|
Post by demonofthewest on Nov 2, 2006 22:13:04 GMT -5
We had taken care of any threat Saddam posed long ago in the Gulf War. There was no need for another one. Also, when comparing the Civl War to any other war, remember, the American death toll includes both sides. You're bound to have more american casualties when america is fighting america. Also, keep in mind that the Iraq war should have been much, much easier to execute than it was. There have been no major battles like there were in WWII and the civil war, and yet we've already lost nearly three thousand. We're fighting a very disconnected, unorganized force. It should be much easier to win. Also, we've only been in Iraq for...is it three years now? Vietnam was seven, if I remember correctly, and I think the US involvement in WWII lasted about four. But WWII was a World War, with several armies and military commanders that rivalled or exceeded the military of America. Of course we were bound to have more casualties. And while Bush wasn't the general on the frontlines, he chose to keep Rumsfeld as the secretary of defense, which probably wasn't the best idea.
|
|
Avatarbeefcake
Avatar Korra
"There are Hidden Air Temples"
Posts: 1,004
|
Post by Avatarbeefcake on Nov 2, 2006 23:48:23 GMT -5
We had taken care of any threat Saddam posed long ago in the Gulf War. There was no need for another one. Also, when comparing the Civl War to any other war, remember, the American death toll includes both sides. You're bound to have more american casualties when america is fighting america. Also, keep in mind that the Iraq war should have been much, much easier to execute than it was. There have been no major battles like there were in WWII and the civil war, and yet we've already lost nearly three thousand. We're fighting a very disconnected, unorganized force. It should be much easier to win. Also, we've only been in Iraq for...is it three years now? Vietnam was seven, if I remember correctly, and I think the US involvement lasted about four. But WWII was a World War, with several armies and military commanders that rivalled or exceeded the military of America. Of course we were bound to have more casualties. And while Bush wasn't the general on the frontlines, he chose to keep Rumsfeld as the secretary of defense, which probably wasn't the best idea. War is never easy especially with guerrilla tactics. That was proven with the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict. 10 years they fought. The Soviets being a well maintained fighting force had enormous trouble with Afghanistan who had no army. Now of course we helped Afghanistan fight the Soviets by giving them arms but counties are helping these terrorists too. Your right about trying to compare it to the civil war but how about every other war fought since we've been a nation. Korea & Vietnam.
|
|
|
Post by demonofthewest on Nov 8, 2006 21:54:41 GMT -5
Considering we were fighting actual armies at that time, I don't think the comparison is valid.
|
|
|
Post by lemon on Nov 12, 2006 5:49:13 GMT -5
Hm, I think I found a wonderful summary of the real situation in Iraq. A member of deviantArt Politics Forum wrote it, so you guys can try to question the validity of his claim, but I think you'll find that what he says is true. Here it is: Iraq is a much deeper problem than Vietnam was, and there is a sound strategy to using Iraq in the War on Terror, but it isn't based on Iraqi WMDs and it isn't an idealistic war against an umbrella power like Vietnam was. We haven't resorted to invading neighboring countries like we did in Vietnam, and the ground war in Iraq is nothing like that of Vietnam. Really there isn't much ground 'war' to speak of -- just sectarian infighting which breaks out every so often. Nevertheless, why Iraq? Keep reading.
When the WTC towers were attacked in 2001, Bush was seen as soft on a lot of issues. He wasn't doing much as a president and had we not been attacked I find it very likely he would not have been elected to a second term. Nevertheless it happened and a United States nearly uniformly ignorant of Muslim culture and middle eastern politics were completely caught by surprise. Immediately following the attacks I find it very likely the Bush cabinet sat down and tried to layout a roadmap for a viable campaign against global terrorism taking special preference to islamic terrorism for the moment, but maintaining a vague umbrella movement against all terrorism for good measure.
That said, what do you do now? Well first off, you have to ease the rampant tensions and war rallying in America by going after al-Qaeda, or more specifically bin Laden and his protectors. This took us to Afghanistan which required the overthrow of the dictatorship and the Mujihadeen factions we set up during the cold war to stop Russia. While this has been fruitless in bringing about the capture of bin Laden it has been successful in crippling weapons trade, some drug and slave trade, through the Khyber Pass and with them some factions of terrorism, al-Qaeda-connected or not.
