War between countries?

[MaxHardcore]

I was thinking about the "no democracy has had a war with a democracy" thread and was struggling to think of a war between 2 countries at present.


Is there a war currently that involves representatives of two countries fighting in a conventional manner?


Most conflict that I can think of seems to involve terrorists, rebels, civil war, etc.

Off the top of my head-

Israel isn't fighting the government of Lebanon.
Iraq has various non-government ingrates vs US
Afghanistan too
democratic republic of congo is various warlords fighting it out
somalia is similar
sierra leone, liberia, ivory coast : I'm sure there's fighting there but it isn't between governments
Nepal has Maoist rebels, non a government

[Rob Lister]

Thank god you posted this. I was getting bored. I'm the guy that was the last in posting in the last six or so threads.

Thank god, ed, and dog you are here.

erm...I have no opinion. Seems to be the state of natural war these days. The U.S. took all the fun out of 'real war' by being able to kick everyone's ass simultaniously.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally Posted by MaxHardcore

I was thinking about the "no democracy has had a war with a democracy" thread and was struggling to think of a war between 2 countries at present.


Is there a war currently that involves representatives of two countries fighting in a conventional manner?


Most conflict that I can think of seems to involve terrorists, rebels, civil war, etc.

Off the top of my head-

Israel isn't fighting the government of Lebanon.
Iraq has various non-government ingrates vs US
Afghanistan too
democratic republic of congo is various warlords fighting it out
somalia is similar
sierra leone, liberia, ivory coast : I'm sure there's fighting there but it isn't between governments
Nepal has Maoist rebels, non a government

To my knowledge there are no officially accepted "wars between nations" currently ongoing. The world has moved on and such wars are old-fashioned.

(Still, a tremendous amount of killing is being done by large organized groups against other groups. The similarity to the old fashioned war concept is, I'm sure, just a coincidence.)

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

The U.S. took all the fun out of 'real war' by being able to kick everyone's ass simultaniously.

Really?

They don't seem to be doing good a job of it in Iraq at the moment with around 100 people being killed a day in sectarian violence - it's probably the most dangerous it's ever been there at the moment.

I hear things in Afghanistan aren't all that flash either.

[Kodiak]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Really?

They don't seem to be doing good a job of it in Iraq at the moment with around 100 people being killed a day in sectarian violence - it's probably the most dangerous it's ever been there at the moment.

I hear things in Afghanistan aren't all that flash either.

Really?! The US hasn't been kicking ass in Iraq and Afghanistan?! How you define modern armed combat? Anonymous victims being blown up by IED's, and jihadists kidnapping and executing civilians?

Can you name any battles that took place in Iraq between Coalition forces and either Saddam's forces or jihadists/bathist loyalists where the outcome was not a decisive Coalition victory?

Ditto for Afghanistan...

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by Kodiak

Can you name any battles that took place in Iraq between Coalition forces and either Saddam's forces or jihadists/bathist loyalists where the outcome was not a decisive Coalition victory?

Can you name any battles that took place in Vietnam between U.S. forces and either the NVA or the V.C. where the outcome was not a decisive U.S. victory? Neither can I and we lost Vietnam.

However, as is so often pointed out; there are no parallels between the Vietnam war and the Iraqi war.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Really?

They don't seem to be doing good a job of it in Iraq at the moment with around 100 people being killed a day in sectarian violence - it's probably the most dangerous it's ever been there at the moment.

I hear things in Afghanistan aren't all that flash either.

Please read the original post to which I was responding

Quote:

Is there a war currently that involves representatives of two countries fighting in a conventional manner?


Most conflict that I can think of seems to involve terrorists, rebels, civil war, etc.

[Kodiak]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Can you name any battles that took place in Vietnam between U.S. forces and either the NVA or the V.C. where the outcome was not a decisive U.S. victory? Neither can I and we lost Vietnam..

Nice try. Your post was a refutation of Mr. Lister's statement about the U.S.'s ability to kick eveyone's ass simultaneously. Stop obfuscating and answer my question, or concede that that the U.S. has indeed "kicked everyone's ass simultaneously".

Originally Posted by Mephisto

However, as is so often pointed out; there are no parallels between the Vietnam war and the Iraqi war.

An oversimplification.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Can you name any battles that took place in Vietnam between U.S. forces and either the NVA or the V.C. where the outcome was not a decisive U.S. victory? Neither can I and we lost Vietnam.

However, as is so often pointed out; there are no parallels between the Vietnam war and the Iraqi war.

