The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > If we can win in Iraq, should we?

If we can win in Iraq, should we?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Now that there is a strong chance that we might win/prevail in Iraq I find it almost incomprehensible that Obama supporters are upset that he is backing away from his earlier statements regarding troop withdrawals from Iraq.

I just wonder whether these people are upset we might win. Or whether they truly believe Iraq would be better off without coalition troops, even though there are signs that they have defeated the insurgency. Or is it that they don’t care that withdrawal would do significant harm to Iraq at a crucial stage in its evolution, revolution to democracy because they believe the war was wrong in the first place?

Does anyone truly disagree with the assessment that the insurgency is on the wane in Iraq and that this will give the coalition the breathing space to finish the reconstruction effort and cement the democratic institutions and the new Iraqi Army and Police Forces? In the end Iraq must stand on its own two feet and troop withdrawals are inevitable but shouldn’t those withdrawals be directly linked to improvements in key performance indicators like reduced violence, better service delivery, stable democracy?

Please, I know about the casualties that the Iraqis have suffered so don’t feel you need to educate me on this matter. But if we leave right when we are about to win, those deaths have been for nothing. Surely the best we can do for those who have died is leave behind a stable democratic Iraq, which is what we promised. And a stable democratic Iraq is much more likely to ensure future peace than the alternatives.

I understand that we have made Iran more powerful by some of our actions in Iraq. But surely we make them more powerful still if the country falls apart after we leave prematurely, because you can GAURUNTEE that Iran will be the one to step in and pick up the pieces.

By all means if you disagree that the coalition are actually winning let me know why you believe that. If you think we SHOULDN'T win let me know why as well?
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 7 July 2008 3:17:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no winning in Iraq, unless you occupy it for decades as a dictatorship. The USA should pay out for the damages and reparations and reconstruction then withdraw (most likely not going to happen though, because of the corporate and strategic objectives in Iraq-the Iraqi people and their rights count for nothing, make no mistake).

Your moral viewpoints on benchmarking "achievements" is leaving out the fact that those achievements are written by the occupiers and can be distorted or changed at will. Ie. Those achievements will not be beneficial to the Iraqi people, they will only be when the USA thinks it's national interests have been achieved..which again, will not be in the interests of the Iraqi people, but perhaps when the puppet regime is secure and has guaranteed US strategic deployments and becomes a US state.
Posted by Steel, Monday, 7 July 2008 5:07:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We ought to become a US state (South Hawaii sounds nice).
Its the only way to protect ourselves from China.
Anyone got a better idea for a nation that is so pathetic that it hasnt even got a citizens home guard defence force against 200,000 Indonesian Islamic soldiers and over a million Chinese soldiers just a little bit further up the road?
Both Indonesia and China have been drooling over Australia for decades.
Indonesia calls us South Irian and China calls us both New China and New South China...or didnt I mention that?
Posted by Gibo, Monday, 7 July 2008 6:06:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Did I miss something?

Where can I read about the "strong chance that we might win/prevail in Iraq"? I've had a quick look through my usual sources, and they all come up blank.

I did find this, though, from a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/strategic_reset.html?_kk=iraq%20war&_kt=2cf2bebe-707e-44f6-b4e1-0e24a98a710a

and this, although a tad biased

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

And this, which has a neat little counter that keeps track of the cost of the war. I particularly liked the statistic that last year, the amount expended, per Iraqi, was the equivalent of three times the per-capita GDP.

http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

I'd be very interested to understand better the definitions of "win" and "prevail" in this context.

In my view, the sooner the US leaves Iraq, the sooner the situation will stabilize. And the main reason for thinking this way is that I have yet to see any plans, or any ideas for plans, or any inkling that the US might have an idea how to formulate plans, that consist of stabilizing the situation through their presence in the country.

Unfortunately, I think that there may still be US politicians who think that "winning" is synonymous with "occupying", and that "leaving" is the same thing as "losing". With Obama, there is a small but real chance that he can persuade the American people that "leaving" is equivalent to "winning".
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 7 July 2008 6:38:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

I strongly recommend the following website:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.dreyfuss.html

It's a feature article by Robert Dreyfuss, intitled,
"Apocalypse Not."

It will answer the questions you ask.

Dreyfuss tells us:

"Much of Washington assumes that leaving Iraq will lead to a bigger bloodbath. It's time to question that assumption..."