With a semi-successful campaign already begun what can you do next? The only viable way to eliminate the kind of absolutist, fundamental religious groups which support and commit terrorism is to build up infrastructure. You have to get into the middle east and give them things to do. It's when their families are killed, their land raped and they're left with no peaceful job or outcome that they support and join fundamental terrorist groups - incorrectly called jihads -- they are political movements shrouded in religion. Nevertheless, you have to get into the region and help out, build schools, hospitals, water pipelines, electricity, etc... and they will build their own economy simply out of the free market ideals.
The easiest place to do this was Iraq. And it made sense. The legal implications connecting Saddam to Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMDs weren't there -- biological, chemical, or nuclear; And Saddam had no ties to al-Qaeda. This really hurt the American case to the UN for invasion and regime change. This is also where I see Bush failing at his role as the leader of America by either using incorrect intelligence estimates or outright being dishonest about a billion dollar war-effort. The point to going into Iraq is fourfold: (1) Iraq was led by a Secular government. Saddam himself was a secular leader which it seemed would ease the religious tensions of a predominantly Christian invasion force into a predominantly Muslim region of the world. (2) Iraq has substantial oil deposits which would foster economic infrastructure suitable to developing a strong Iraqi economy and hopefully democratic and free market ideals in a region totally devoid of both. (3) If Iraq could be turned into a Lebanon (democracy was beginning to flourish and peace returned in gov't and society after a bloody civil war largely ended by UN intervention), it would set the stage for the people in other middle eastern nations to rise up against their respective fundamentalist dictatorships and demand the same levels of infrastructure and prosperity. (4) Iraq had been completely disarmed since the first Gulf War via UNSCOM (UN Security Council on Munitions) and numerous reports since 1991 on into the 2000s proved without a doubt the Iraqi government had little to no military power to resist an invasion. Thus a UN (or in a worse-case scenario -- a US-only invasion) would have little threat en-route to Baghdad to take down Saddam's regime.
In reality, we were quite wrong about the scenario that would play out. We were right about item #4. We had a very easy time getting into Baghdad and taking the capital. The problem was holding the state of Iraq against foreign insurgents. Suicide bombers began entering Iraq by the truckload from Syria, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia (though not sanctioned by the states of Turkey or Saudi Arabia). Security efforts had to be stepped up and as a much smaller international coalition than would have been best arrived to help defend. We began building back the infrastructure we had to take out to ensure a more controlled invasion: roads, bridges, buildings, electrical power, running water, etc... Insurgents began attacking civilian workers, often kidnapping them, demanding we leave 'their state of Islam' claiming Jihad against us, and cutting off the civilians heads on camera with often dull knives. There's nothing internationally respected about having to change hands as you saw the prisoner's head off with a dull combat knife because your right hand got tired. It's a gruesome sight. Nevertheless, security was again stepped up and the kidnappings have essentially stopped with an exception every year or so.
We didn't help our case for building infrastructure and fostering unbiased education in the middle east with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. It became a common war cry of the middle eastern media organization, Al Jazeera which has a history of being more biased than Fox News (if you can imagine that), although in this case against the western world.
All in all the big political problem with Islamic terrorism is not as the Bush Administration has claimed. They Bush Administration has often stated on the islamic terrorists that they 'hate our freedom' or our 'way of life' and wish to destroy it. This could not be more far from the truth. If anything they want our way of life. We have, for lack of more intellectual means to explain it, nice shiny things -- computers, loud music, fancy cars, air conditioning, television. Everything that globalization inevitably brings to the world, they want (which is the nature of globalization really). They are not jealous of us, they are not hateful of our treatment of women. These are results of the falsehoods used to recruit people into terrorist organizations. They use the word Jihad because it gives people in a region where there is often nothing to live for, something worth dying for -- the classic struggle against an apparently completely evil class of people. They in effect feel like they are 'rock stars' or 'national heroes' for what they are doing much the same way we would praise the firefighters at the attacks on the WTC, or the people on Flight 93 who downed the plane in Pennsylvania. I hope you can realize we're following the same false strategy in America by dehumanizing our enemy.