True enough!

During the Vietnam War, in every case the USA could use its massive firepower and technology to drive the enemy off of the battlefield thereby winning the battle. Yet in the end, the USA simply abandoned all of this hard won land and thereby lost the war.

I expect that that the same sort of thing will happen in Iraq.

[Kodiak]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

True enough!

During the Vietnam War, in every case the USA could use its massive firepower and technology to drive the enemy off of the battlefield thereby winning the battle. Yet in the end, the USA simply abandoned all of this hard won land and thereby lost the war.

I expect that that the same sort of thing will happen in Iraq.

Are you of the opinion then, that we should "stay the course"? That, however bad it is to stay, to leave would be much worse?

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Kodiak

Are you of the opinion then, that we should "stay the course"? That, however bad it is to stay, to leave would be much worse?

My opinion has always been that the USA should have never invaded Iraq to begin with. If that had been done, then we would not be facing such difficult times now.

The pre-war rationale for this war was unsupported by the facts,
The post-invasion period of this was been poorly planned and abysmally executed,
This war is unsupported by allies,
This war is a serious drain on USA resources,
This war is a great benefit to current and future enemies of the USA, and
This war is continually producing new enemies.

The "stay the course" methodology has brought Iraq to the brink of ruin and has substantially hurt the USA in the process.

However, the fact of the matter is that Bush did get the USA to invade Iraq. And as such, it is high time that some serious planning be done to prepare for the upcoming defeat of the USA and how to look as happy as possible about it after Bush leaves office and enjoys his retirement by staying at his home in Crawford, TX catching fish and riding his bicycle.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

My opinion has always been that the USA should have never invaded Iraq to begin with. If that had been done, then we would not be facing such difficult times now.

The pre-war rationale for this war was unsupported by the facts,
The post-invasion period of this was been poorly planned and abysmally executed,

All fine and dandy. Doesn't do much good to think like that now, does it?

Whenever someone is approached with the question, "should we stay the course" or "what is your opinion on the War in Iraq" 90% of the people that disagreed with the war to start with, are still trying to live in the past, using that same "I disagreed with the war from the start" argument, as IF it will solve the problems that exist today.

[Kodiak]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

The "stay the course" methodology has brought Iraq to the brink of ruin and has substantially hurt the USA in the process.

However, the fact of the matter is that Bush did get the USA to invade Iraq. And as such, it is high time that some serious planning be done to prepare for the upcoming defeat of the USA and how to look as happy as possible about it after Bush leaves office and enjoys his retirement by staying at his home in Crawford, TX catching fish and riding his bicycle.

So are you saying that the U.S. should abandon Iraq now and take its well-deserved lumps?

If not, please readdress my original query.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Kodiak

So are you saying that the U.S. should abandon Iraq now and take its well-deserved lumps?

If not, please readdress my original query.

Not quite.

As I see it, there are only about one of four things that can be done:

One, continue as has been, or "Stay the course" as some like to say.
Two, have the USA leave forthwith, as a very few have said.
Three, have the USA do a full-scale mobilization in order to correct the situation, as even fewer have said.
Four, come up with some sort multi-state, multi-faceted, international approach to correct the situation as many are saying.

I have no faith that the administration will ever figure out how to correct this horrible situation, and furthermore I think that Bush himself has given up on the issue months ago so he is already looking forward to the day when he can drop this problem into the lap of someone else so that he will be able to run away from it as fast as he can. Therefore, I think that the best we can hope for is that the next president will be much better at dealing with it than Bush has been and that Bush does not do makes things too much worse until then.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

However, the fact of the matter is that Bush did get the USA to invade Iraq. And as such, it is high time that some serious planning be done to prepare for the upcoming defeat of the USA and how to look as happy as possible about it after Bush leaves office and enjoys his retirement by staying at his home in Crawford, TX catching fish and riding his bicycle.

That's your plan? To prepare for defeat? Relax, we're imperialists now. We're going to bulldoze and put up condos and start drilling for oil any day now.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by MaxHardcore

Is there a war currently that involves representatives of two countries fighting in a conventional manner?

These doesn't seem to be at the moment, but I'm sure one will pop up at some point.

Bear in mind the most recent one I can think of was USA Vs Iraq (March - May 2003). That was a rather brief war, given the US's utter demolition of a rather weak enemy. I've actually heard arguments that the rapid defeat of Iraq helped contribute to the aftermath. It's a plausible argument.