"The Bush administration famously based its argument for invading Iraq
on best-case assumptions: that we would be greeted as liberators: that a capable democratic government would quickly emerge; that our
military presence would be modest and temporary; and that Iraqi oil
revenues would pay for everything. All these assumptions, of course, turned out to be wrong."

The article is only seven pages in length, and if you have an open mind - please take the time to read it.

Dreyfuss sums up:

"What most Iraqis do seem to want, according to
numerous polls, is for American forces (and their allies)
to leave. Even within the current, skewed Iraqi political system,
a majority of Iraq's parliament supports a U.S., withdrawal.
If we add to the mix the powerful Sunni-led resitance,
including former Baathists, Sunni nationalists, and tribes,
an overwhelming majority wants to end the occupation.

This shared desire could be another crucial force in helping
maintain the integrity of Iraq. The catch-22 of Iraqi politics
is that any Itaqi government created or supported by the U.S.
is instantly suspect in Iraqi eyes.

By the same token, a nationalist government that succeeds in
ushering U.S. forces out of Iraq would have overwhelming support from
most Iraqis on most sides of the conflict."
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 7 July 2008 10:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like Pericles, I'd like to know on what basis Paul.L claims that "that there is a strong chance that we might win/prevail in Iraq".

Iraq is no more "winnable" than Vietnam was, or Afghanistan will be.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 7 July 2008 10:18:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Last night Four Corners iterated the freedom losses the NSW Crime Commission has perpetrated on the citizens of NSW for what sounded like a number of years.

But not a peep from the freedom lovers who relentlessly rant about the terrorists held at Gitmo.

So to answer the following question --

Now that there is a strong chance that we might win/prevail in Iraq I find it almost incomprehensible that Obama supporters are upset that he is backing away from his earlier statements regarding troop withdrawals from Iraq.

His supporters are upset because 'they', the US Leftists are often America haters. Sounds corny, but understanding this answers many questions. Such as why do only the negative aspects of the American Social/Political scene get primarily reported (excluding the Hollywood types who have created their own universe) over, and over, and over again? This is why the news gone quiet over the last four months when the tide started to turn. In addition 80%+ of US journalists are Democrats (Labor). They hate America more than they want democracy to prevail in Iraq.

Really.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 9:58:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cowboy Joe,

Democrats hate America? Really?

Woodrow Wilson - Democrat.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Democrat.

John F. Kennedy - Democrat.

Bobby Kennedy - Democrat.

Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat.

Al Gore - Democrat.

Bill Clinton - Democrat.

Hilary Rodham Clinton - Democrat.

Barack Obama - Democrat.

An impressive list of "haters" wouldn't you say?

You may be interested to know that The Democratic Party is the older
of the two major political parties of the United States, and its played a vital role in the history and politics of the country from
1828 to the present day.

To the best of my knowledge "hatred" was never on the party's
agenda. But economic relief, recovery and reform, were.
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 11:01:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What everyone should remember is that Iraq was invaded on the basis of lies. Our own government was an accomplice. Before anyone says 'but we've changed government since', ask yourselves, has much changed since the election. Now we have a PM who mostly tells us what he can't do or that he's done all that he can. I'm sure that if he was PM in 2003, he would have told us that he 'can't avoid jumping in to help the Yanks invade Iraq'. Maybe he would still have withdrawn the troops this year but that's still five years as an invader.

Gibo, why do you keep harping on that we should become a state of the USA? You're having a joke, right?
Posted by Austin Powerless, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 11:02:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The story of Getrude Bell gives an insight into the situation at the beginning of Iraq’s formation. Many of the issues faced in Iraq back in 1920 are remarkably similar to what we are seeing today.

For example -“...There's no getting out of the conclusion that we have made an immense failure here. The system must have been far more at fault than anything that I or anyone else suspected. It will have to be fundamentally changed and what that may mean exactly I don't know.
No one knows exactly what they do want, least of all themselves, except that they don't want us.“

A link to some background about her is at -
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20691

It should also be noted that it was official British policy at the time to deliberately “keep the Middle East destabilised” and that the act of forcing together three distinctively hostile groups under the guise of one nation (Iraq) was part of that policy. Churchill himself wanted to bomb the troublesome Kurds with poison gas but was stopped because of the unsettling effect it could have on the Indian colony, so the West has a sad history in that region and one not easily forgotten.
We are the ones who helped inflict Saddam onto the Iraqis in the first place, after a series of failed and corrupt regimes and it’s pure arrogance to think that we could have bombed freedom into them.