I've avoided my original statement. The big political problem with Islamic terrorism is our support of Israel, of the very existence of Israel. This came up recently as Israel invaded Lebanon to recover three kidnapped soldiers during a Hizbollah raid on Israeli positions. Last I heard there was debate as to whether the troops were in Israel or Lebanon, but that's beside the point. The big, hairy, ugly fact of the matter is that Israel has every internationally legal right to own their land. There is some land in dispute which was taken after Israel's re-formation by international coalition in 1947. In other words, after the Second World War, the western nations of the world, France, Germany, Britain, America, Austria, etc... brought support to the "Zionist Movement" -- the movement to recreate the Jewish state of Israel. The land for Israel was legally purchased by these nations and the state officially established in 1947. Our unending support for Israel has fueled the religious fervor. The problem with simply pulling out of Israel is that without international support, despite the strength of the IAF (Israeli Air Force) and the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) They would be unable to withstand the barrage of weapons from Hizbollah and Hamas (Both terrorist groups with devoutly call for the destruction of Israel on political and religious grounds.) They denounce the Israeli state and have supported Palestinian efforts against Israel for quite some time. What makes this even hairier is that the two groups are being economically and physically (weapons, troops, etc...) by Iran and Syria but hard evidence for that is somewhat lacking.
So the roadmap to a better, improved middle east has effectively stalled in Iraq. It's the big question. Whether we 'win' (whatever that might mean) or 'lose' will set the stage for the next era of political strategy. Clinton was operating Post-Cold War strategies which essentially failed him in Somalia (which inspired bin Laden to think America would not retaliate with much force or for very long) but served him well in Bosnia (Milosevic and Mladic's attempts at genocide were ended by a UN force and they have been recently tried in a UN War Crimes Tribunal much like the Nazi war criminals after WW2). Bush continued to operate on these strategies and while Clinton could not get rid of al Qaeda, he took many steps at trying, but no one predicted the attacks on the WTC. Except of course Walter Lacqueur's "The New Terrorism" which came out in 2000 and outlined exactly the danger of heavily fueled airliners and office buildings. He could not put together, however the group, the place or the time. It wasn't his place to do so. I read his book for an international relations class in high school literally a month before Sept 11th. It was very frightening to say the least.
Anyway, if Iraq can come out relatively clean, not necessarily secular (but it wouldn't hurt), democratic (for the sake of fostering education and political involvement), and economically strong (for the sake of infrastructure), then there is a good chance, not a great chance, but a chance nonetheless that other nations in the area will either try to destroy Iraq (worst case scenario), or the people will rise in sufficient numbers to perform regime change on their own (or with a little UN help).
Education and political participation is the only way to make them realize there are avenues for discussing political dissent which do not involve violence and false 'jihad.' It's the only way to allow them to realize we are not their enemies, we do not want to destroy islam and for the most part they do not want to destroy us or even Israel. It is the existence of factions of deeply fundamentalist islam that support the terrorist movements. We have the same kind of malicious fundamentalism in the US from christianity. Instead of destroying military encampments or city blocks, they attack abortion clinics and minority churches. And it has been shown time and time again throughout history that education and infrastructure when unbiased can eliminate this level of blind hatred coerced through someone else's political agenda.
The bottom line is that we had no legal means to invade Iraq. Bush has not apologized for this nor admitted to it. But it was the next logical stepping stone in a semi-realistic roadmap to a better middle-east which would not harbor terrorism any more than a developed region of the world (America, Britain, etc...). Democracy is the key, but if they won't use it because they don't want it, there's nothing we can do -- Iraq would be doomed to 'Illiberal Democracy,' which history has shown can be worse than totalitarianism. Iraq is quite different from Vietnam, but that doesn't mean there aren't parallels nor does that mean we will be successful.Just thought I'd share this with you.