I have no doubt there will be conventional warfare between two countries again. I have my own personal opinion that ultimately (assuming no economic cataclysm interfers) there will be some form of armed conflict between the USA and China. Frankly I'm also a little worried that when/if that happens my country will be on the wrong side (IMHO).

Countries in Africa fight each other along their borders fairly frequently, and old smoulder spots like Korea and India/Pakistan are always possible.

So I don't think there's a trend towards states not fighting each other - there have been plenty of examples post WW2.

-Andrew

ETA. I'm also curious why it is that the USA deals so badly with defeat these days? WW2 commenced with repeated (and quite appalling) defeats for the USA, but they stuck with it. Yet from Vietnam onwards, even a lack of significant progress (let alone actual defeats!) seems to result in an immediate about face and scamper-for-hills manoeuvre. Any ideas on why that is? I don't mean to belittle the USA. I'm quite serious. I can't think of an armed conflict post Korea that the USA stuck with when things weren't going well. Is it a case of whether the war was considered to be morally justified?

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by peptoabysmal

That's your plan? To prepare for defeat? Relax, we're imperialists now. We're going to bulldoze and put up condos and start drilling for oil any day now.

Loosing the Iraq War and having the USA leave there while trying look as happy as possible about it is hardly my plan. Instead, it is a reality that we will all have to deal with sooner or later.
Personally, I think that it would be far better to start dealing with this reality sooner rather than later, but I expect that with Bush & Co. in charge, then nothing of the sort will happen and they will leave it to the next president to settle. As such, I do hope that the next president will be better able to deal with this horrible mess that Bush has created and people such as yourself have supported.

As for my plan ...
Well, my plan was not to start this stupid war to begin with. If that had been done then we would not have to face the terrible reality that we are currently stuck with.

By the way, good luck with all of that construction and oil drilling you are planning! With the way things are going over there you would be lucky to build a few doghouses and drill one or two water wells as opposed to condos and oil wells.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I'm also curious why it is that the USA deals so badly with defeat these days? WW2 commenced with repeated (and quite appalling) defeats for the USA, but they stuck with it. Yet from Vietnam onwards, even a lack of significant progress (let alone actual defeats!) seems to result in an immediate about face and scamper-for-hills manoeuvre. Any ideas on why that is? I don't mean to belittle the USA. I'm quite serious. I can't think of an armed conflict post Korea that the USA stuck with when things weren't going well. Is it a case of whether the war was considered to be morally justified?

I suspect that the "moral justification" argument is a big part of it. More generally, it's a question of the popularity of fighting the war (as opposed to cutting and running), whether the justification is moral or not. A genuine attack on American soil by armed agents of a nation-state -- such as the Pearl Harbor bombing -- is the sort of thing that everyone recognized as a direct threat to US interests and American lives. Not only were people lining up in droves at the recruitment stations, but civilians were making substantial sacrifices in support of the war effort. Every defeat of the US forces made it more clear how serious the threat was.

Korea barely qualified, if at all, as a "direct threat to US interests" unless you were a devout believer in the domino theory. Vietnam established the effective falsity of the domino theory -- the US lost in that war, and the rest of Asia did not suddenly collapse into a single block of monolithic communism.

The 9/11 attack certainly qualifies as a direct threat to US interests --but a "threat" that has little or nothing to do with either the Afghan or Iraqi government. A lot of people felt that there was no reason to fight Iraq in the beginning. Nothing has happened since then to change their minds. If you didn't believe Iraq was a threat in 2002, why believe it's a threat today?

Some people felt in the beginning that there was a reason to fight in Iraq, but circumstances since then have demonstrated that the rosy projections offered were false -- meaning stuff has happened to change their minds. People who believed that Iraq was a threat in 2002 may no longer agree -- either they realize that their initial assessment was wrong (created by US agitprop) or they think that the current situation makes Iraq no longer the threat it once was. If it's no longer a threat, there's no reason to keep fighting.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Azure

All fine and dandy. Doesn't do much good to think like that now, does it?

Whenever someone is approached with the question, "should we stay the course" or "what is your opinion on the War in Iraq" 90% of the people that disagreed with the war to start with, are still trying to live in the past, using that same "I disagreed with the war from the start" argument, as IF it will solve the problems that exist today.

Well sir, you are quite right!

Being consistently anti-war will not do anything to solve the terrible problems all of those stupid pro-war people have caused.

However, if you want my thoughts on a solution ...

In brief, I would say that an honest, straight-forward, multi-lateral, multi-national, multi-cultural approach would be best.