Iran has a similar history and is also largely the result of our meddling and the same pre-war sabre rattling is well under way.

There can't be many people left who still believe it was never about the oil.

Whose interests are we really acting in – ours or theirs?

As for the Four Corners reference, that recent programme on the missing billions and corruption in Iraq was also interesting.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 11:26:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
who's this we, white man?

are you writing from falujah? under fire?

or are you another arm-chair warrior, who regards war as rugby with firearms? nobody is winning in iraq, although american oil companies remain hopeful their contracts with maliki government will bring in big dollars. so they should.

don't tell you about the casualties? rag-heads don't count, do they? should i tell you about the destroyed infra-structure? how about the collapse of education and medicine since the usmc brought democracy to the iraqis? don't want to hear about that?

so 'we' might be 'winning'? stick with the sports page, mate.
Posted by DEMOS, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 1:51:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some Quotes

>> “After years of mismanagement of the war, many people had grave doubts about whether success in Iraq was possible. In Congress, opposition to the surge from anti-war members was swift and severe. They insisted that Iraq was already lost and that there was nothing left to do but accept our defeat and retreat. In fact, they could not have been more wrong. And had we heeded their calls for retreat, Iraq today would be a country in chaos: a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al-Qa'ida and Iran. Instead, conditions in that country have been utterly transformed from those of a year ago, as a consequence of the surge. Whereas, a year ago, al-Qa'ida in Iraq was entrenched in Anbar province and Baghdad, now the forces of Islamist extremism are facing their single greatest and most humiliating defeat since the loss of Afghanistan in 2001.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23046294-7583,00.html

>> “It is beyond dispute, though, that the tide of violence in Iraq has been stemmed”.

>> “Brigadier General Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesman for the Iraq Interior Ministry, said the reduction in killings was evidence that the joint US-Iraqi security plan for Baghdad was working.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22701665-2703,00.html

>> “After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, al-Qa'ida's dwindling band of fighters had made a defiant "last stand" in the northern city of Mosul.”

>> “US and Iraqi leaders believe that while it is premature to write off al-Qa'ida in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul, and its remnants have been driven into countryside to the south.”

>> “Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has also led a crackdown on the Shia Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his Government had "defeated" terrorism.”

>> “Iraq is enjoying a surge in oil revenue driven by record crude prices and the highest production levels since Saddam's ouster. The Government expects to earn $73 billion from oil this year if prices remain high.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23978186-15084,00.html
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 2:03:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont

>> “Baghdad has seen a reduction in the number of bombings in recent months amid a steady decline in violence across the country since late last year. The capital, the epicentre of violence since 2005, has witnessed a drop in bloodshed on the back of a controversial "surge" of troops by the US military over the past year.” http://news.smh.com.au/world/iraq-attacks-kill-15-20080706-32pp.html

Increasingly, a wider circle of American observers believe that the surge has worked militarily. Now we are seeing evidence that it opens the door to political progress. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/18/measurable-improvements-in-iraq/

Pericles,
The article by the Center for American Progress who are committed to “EXPOS[ING] THE HOLLOWNESS OF CONSERVATIVE GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY” is a POLEMIC. It’s not a dispassionate look at ground truth. It’s a so called "Progressive" OPED piece. Try http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495565050121277.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

See here for a thoughtful, FULLY REFERENCED analysis as at Sept07. http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200709.noonan.iraqmetricssystem.html

There is little doubt that the situation in Iraq has been very expensive. Hopefully this has put to bed for good the inane and simplistic assertions that the US only invaded Iraq to turn a profit. Clearly this is not the case.

>> “I have yet to see any plans, or any ideas for plans, or any inkling that the US might have an idea how to formulate plans, that consist of stabilizing the situation through their presence in the country.”

I think the improving security situation, along with the improved political situation is evidence that something is working, that the current policy direction is on the right track. Indeed Obama is so impressed with Secretary of Defence Gates that he is thinking of keeping this Republican appointee on if he wins in Novemeber.

>> “I'd be very interested to understand better the definitions of "win" and "prevail" in this context.”

In this context I would consider winning to be attaining the point where Iraq has a democratically elected gov’t with the strength to defend itself from external and internal threats and the ability to provide the basic services (electricity, clean water etc) its citizens need. In that sense I have used the term win and prevail interchangeably

TBC
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 2:12:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont,

Withdrawal under those circumstances is “winning”, not “losing”, and I challenge you to provide evidence of this assertion that Bush or McCain believe that “ANY” withdrawal is a loss or that “winning” requires occupation.