|
|
Gandalan
Casual Zuko
Wavemaster
Posts: 979
|
Post by Gandalan on Nov 13, 2006 20:50:06 GMT -5
Well, now that cut-and-runners have control, it's all over anyway. Sorry Iraq. We did our best! I hope you don't suddenly sink into a sudden chaotic state, because then the UN might come in a love things up worse than they already are. See ya around sometime guys! *sadly treads away* ^ That's whats going to happen. So meh.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 13, 2006 21:00:04 GMT -5
Well, now that cut-and-runners have control, it's all over anyway. Sorry Iraq. We did our best! I hope you don't suddenly sink into a sudden chaotic state, because then the UN might come in a f**k things up worse than they already are. See ya around sometime guys! *sadly treads away* ^ That's whats going to happen. So meh. The Iraqis want us out more than the Democrats =)
|
|
Gandalan
Casual Zuko
Wavemaster
Posts: 979
|
Post by Gandalan on Nov 14, 2006 10:04:11 GMT -5
Well, now that cut-and-runners have control, it's all over anyway. Sorry Iraq. We did our best! I hope you don't suddenly sink into a sudden chaotic state, because then the UN might come in a f**k things up worse than they already are. See ya around sometime guys! *sadly treads away* ^ That's whats going to happen. So meh. The Iraqis want us out more than the Democrats =) "When you stop polling lower Manhattan, and projecting that as national results, then I'll believe your stupid polls." -Fox News viewer to Democratic Senator on the air Polls don't mean anything. They can say whatever the people who made them want to. They just have to ask the right people.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 14, 2006 12:46:10 GMT -5
Okay then, first of all, I'd like you to find fault with the kind of polling they did in Iraq (the one I posted earlier)
Second, if they wanted us there so bad, why do BOTH sides keep on blowing us up?
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Nov 14, 2006 15:22:14 GMT -5
The Iraqis want us out more than the Democrats =) "When you stop polling lower Manhattan, and projecting that as national results, then I'll believe your stupid polls." -Fox News viewer to Democratic Senator on the air Polls don't mean anything. They can say whatever the people who made them want to. They just have to ask the right people. You used a FOX news quote. You do realize that they're full-on Bush supporters, correct? And Grandi's right; They never wanted us there to start, and they don't want us there now.
|
|
Avatarbeefcake
Avatar Korra
"There are Hidden Air Temples"
Posts: 1,004
|
Post by Avatarbeefcake on Nov 14, 2006 15:56:16 GMT -5
I beg to differ they do want us there. The terrorists don't want us there so they can start to spread fear. The majority of the polling that takes place in Iraq is with school kids. Saw it on 60 minutes or something. I don't believe that both sides are blowing us up. If I blew up a place and said I did it because I am Democrat and hate Republican's then all of a sudden all Democrats want to blow up Republicans? I don't think so. I agree with Gandalan now that the Democrats are in control of the house and the senate we are screwed as far as Iraq is concerned. I pray that we don't pull out because we will be sentencing the Iraqi people to there own demise.
Grandi Edit- So sorry dude, I hit the modify button instead of the quote button and ended up editing your stuff.
This is what you wrote, unchanged, check it out for yourself.
Really really sorry.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 14, 2006 16:20:29 GMT -5
I beg to differ they do want us there. Proof? All the polls back me, even if some of them were off, I still have more facts behind me than you. And you still can't prove the polls were biased. First: So? Second: Proof? Both the Shiites and Sunnis have attacked US forces. First, the Democrats won because the public was tired of how the Republicans were handling Iraq Second, America messed up. We thought we could handle the Iraq situation but instead we just end up getting more and more of our own troops killed. The Iraqis aren't thankful, we messed their country up. First by invading on false pretenses, then by forcing our own style of government on them.
|
|
|
Post by demonofthewest on Nov 15, 2006 1:35:32 GMT -5
What I find funny is that Avatarbeefcake thinks we're "screwed" in Iraq now that the democrats are in control. Cause, ya know, when the Republicans were in charge, everything was going swimmingly. I can't imagine why Americans thought they should be replaced. Stupid democracy.