First, have Bush and the rest of the pro-war lot apologize for this war.
Second, have Bush and the rest of the pro-war and anti-war people commit to rebuilding Iraq.
Third, bring all the nations concerned to the table (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, et al) and work out a plan for rebuilding Iraq.

Then, execute the plan!

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Really?

They don't seem to be doing good a job of it in Iraq at the moment with around 100 people being killed a day in sectarian violence - it's probably the most dangerous it's ever been there at the moment.

I hear things in Afghanistan aren't all that flash either.

Its because the U.S. is playing politics with Iraq. If the U.S. really wanted to go in and take care of business there would be 500,000+ boots on the ground, 2,000 tanks rolling the streets, and F-15, 16's, 22's, 111's, and B-2's blowing the crud out of any target even remotely associated with a terrorist. So if you mean by "not doing a good job in Iraq" to read the U.S. is playing politics in Iraq then you are correct.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Originally Posted by Mephisto

Can you name any battles that took place in Vietnam between U.S. forces and either the NVA or the V.C. where the outcome was not a decisive U.S. victory? Neither can I and we lost Vietnam.

However, as is so often pointed out; there are no parallels between the Vietnam war and the Iraqi war.

You are completly right. We lost Vietnam because the American public got tired of fighting it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Well sir, you are quite right!

Being consistently anti-war will not do anything to solve the terrible problems all of those stupid pro-war people have caused.

However, if you want my thoughts on a solution ...

In brief, I would say that an honest, straight-forward, multi-lateral, multi-national, multi-cultural approach would be best.

First, have Bush and the rest of the pro-war lot apologize for this war.
Second, have Bush and the rest of the pro-war and anti-war people commit to rebuilding Iraq.
Third, bring all the nations concerned to the table (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, et al) and work out a plan for rebuilding Iraq.

Then, execute the plan!

Exactly right.

It says a lot for the anti-war crowd when they are more concerned with an apology from President Bush, then they are for the Iraqi people.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Azure

Exactly right.

It says a lot for the anti-war crowd when they are more concerned with an apology from President Bush, then they are for the Iraqi people.

That is quite so, an apology is necessary because the first step in solving any problem is to recognize that problem.

However, Bush has consistently failed to recognize the problem he created which has served to alienate many of those who would be willing to help if they thought that their efforts were not going to be squandered on a stupid, lazy, self-serving narcissist like Bush.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

That is quite so, an apology is necessary because the first step in solving any problem is to recognize that problem.

However, Bush has consistently failed to recognize the problem he created which has served to alienate many of those who would be willing to help if they thought that their efforts were not going to be squandered on a stupid, lazy, self-serving narcissist like Bush.

Seems very self-serving and arrogant coming from the anti-war crowd who seem to care 'soooo' much about the Iraqi people.

IMO, most anti-war people wouldn't listen to Bush if he apologized 5 times for the same thing.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Azure

Seems very self-serving and arrogant coming from the anti-war crowd who seem to care 'soooo' much about the Iraqi people.

IMO, most anti-war people wouldn't listen to Bush if he apologized 5 times for the same thing.

Well, if that is the way it seems to you, then you are quite mistaken. Bush has yet to apologize even one time, let alone five, for anything substantive that he has done wrong (example: the way he made fun of not finding Iraqi WMDs at that press conference a while back).

Or put another way, so far this war has killed at least 40,500 Iraqis (perhaps up to three times that number), therefore the USA is now killing off Iraqis just as fast, if not faster, than Saddam Hussein did.

[Grammatron]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Well, if that is the way it seems to you, then you are quite mistaken. Bush has yet to apologize even one time, let alone five, for anything substantive that he has done wrong (example: the way he made fun of not finding Iraqi WMDs at that press conference a while back).

White House Correspondents Association is not a press conference. And I am sure your list of substantive is very short.

Quote:

Or put another way, so far this war has killed at least 40,500 Iraqis (perhaps up to three times that number), therefore the USA is now killing off Iraqis just as fast, if not faster, than Saddam Hussein did.

Hold on there, the US is directly responsible for 40,500 Iraqi deaths?

I assume you got your number from iraqbodycount.net, if so blaming US for all those dead is disingenuous at best

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Or put another way, so far this war has killed at least 40,500 Iraqis (perhaps up to three times that number), therefore the USA is now killing off Iraqis just as fast, if not faster, than Saddam Hussein did.