Pericles >> “With Obama, there is a small but real chance that he can persuade the American people that "leaving" is equivalent to "winning".”

If premature withdrawal leads, as many believe, to a descent into full blown civil war and perhaps regional conflict and safe havens for terrorists, how is that “winning” in ANY sense of the word? Unless of course you’re a supporter of the Islamic extremists.

CJ,
I’d like to see some evidence for your assertion that Iraq is no more winnable than Vietnam or Afghanistan. Its clearly a blanket statement that takes no account of the differences between those three conflicts.

Of course it does hang on how you define win but, if you define it as I have above, it is clearly eminently possible and seemingly becoming more likely by the day.

So am I understanding you? You’re saying that winning would be OK its just that we can’t win? Is that right?

Does that go for you too Pericles?

Steel,

Steel >> “Your moral viewpoints on benchmarking "achievements" is leaving out the fact that those achievements ... can be distorted or changed at will.”

That’s just plain ridiculous. For starters KPI’s are not moral viewpoints at all. They are generally, evidentially substantiated outcomes that are agreed upon between the interested parties. Your whole “Occupiers” mentality totally ignores the fact that Iraq's elected gov’t is working with the US to defeat the insurgency and improve the infrastructure of Iraq.

>> “Those achievements will not be beneficial to the Iraqi people, ”

What ?? Is Democracy not beneficial to the Iraqis? Was getting rid of Saddam not beneficial? Are 25 Provincial reconstruction teams not beneficial to the Iraqis?

The idea that the US is doing NOTHING which is beneficial for the Iraqis could only come from someone who has a rigidly dogmatic approach to this whole situation.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 2:26:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul, you've said nothing about the USA's strategic interests in Iraq. You've said nothing about the private profits. In light of my recent thread on that subject, I would have thought it was notable.

The USA does not support democracy, except where it sees a tangible strategic benefit. Do you disagree with this? (I will get some historical information if you want to argue).

Furthermore, from a strategic perspective, Iraq becoming a Shiite democracy would be very friendly with Iran. Not really a "win" then, is it?

Yes the Iraqi government are more or less puppets at the moment. Is it surprising they are working with the USA when it is privately profitable for them to do so?

PaulL>"What ?? Is Democracy not beneficial to the Iraqis? Was getting rid of Saddam not beneficial? "

A little birdie told me there are approximately 1 million dead Iraqis to not give their opinion on that any more. That is more than Saddam was ever responsible.

you know, you did say once recently that you did not care about sovereign rights of nations that have a different way of life and political philosophy from you. You hence represent the invader and war criminal. You are the aggressor and provoker of war in these things. You are the archetypical hypocrite who believes that another country can invade another...but only if it's Us Spreading 'Democracy'. Who cares about international law?
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 3:06:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite the confident "Mission Accomplished" claim some time back, I think the US and Brits should actually be made to stay in Iraq for as long as it takes for their "dream" of a democratic and vibrant middle eastern nation to actually be achieved - no matter how long it takes or how much it costs.

Maybe they'll finally find those elusive WMDs that apparently took them there in the first place. (Although by now they are probably hidden inside those elaborate underground citadels that Bin Laden had inside built inside Afghani mountains).

While they're at it, maybe they can resolve that tricky Kurdish situation once and for all and get Turkey on side into the bargain to help establish an autonomous Kurdish State.

It's been said that if the US opens up another war front, they'll be bankrupt within a year so while they keep busy cleaning up their mess in Iraq, maybe they'll have to leave the rest of the world alone to get on with their lives.

The presence of foreign Al Quaeda fighters has always been considered to be relatively minor - about 5% of the total belligerents - so any claim of a significant overall victory is somewhat shakey.
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 2:07:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought I had already won this debate and proven that the Iraq war although not a brilliant success it was obviously the best option from are rather crappy selection of options.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1180&page=0

Steel don’t talk to me about deaths in Iraq look at the number who died while your mate Saddam was in power.