|
|
Gandalan
Casual Zuko
Wavemaster
Posts: 979
|
Post by Gandalan on Nov 15, 2006 8:03:37 GMT -5
What I find funny is that Avatarbeefcake thinks we're "screwed" in Iraq now that the democrats are in control. Cause, ya know, when the Republicans were in charge, everything was going swimmingly. I can't imagine why Americans thought they should be replaced. Stupid democracy. Democracy is the worst type of government except everything else. ;D Democrats are going to pull out, and Iraq is going to go belly up. It's what's going to happen, and don't say it won't, because it will. And then, when the death numbers get higher, I'll say I told you so. "When you stop polling lower Manhattan, and projecting that as national results, then I'll believe your stupid polls." -Fox News viewer to Democratic Senator on the air Polls don't mean anything. They can say whatever the people who made them want to. They just have to ask the right people. You used a FOX news quote. You do realize that they're full-on Bush supporters, correct? So what? I'll get my information/philosophy from wherever I feel like. People on these forums treat info from Fox like a taboo, but info from any other liberal mouthpiece is praised as honest and true. Cease that annoying tactic immediately. And Grandi's right; They never wanted us there to start, and they don't want us there now. If we leave now, then they won't have much left to protect themselves with. Okay then, first of all, I'd like you to find fault with the kind of polling they did in Iraq (the one I posted earlier) Second, if they wanted us there so bad, why do BOTH sides keep on blowing us up? I don't find fault with that specific poll. It's impossible, unless I know exactly who was polled. I don't trust it, however, because for all I know, it could be sponsored by Ted Kennedy, and specific people were asked because they knew what would happen when they answered. Polls are liable to be manipulated. Whether this one is or not, I don't know. I simply don't trust it, and voiced my distrust of it. I'm sure that there are regions in Iraq where a majority of people want us to stay. Both sides? We have the Islamofacists, and we have everybody else. Your saying that non-Islamofacists are blowing us up? When did THIS happen?
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Nov 15, 2006 11:17:21 GMT -5
[Democrats are going to pull out, and Iraq is going to go belly up. It's what's going to happen, and don't say it won't, because it will. And then, when the death numbers get higher, I'll say I told you so. Thanks for predicting the future. I'M SURE YOU KNOW SOMETHING THE MAJORITY OF THE U.S. POPULATION DOESN'T. Yet, polls cannot be trusted because, despite the fact that you have no evidence to the contrary, you don't like the sources. They polled a large amount of Iraqi adults, in fact, any poll with over 1000 people is considered to be indicative of the national population. Also, they polled percentagewise, both sides. Both Sunnis and Shiites. In fact most of Iraq is "Islamofacist"
|
|
Avatarbeefcake
Avatar Korra
"There are Hidden Air Temples"
Posts: 1,004
|
Post by Avatarbeefcake on Nov 15, 2006 20:42:07 GMT -5
What I find funny is that Avatarbeefcake thinks we're "screwed" in Iraq now that the democrats are in control. Cause, ya know, when the Republicans were in charge, everything was going swimmingly. I can't imagine why Americans thought they should be replaced. Stupid democracy. I'm not the only one that thinks we are screwed now that Democrats are in control. Many of the hard working citizens of Iraq I'm sure agree with me. But the terrorists thinks it's great. Since when do you speak for the majority of our country last time I checked you were one person. I agree that the Democrats will prematurely pull out our forces and Iraq will then go belly up. So all one has to do to be considered an accurate poll is find 1000 people who agree with what I do and it's accurate? First: proof. Second: Great so like I said I claim to be a democrat even though we all know I am not but I say that I am and blow something up now all Democrats are considered to be blowing things up? What about the 35 to 40 % of the Iraqi's who do want us there should we just say sorry about your luck have fun being slaughtered by the majority ethnicity. Sorry they are going to kill your families and rape and murder your wifes and children we have to go now because more than half of the people said so. We should not leave until they have stable security forces with the ability to protect themselves. If you want to watch an interesting movie on what would happen to Iraqi minorities if the Us leaves prematurely watch Hotel Rwanda. It is a great Movie and factually depicts what happens during an ethnic cleansing the same type Iraq will execute against it's minorities.
|
|