So you're saying the suicide bombers were supported by the US?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Third, bring all the nations concerned to the table (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, et al) and work out a plan for rebuilding Iraq.

Wow, that's naive. Why would Iran WANT Iraq to be rebuilt? The more fractured it is, the more leverage they have over it. It is in their interest to make sure Iraq continues to fester indefinitely. Why on earth would we want to invite them to help rebuild Iraq, and why on earth would they actually help to do so? What you propose isn't a plan, it's a fantasy.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Grammatron

White House Correspondents Association is not a press conference. And I am sure your list of substantive is very short.

As for the substantive list for Bush failings that he has refused to apologize for:

- Iraq was trying to get uranium from Nigeria.
- Allowing the looting of Iraq.
- The numerous other errors the Bush Administration has made concerning the use and misuse of intelligence data.
- Mission Accomplished!
- The abysmal Katrina response.
And on, and on, and on.

As for the meeting, I expect that you are actually referring to the "60th annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association" which was held on March 26, 2006 where Bush joked about not finding any weapons of mass destruction.

True, it was not exactly a press conference.
However, he made these comments while giving a presentation to a room full of reporters knowing that everything he said was on the record.
That sir, is pretty much what a press conference is.

Originally Posted by Grammatron

Hold on there, the US is directly responsible for 40,500 Iraqi deaths?

I assume you got your number from iraqbodycount.net, if so blaming US for all those dead is disingenuous at best

Yes sir, the USA is directly responsible for 40,500 Iraqi deaths (at a minimum).

And yes, one of the sources I did use was www.iraqbodycount.net. I find nothing wrong, or even disingenuous, about using this data since it has all been confirmed. There are other estimates which put the total far, far higher.

Furthermore, if you will recall, that Bush himself said last December that approximately 30,000 Iraqis had died in the since the invasion. Now then, I did check www.iraqbodycount.net at that time and sure enough, the figure they listed was about 29,500. Therefore, being some nine months since then, I do feel that the figure of 40,500 is a quite reasonable lower estimate.

Finally, please remember that it was the USA that invaded and occupied Iraq, therefore it is the responsibility of the USA to ensure the welfare of the civilians living there. Thus far, the USA has done a very poor job of ensuring that welfare.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you're saying the suicide bombers were supported by the US?

That is hardly what I said sir.

However, I will gladly provide the clarification you obviously need. The USA is certainly responsible for the suicide bombers in Iraq, as well as the vast number of sectarian killings, bombings, kidnapping, rapes, extortions, and other such crimes since the USA has done such a poor job of ensuring post-war security in Iraq.

Such things did not occur in pre-war Iraq, and such things are rampant in post-war war Iraq.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Wow, that's naive. Why would Iran WANT Iraq to be rebuilt? The more fractured it is, the more leverage they have over it. It is in their interest to make sure Iraq continues to fester indefinitely. Why on earth would we want to invite them to help rebuild Iraq, and why on earth would they actually help to do so? What you propose isn't a plan, it's a fantasy.

Well sir, I can assure you that I do not have any fantasies about Iraq and that I, for one, prefer to deal in facts concerning Iraq.

Now then, Iran does not want to see Iraq devolve into a full scale civil war. In fact, if you really wanted to hurt Iran at the exclusion of all else, then the best thing to do would allow Iraq to devolve into full scale civil war.

If such a thing happened, then Iran would be flooded with refugees, have to spend vast resources to secure its borders, and do a great deal more to keep its own population in line.

On the other hand, Iran is well served by keeping Iraq fairly unstable which forces the USA to stay engaged in a long-term commitment that is expensive and non-productive. Personally, I am reminded of how the famous 'Lawrence of Arabia' did not completely cut off the Turks although he could have. Allowing the Turks to maintain a tenuous and terribly expensive occupation forced them to expend many resources that the would have preferred to use elsewhere.

Ideally, Iran would like Iraq to become more like Iran. A major oil producer that is opposed to the USA, Israel, and that will never start another war like the wars that have often occurred between Iran and Iraq.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Well sir, I can assure you that I do not have any fantasies about Iraq and that I, for one, prefer to deal in facts concerning Iraq.

Now then, Iran does not want to see Iraq devolve into a full scale civil war.

Why not? If it does, the Shia will easily win against the Sunnis. And during such a conflict, their puppets like Sadr would likely gain influence. We, on the other hand, would be humiliated, would lose influence, and probably waste a lot of resources in the process. Now, Iran might not be willing to DO very much to push Iraq into a civil war, but why would such an outcome really be bad for them? Wouldn't it be WORSE for them if Iraq indeed became the kind of stable democracy we hope for?