The number of children who died under the age of five - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/sanclook.htm

Seeing that most of you have criticized PaulL it seems you where pro status quo! Pro do nothing! Pro sit on your hands! And most sadly of all Pro evil dictator! While you criticise the deaths from collateral damage there is not even a peep about the hundreds of thousands who died under Saddams stewardship. These people died because people like you lot where quite happy to sit there and do nothing while Saddam went about his evil ways! And then when Australia the US and England do something to stop him who do you lot criticise? With attitudes like you people have its no wonder most of the world wont stand up to evil people. They instead prefer to look away when evil is committed and then criticise those who get off their arse to try and do something to rectify it.

The US has financial interest all over the world anywhere you intervene you could use that worn out old cliché of “they are there for the money” or in this case oil.

I remember people like you lot being critical of Australia for helping East Timor and saying Australia was only there for the oil. I guess that’s why we are in Fiji as well! Hang on Fiji has no oil! There goes that theory.

Has anybody got a better idea to helping Iraq out then staying the course? What do you think the consequences of this will be?
Posted by EasyTimes, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 12:45:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't fob off the deaths of those children onto Iraq. That's extremely disgusting.

"The sanctions resulted in high rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water. Chlorine, was desperately needed to disinfect water supplies, but it was banned from the country due to the potential that it may be used as part of a chemical weapon."

http://www.commondreams.org/views/102300-103.htm
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 2:06:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Demos,

Come to live in the real world for a day have you Demos?

It seems you have little understanding of the conflict in Iraq or you would know that Fallujah is now one of the quieter areas of Iraq.

I have a number of reasons for using “we” when I talk about this conflict, but I’ll suffice by saying that the actions being undertaken in Iraq are being carried out by OUR gov’t in OUR name.

You’re a sad sad man, Demos, I know that you loony lefters are comfortable with dictators and strongmen but even I am surprised that you could ignore the bestiality of life under Saddam Hussein. Saddam's mukhabarat and other instruments of state power were so pervasive and had Iraqis SO brutalized that they could not speak their minds for fear of the consequences. The Shiite were not only brutally repressed, their infrastructure was allowed to wither whilst Saddam built new palaces and acquired expensive armaments.

I know freedom is a concept you leftists don’t really understand. Its can be quite messy and sometimes there are great costs to pay. But only the Baathist beneficiaries of the old regime preferred life under Saddam. The explosion of inter-sect violence had its roots in Saddam’s divide and conquer ruling style and was inevitable whenever their was no longer a leader who was prepared to brutalise his own citizens to keep them in line. Any suggestion that it was the Coalition that caused the infighting in Iraq is not only wrong it is an intentional misrepresentation.

You say >> “should i tell you about the destroyed infra-structure? how about the collapse of education and medicine”

Should I need to remind you that it was the insurgents who did the vast majority of damage to infrastructure in Iraq. It is the Islamic extremists who stored arsenals in schools in order to keep them safe.

Things certainly might not be running as smoothly as under Saddam. But if that is your argument you are a very sick man with NONE of the compassion you feign to posses.

TBC,
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 3:13:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont,

The Coalition has been fighting an insurgency which has attempted, by destroying the infrastructure of public life, to make the country ungovernable. That’s a fact that you seem to gloss over in your simplistic analyses. You may well be correct that literacy or numeracy is not as good as it was under Saddam. SO WHAT?? Not only does the blame for that lie with the insurgency, but there is very strong evidence that there is improvement in all these areas. And the potential for improvement way beyond what was possible under Saddam, is now foreseeable.

Steel,

>> “Paul, you've said nothing about the USA's strategic interests in Iraq. You've said nothing about the private profits. In light of my recent thread on that subject, I would have thought it was notable.”

Sorry I haven’t seen your latest, no doubt enthralling, thread. But anyway, the idea that you should’nt be doing something which is in your strategic interest is infantile.

When a course of action like the invasion of Iraq is proposed each department is asked for assessment on how it might affect their particular portfolio. So Department of State looks at how it will affect Diplomacy and such matters, Defence will look at the military ramifications, Commerce will look at Commercial ramifications and so on. When deciding whether to act or not, all this is taken into account and if there are ticks in more than one box, then you are more likely to go ahead.

But this idea of yours that the US convinced the coalition to go to war to advance Americas oil interests is just nonsense. If it was purely a financial issue they would have cut their costs years ago. There is NO DOUBT whatsoever that the war in Iraq is not going to be a positive for the US treasury. Oil security is much worse than it was and could probably be improved by just withdrawing. So yes I have no doubt that Strategic factors influenced their decision but I would deny absolutely that they are the sole motivating factor as you propose.

