schools, health services and infrastructure were provided. As a populist party that made sense. When Saddam attacked Iran the war was meant to be a quick knock-out, and living standards were maintained, but when it dragged on they had to decline. By the time it ended the economic and social damage done meant that going back to the (relatively) nice-guy approach was impossible. So, greater repression and the Kuwait adventure followed.

To perhaps throw some light on the CIA/Iraq connections, Iraq placed itself on the left after Faisal and the governments that followed aligned themselves with the USSR (as did most Arab states). For this they received weaponry and advisors and such. The CIA became involved in arming and funding Kurdish insurgents in the 60's, and with their assistance and intel they Kurds gave the army a hard time. Then Saddam broke with the USSR, and in return the CIA betrayed the Kurds they'd been earlier helping - and I don't just mean abandoned, I mean turned over to Saddam. This is known as realpolitik, I think.

There's trouble between the Kurds and Turkmens boiling over. This is going to be watched very carefully by Turkey. Notice how the Turks didn't roll over recently? Things will get messier if they come in - and just telling them not to may not work. Then, of course, Bush might get out by saying to the Turks "Alright, you sort it out then". Or end up going to war with Turkey, which is not, I think, in his game-plan.

[CapelDodger]

I doubt if most Iraqis have the time and energy to hate the US at the moment. They're trying to get by and keeping their heads down, sticking with their own and not becoming aligned with anyone else. People know the Ba'athists are still there; people who work with the Americans are being been visited at night and killed. It doesn't take many, as long as everybody knows it happens. Nobody knows how things will turn out - maybe the old regime will be back, sufficiently disguised to allow the US to accept them. So they survive and wait.

Another day and more of the same old same-old.

[Malachi151]

CapelDodger

I pretty much agree. The issue with the Kurds is that they are largely Marxists, which is why the CIA was never really that keen on helping them in the first place.

Saddam and his men were anti-Communist, despite their involvement with the Russian in getting weapons and other equipment, they greatly repressed the Communist parties in Iraq, which were mainly the Kurds. The Communist Party is currently theoldest political party in Iraq, and they have been largely underground for the past 30 years. Right now they are also one of the most respected and powerful among the Iraqs, and best organized, this is givng the current US administration trouble there.

But yes, it did go down hill soe with the Iran/Iraq war, and again the Iraqis lump the US in as the being at fault there, however the major downturn was after Desert Storm obviously.

[Mocker Wall]

Posted by Ziggurat:

Yes, unlike America. We do not deliberately target civilians.

Except for the indians who we gave pox infested blankets to....Oh wait! They weren't Americans so that makes it ok.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mocker Wall

Except for the indians who we gave pox infested blankets to....Oh wait! They weren't Americans so that makes it ok.

Of course it doesn't. That was a terrible act. But it's also completely irrelevant. Why did you even bother posting this? Are you just trolling, or do you actually plan on contributing to the debate?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mocker Wall

Except for the indians who we gave pox infested blankets to....


Who is this "we" of which you speak?