Quote:

In fact, if you really wanted to hurt Iran at the exclusion of all else, then the best thing to do would allow Iraq to devolve into full scale civil war.

Nonsense. If you really want to hurt Iran to the exclusion of all else, you attack Iran directly. Don't make claims which are so transparently false.

Quote:

If such a thing happened, then Iran would be flooded with refugees, have to spend vast resources to secure its borders, and do a great deal more to keep its own population in line.

Uh... I don't think so. A civil war would largely be a slaughter/expulsion of the Sunni population. The Iraqi Shia can hold their own quite well at this point, and most of the Shia refugees would be internal (away from border regions and into Iraqi Shia strongholds). No, it would be countries bordering the Sunni areas which would have to worry about refugee influxes. And while Syria may be an ally of Iran, Saudi Arabia is not.

Quote:

On the other hand, Iran is well served by keeping Iraq fairly unstable which forces the USA to stay engaged in a long-term commitment that is expensive and non-productive.

And so you want them to help out stabilizing Iraq? Again, why on earth would they?

Quote:

Ideally, Iran would like Iraq to become more like Iran. A major oil producer that is opposed to the USA, Israel, and that will never start another war like the wars that have often occurred between Iran and Iraq.

Sure. And a country which also chants "death to America!" on a regular basis. Once again, WHY do you think it's a good idea to give Iran even more influence in Iraq's future? Isn't what they want for Iraq bad for us? You still haven't answered that most basic of questions.

[Crossbow]

Wow oh Wow!

I sure am glad that there are so few people in JREF who issue retorts of this sort.

Anyway, to proceed ...

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why not? If it does, the Shia will easily win against the Sunnis. And during such a conflict, their puppets like Sadr would likely gain influence. We, on the other hand, would be humiliated, would lose influence, and probably waste a lot of resources in the process. Now, Iran might not be willing to DO very much to push Iraq into a civil war, but why would such an outcome really be bad for them? Wouldn't it be WORSE for them if Iraq indeed became the kind of stable democracy we hope for?

Pardon me, but considering the numerous bad predictions you pro-war people have been making since the inception of this war, I have serious doubts regarding your forecast of a Shia/Sunni conflict. As for me, I expect that both sides would suffer greatly which would result in a good bit of the blame for the conflict being placed on the USA regardless of who actually "wins" (as if there is ever really a winner in any civil war).

Now then, like you I would expect that it would be quite bad for Iran if Iraq turned out the way Bush & Co. have been promising (stable, self-supporting, democracy, that is an ally of the USA). I also think that it would be great if won several million dollars in the lottery and slept on a giant bed of money with several beautiful women, but I expect that the one event is about as likely as the other.

By the way, I noted you neglected to mention anything about the Kurds in your description of an Iraq civil war. It is not likely that they will sit idly by drinking coffee and playing backgammon while such an event is going on right next door to them. Also, there are substantial Kurdish factions in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Russia as well and I am quite sure that they would be most interested, to say the least, in what may transpire during an Iraq civil war.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Nonsense. If you really want to hurt Iran to the exclusion of all else, you attack Iran directly. Don't make claims which are so transparently false.

It is hardly a false claim sir.

The USA is not any position to wage war against Iran since we are still so tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. We certainly have the weapons to kill every single person in Iran and if the USA practiced genocide, then it could do so. However, the USA does not practice genocide, as such we still fight wars in the conventional way, and it is a fact that the USA simply does not have the resources to wage a third such fight for any length of time.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Uh... I don't think so. A civil war would largely be a slaughter/expulsion of the Sunni population. The Iraqi Shia can hold their own quite well at this point, and most of the Shia refugees would be internal (away from border regions and into Iraqi Shia strongholds). No, it would be countries bordering the Sunni areas which would have to worry about refugee influxes. And while Syria may be an ally of Iran, Saudi Arabia is not.

Well, if your analysis is quite correct then that would mean that an Iraqi civil war would serve to destabilize Saudi Arabia and strengthen Iran.

I am very pleased that you take the issue of an Iraq civil war so seriously.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And so you want them to help out stabilizing Iraq? Again, why on earth would they?

I had already given my thoughts on that question in my previous post (#39), specifically:

If such a thing happened, then Iran would be flooded with refugees, have to spend vast resources to secure its borders, and do a great deal more to keep its own population in line.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure. And a country which also chants "death to America!" on a regular basis. Once again, WHY do you think it's a good idea to give Iran even more influence in Iraq's future? Isn't what they want for Iraq bad for us? You still haven't answered that most basic of questions.