TBC,
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 3:18:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont,

>> “ you did say once recently that you did not care about sovereign rights of nations that have a different way of life and political philosophy from you”

WHAT? This is absolute rubbish and borders on a lie. Show me where I said I don’t care about nations with a different way of life, Steel. What you’ve done is put your own juvenile spin on something I’ve said and attempted to feed it back to me. Well I’m not buying it mate, try again.

>> “The USA does not support democracy, except where it sees a tangible strategic benefit.”

It is this sort of childish nonsense that you seem unable to avoid. Let me run through some of the countries the US has assisted or attempted to assist to democracy. Germany, Japan, most of the old soviet bloc, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Cuba and many others.

>> “You are the aggressor and provoker of war in these things. You are the archetypical hypocrite who believes that another country can invade another...but only if it's Us Spreading 'Democracy'. Who cares about international law?”

What are you ranting about now? Tell me who, besides you and your fellow loonie-lefters, has suggested that the coalition has breached international law? The UN? NO!!. Maybe NATO? Nope again. Who’s ruling is it then Steel?? Yours?? What a joke.

Rache,

>> “The presence of foreign Al Quaeda fighters has always been considered to be relatively minor - about 5% of the total belligerents”

Its not just the foreign fighters though, Rache. Many local Sunni’s were part of Al Qaeda in Iraq and many more were operating in conjunction with this group. What is of importance here is that these Sunni Iraqi groups which were once attacking the Coalition and Shiite Iraqis have turned their allegiance back to the gov’t and the coalition and have assisted in removing Al Qaeda from their strongholds. This is a particularly important victory as it was Al Qaeda who was responsible for the much of the original Sunni-Shia atrocities.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 3:21:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The main reason for a perceived downturn in civil violence in Baghdad is due to the fact that one side effectively “won”.

The Shia now effectively control the city, and Baghdad has been ethnically cleansed. That’s why the civilian deaths are down.

The reason US military deaths are down is because Moqtada al-Sadr called a cease-fire between his Mahdi army and the US and that the the US is now working more through personnel-safe airstrikes, plus the US has temporarily bought off the Sunni insurgency so that they’ll fight Al Qaeda in Iraq instead of American soldiers.

Every savvy reporter that has spent time on the ground in Iraq says that Iraq does not really exist any more as a country, that the Iraqi government is a fiction, and that the Shia-Sunni civil war will likely re-ignite sometime soon.

Nobody knows more than the Iraqis do about what will happen if the coalition pull out, yet the last batch of statistics I read said that around 70% of Iraqis still want them to leave ther country.

I admire your optimism and I hope you’re right but I think this was just a very bad idea from the start.

According to the documentary “No end in sight” and the book “Imperial Life in the Emerald City”, the US spent two years planning the eventual occupation of Germany after WW2 but only 60 days for occupying Iraq (with a tiny agency who didn’t even meet for the first 10 days, miniscule staff and almost no resources).

We were told specifically and clearly that it was never about regime change, just disarmament. When did this change?

Some interesting background here too, plus at the author's web site.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.dreyfuss.html
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 4:23:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PaulL.>> Sorry I haven’t seen your latest thread.

you posted in it.

PaulL.> the idea that you should’nt be doing something which is in your strategic interest is infantile.

That's the way the U.S. runs it's foreign policy, so you can call them infantile if you want but it's essentially a fact.

PaulL.>"But this idea of yours that the US convinced the coalition to go to war to advance Americas oil interests is just nonsense."

I never said that. Convincing idiots is far different from private intentions....obviously. Nevertheless, lets see Brendan Nelson had to say as Defence Minister last year:

"The Australian Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson has admitted that oil was a major factor in the government's decision to keep troops in Iraq" -http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australian-troops-in-iraq-because-of-oil-456159.html

PaulL.>"but I would deny absolutely that they are the sole motivating factor as you propose."

I never said it was the sole motivating factor.

PaulL>"WHAT? This is absolute rubbish and borders on a lie. Show me where I said I don’t care about nations with a different way of life"

You made it about the Palestinian democratic elections of Hamas.

PaulL.>> "It is this sort of childish nonsense that you seem unable to avoid."

If it served the economic and political interests of the US, overthrow of democratically elected governments was routine in Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Pakistan, for example.

Also, in Iran on several occassions, including the present time:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-bush-iran-report.html

have you ever heard of the School of the Americas, Paul?

PaulL.>> "What are you ranting about now? Tell me who, besides you and your fellow loonie-lefters, has suggested that the coalition has breached international law? The UN? NO!!. Maybe NATO? Nope again. Who’s ruling is it then Steel?? Yours?? What a joke.

There you go again with your inept name-calling, even though you hold socialist views yourself. It is pathetic and it pains me to bother with your biases and prejudices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 10:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rache,

>> “The reason US military deaths are down is because Moqtada al-Sadr called a cease-fire between his Mahdi army and the US and that the the US is now working more through personnel-safe airstrikes,”

The ceasefire that you are referring to was broken by the coalition and the Iraqi gov’t. Maliki has used the Iraqi army in conjunction with Coalition forces to disarm or destroy much of the mahdi militia by moving in force into Sadr city and Basra.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/03/iraqi_security_force_11.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/26/iraq.military

Further, the fact that the Iraqi gov’t has recognized that military action must be complemented by political action in a counter revolutionary warfare environment is a good sign, not a bad one. There are viewpoints which they must accommodate, that is the nature of democracy.

Secondly, Iraqi civilian and military deaths have reduced in similar ratio to the reduction in coalition service losses. It is plain nonsense to suggest that the US has withdrawn their boots on the ground, which was at the heart of the SURGE strategy, to be replaced by AirForce bombing runs. It’s just not true.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-07-07-carbomb_N.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece

>> “Every savvy reporter … says that Iraq does not really exist any more as a country,”

This is just ridiculous. Without seeing you’re references its hard to comment but I could certainly replace “savvy” in that sentence with “left-wing” or “progressive” and be able to agree with the statement.

Certainly Iraq will only work as a loosely federated state, all the Shia-Sunni bloodletting has seen to that. But the Sunni-Shia rivalry wasn’t created by the coalition, it wasn’t even really created by Saddam, although he certainly fanned the flames. It’s a long standing rivalry which underpins much of the tension in the Muslim world. The only way Saddam kept a lid on that conflict was through brutality.

What are you suggesting Rache? That Iraq would have been better off under Saddam?

BTW It would be appropriate, if you are trying to convince anyone of the validity of your claims, to use references. (eg your claim that 70% of Iraqis want …)
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 10 July 2008 12:09:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I made a mistake in response to this statement:

PaulL.> the idea that you should’nt be doing something which is in your strategic interest is infantile.

I never claimed this, though if you are starting aggressive wars for strategic interests then you are destroying international law. My next answer covers the response a little better anyway.
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 10 July 2008 12:59:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn’t that an interesting comment;

“We win every battle but we're losing the war.”

How does this sit with Rudd’s policies?

A Qld State Labor Minister at stark odds with the Labor PM!

This is indeed interesting stuff.

I can’t wait to hear more about this.

BTW, you have my full support Judy.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 10 July 2008 9:50:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Iraq and Afghanistan were hell holes. Much of the middle east is. Unfortunately it also controls our oil resources which we make so much use of.

Much of the ME area is also the centre of an awful movement which wishes to force a narrow view of Islam on the whole world. They kill to push their case - Bali, London, New York, Madrid Mumbei etc etc.

They enslave their women and have shown that they are prepared to kill woman adulterers by throwing rocks at them. They bring up children to be suicide murderers in their cause. They prey on poor people, the selfish ME despots have created a hot house to spread their evil views.

They want you Judy Spence in a burkha and be a slave to a husband, do you want that?

The Iraq war was a bungled attempt to introduce an improvement in this area. However much has been learnt from initial mistakes should we not carry it through? Give up now and the Islamist/Taliban evil will be encouraged.
Posted by logic, Friday, 11 July 2008 12:43:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel,

>> "I made a mistake in response to this statement"

I’m glad you can recognize that as I was just about to pull you up on it. I was going to ask you which countries knowingly act against their strategic interests?

I notice the absence of any quote to support your ridiculous contention that “ [I] do not care about sovereign rights of nations that have a different way of life and political philosophy from me”.

There is a very good reason for this. It’s because I never said it. This is your particularly inept spin at work.

BTW, whose judgment is it that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal??

I was ROFLMAO at your suggestion that my views are socialist. I don’t think you actually understand what socialism means. I try to be pragmatic in my approach and can take a good idea wherever it originates. Socialism has very few good ones.

Judy Spence,

You're demonstrating your overwhelming ignorance here. We're far more advanced on the road to victory in Iraq than in Afghanistan. So your post makes no sense in that context.