To answer you most basic question, lots of people have been chanting "Death to America" long before Iran became the enemy de` jour. But such things do not have to keep nations from working together when it is in their mutual interest to do so.

For example, there was vast anti-USA rhetoric by the former USSR and yet there were numerous arms agreements, trade deals, and other exchanges done.

If the USA wants to win in Iraq (as Bush has defined win in Iraq), then the USA will have to deal with Iran, as well as Syria, Egypt, and several other nations as well. It is just that simple and I suggest that you deal with it.

Finally, if you continue to doubt my analysis, then perhaps you would be so kind as to review the below analysis which goes into much more depth about the matter or Iraq, Iran, and what needs to be done to win victory and peace.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5701631

U.S. Strategy and Tactics Fail to Mesh in Iraq

Tom Ricks, a reporter for the Washington Post and author of the book Fiasco, says he's seen a persistent disconnect between U.S. strategy and U.S. tactics in Iraq. Ricks tells Steve Inskeep that the current U.S. strategy is being undermined by questionable tactics.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

Pardon me, but considering the numerous bad predictions you pro-war people have been making since the inception of this war, I have serious doubts regarding your forecast of a Shia/Sunni conflict.

That's nice that you have doubts. But the outcome is obvious. Shia outnumber the Sunni dramatically. They dominate both the government AND the armed forces, which means that they've got the guns too. In fact, one of the biggest REAL indicators of problems in Iraq is that a lot of Sunnis have already left the country, precisely because of fears of a civil war. That is not true of the Shia. And that's because both sides KNOW what the outcome of a civil war is: the Shia would win, and extract a bloody revenge on the Sunnis. The Shia have the numbers, they have the weapons. In a civil war, they will win, and quite overwhelmingly.

Quote:

By the way, I noted you neglected to mention anything about the Kurds in your description of an Iraq civil war.

They'd side with the Shia, because they too want revenge against the Sunnis, and because the disputed border region between Kurdish territory and non-Kurdish territory is disputed with the Sunnis and not the Shia. Kurdish-Sunni fighting would center around Kirkuk, and the Kurds would win. But the Kurds have no interest in Baghdad, where the Shia-Sunni conflict would likely center, so there wouldn't be much (if any) Kurd-Shia fighting. So they aren't irrelevant, but they just make the Sunni position even weaker.

Quote:

Also, there are substantial Kurdish factions in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Russia as well and I am quite sure that they would be most interested, to say the least, in what may transpire during an Iraq civil war.

So? You think Iran is somehow unwilling to cause problems for them?

Quote:

The USA is not any position to wage war against Iran since we are still so tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. We certainly have the weapons to kill every single person in Iran and if the USA practiced genocide, then it could do so.

Exactly: we can nuke them into oblivion. We can, therefore, do MUCH worse than starting a civil war in Iraq. That we are not likely (or willing) to does not change our ability to do so.

Quote:

However, the USA does not practice genocide, as such we still fight wars in the conventional way, and it is a fact that the USA simply does not have the resources to wage a third such fight for any length of time.

But you explicitly dismissed such concerns. You said, and I quote, "if you really wanted to hurt Iran at the exclusion of all else,". That means excluding such concerns as not wanting to commit genocide. If you MEANT something different, you should have SAID something different.

Quote:

Well, if your analysis is quite correct then that would mean that an Iraqi civil war would serve to destabilize Saudi Arabia and strengthen Iran.

Yes. And?

Quote:

Finally, if you continue to doubt my analysis, then perhaps you would be so kind as to review the below analysis which goes into much more depth about the matter or Iraq, Iran, and what needs to be done to win victory and peace.

Sorry, but I'm not at a computer where I can listen to audio. If you want to post a link to a transcript, I might be able to take a look at it.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's nice that you have doubts. But the outcome is obvious. Shia outnumber the Sunni dramatically. They dominate both the government AND the armed forces, which means that they've got the guns too. In fact, one of the biggest REAL indicators of problems in Iraq is that a lot of Sunnis have already left the country, precisely because of fears of a civil war. That is not true of the Shia. And that's because both sides KNOW what the outcome of a civil war is: the Shia would win, and extract a bloody revenge on the Sunnis. The Shia have the numbers, they have the weapons. In a civil war, they will win, and quite overwhelmingly.

It is hardly obvious sir.

While the Shia do outnumber the Sunni in Iraq by about 2 to 1.
But in the world, the Sunni outnumber the Shia about 8 to 1. It is quite illogical to think that such a conflict would be solely isolated to only Iraq.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

They'd side with the Shia, because they too want revenge against the Sunnis, and because the disputed border region between Kurdish territory and non-Kurdish territory is disputed with the Sunnis and not the Shia. Kurdish-Sunni fighting would center around Kirkuk, and the Kurds would win. But the Kurds have no interest in Baghdad, where the Shia-Sunni conflict would likely center, so there wouldn't be much (if any) Kurd-Shia fighting. So they aren't irrelevant, but they just make the Sunni position even weaker.

So? You think Iran is somehow unwilling to cause problems for them?

You do not understand.

Many in Iraq as well as the governments in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Russia do not want to see a nation of Kurdistan formed (which is something that many, many Kurds have wanted for decades) as doing so would be detrimental to all concerned. In other words, a civil war in Iraq could readily widen into something much more as the Kurds may well take advantage of the chaos to form their own government as they tried to do back when the first Bush encouraged them to revolt back in 1991.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Exactly: we can nuke them into oblivion. We can, therefore, do MUCH worse than starting a civil war in Iraq. That we are not likely (or willing) to does not change our ability to do so.

But you explicitly dismissed such concerns. You said, and I quote, "if you really wanted to hurt Iran at the exclusion of all else,". That means excluding such concerns as not wanting to commit genocide. If you MEANT something different, you should have SAID something different.

Sorry, I had no idea that you need such obvious facts such as the USA does not practice nuclear genocide worked into responses in order to avoid confusing you.
I will try to respect your terribly limited perspective and understanding in the future.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes. And?

And that means the USA should avoid Iraq going into civil war.
That means the USA is going to have to do a great deal more to sort out Iraq.
That means that all of this should have been thought of before the war started.
That means the USA should have never started this stupid war to begin with.

Ugh! I suppose limited perspective of yours is at work again.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sorry, but I'm not at a computer where I can listen to audio. If you want to post a link to a transcript, I might be able to take a look at it.

Well there is not a transcript of the interview. However, you can read the book by the author noted.

Or you can review the recent 'Chatham House' document entitled IRAN, ITS NEIGHBOURS AND THE REGIONAL CRISES which discusses, among other things, how the Iraq War has benefited and worried Iran. For example:

www.chathamhouse.org.uk
>

For example, from page 6

Quote:

...

There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East.
The United States, with Coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran’s regional rival governments –
the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in April 2003 –
but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures. The outbreak of conflict
on two fronts in June–July 2006 between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel and
Hizbullah in Lebanon has added to the regional dimensions of this instability.

...

Iranian regional foreign policy, which is often portrayed as mischievous and destabilizing, is in fact
remarkably pragmatic on the whole and generally aims to avoid major upheaval or confrontation.
Iran’s core foreign policy concerns are:
• regional hegemony, particularly economic and cultural, within its sphere of influence;
• an extension of the sphere of influence;
• regional stability;
• to see Iraq unified but unable to pose a military threat;
• an obsession with the US but uncertainty how to deal with it.

...

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

It is hardly obvious sir.

While the Shia do outnumber the Sunni in Iraq by about 2 to 1.
But in the world, the Sunni outnumber the Shia about 8 to 1. It is quite illogical to think that such a conflict would be solely isolated to only Iraq.

Then let's explore that idea further: which other countries would get involved, and how? You're not arguing that southeast Asian Sunni countries are going to send in their armies, are you? Probably not. So the global Shia/Sunni balance isn't the important one, is it? Now: which of Iraq's neighbors would get involved in such a fight, HOW would they get involved, and does any of that potential involvement have the chance to tip things in favor of the Sunnis?

Quote:

Many in Iraq as well as the governments in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Russia do not want to see a nation of Kurdistan formed (which is something that many, many Kurds have wanted for decades) as doing so would be detrimental to all concerned.

Well, sure. But why wouldn't the Kurds accept de facto independence but remain formally a part of Iraq with the Shia? The Shia don't really care much about what the Kurds do in their own territory, they've got no grudge against them, and the Kurds are well aware of the problems you mention.

Quote:

Sorry, I had no idea that you need such obvious facts such as the USA does not practice nuclear genocide worked into responses in order to avoid confusing you.

It's not MY problem that you don't really mean what you actually say.