I too read the article by Sally Neighbor whose words you've appropriated as your own. It's a particularly pessimistic view from “a senior ISAF officer”(who?)

It does however raise the legitimate point about Pakistani inaction over the regrouping of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal regions. Without a solution to this safe-haven problem it will be immensely difficult to win in Afghanistan.

Anyway, Sunni insurgents are now overwhelmingly being routed away from Iraq to Afghanistan, where they believe they have a chance of winning; Iraq seemingly no longer offering them that possibility.

>> “The Russians would have told us the outcome in advance.”

This is the kind of nonsense that typifies the ignorant left. No knowledge or understanding of military conflict required just an ability to make simplistic comparisons. You forget that during the Soviet occupation the mujahideen were supported by the US, Saudi and Pakistan in the most expensive covert war ever.

Ludwig see here for Spence original thoughts on this issue http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23996698-25837,00.html
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 11 July 2008 1:57:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, you are what you hate Paul. I don't envy that paradox, but you seem to rationalise it away so i guess you are unaffected by your hypocrisy in constantly "admonishing" the left.

I gave you a link to Law of war from wikipedia. In it the Geneva conventions do not make allowances for torture, which is exactly what the us has inflicted on the Iraqi people. That is just one point of many.

Also, regardless of whether your opinion on it was illegal, the setting of precedant was extremely stupid. Now if we are invaded, a country may torture us and suspend habeus corpus and mimic the circumstances in which the USA exacted it's hate onto the Iraqi people. And no one will go to trial for it. Isn't that stupid? The USA even suspended such legal and humanitarian principles for it's own ally...in it's criminal treatment of several Australian citizens. That right there shows you how much respect it has for allies and how quickly it will turn against them if it's strategic interests change.
Posted by Steel, Friday, 11 July 2008 3:14:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I loved this little throwaway line of yours, Paul.L

>>What are you suggesting Rache? That Iraq would have been better off under Saddam?<<

I couldn't answer for Rache of course, but that would be a pretty fair summary of my own thoughts on the topic.

After all, the options weren't exclusively i) a US invasion or ii) permanent Saddam rule. That would be silly.

The UN may have been dragging their feet a little, but they would have eventually reached the conclusion that a concerted effort by a broader "coalition of the willing", including such foot-draggers as the cheese-eating surrender-monkeys, was necessary to force Saddam's hand.

Who knows, faced with such unanimity Saddam may actually have backed down, and negotiated instead for a level of personal immunity for himself and his sons.

At any rate, far fewer deaths, and far less animosity towards the West in general and Christianity in particular. Lower oil prices too, I would imagine.

We'll never know, of course, thanks to trigger-happy Bush and his two lapdogs, Blair and Howard.

(Howard I can understand, of course. It was a self-image thing with him. "You see, I'm not just a clapped-out suburban solicitor doing conveyancing for middle-aged women - I'm a big man on the world stage." But Blair, I have never figured out. Show pony, yes. But a desperately venal and mendacious show pony... Full of surprises)

Your definition of "winning", has a lot to recommend it:

>>I would consider winning to be attaining the point where Iraq has a democratically elected gov’t with the strength to defend itself from external and internal threats and the ability to provide the basic services (electricity, clean water etc) its citizens need.<<

I'm just puzzled why, if you indeed believe the US is "winning", you think that their troops are needed to stick around:

>>I find it almost incomprehensible that Obama supporters are upset that he is backing away from his earlier statements regarding troop withdrawals from Iraq.<<

Obviously, Obama supporters believe the same as you: "Job Done".

You can't have it both ways.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 11 July 2008 4:33:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree. That comment was stupid. A lot of Iraq lies in ruins. They have little sovereignty. They have puppets in government and people who want to remove the puppets in an insurgency bringing war to the streets, suicide bombers who want to attack Americans and their allies. Infrastrucure destroyed by US bombs and Army. Thugs and theives roaming the streets. Not mentioning the CIA and private agencies. Much of the Iraqi heritage was stolen in the invasion. Their private possessions broken and shattered in home invasions by the occupying forces. And a million Iraqis of all ages and sexes dead, who would otherwise be alive.

December 21, 2007
Life 'better' under Saddam says vicar of Baghdad
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3084957.ece

Posted January 19, 2007.
Health Care in Iraq Was Better Under Saddam Hussein
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46856/

Life in Iraq is worse now than under Saddam, Iraqi woman tells MCC students
http://www.haleakalatimes.com/story1986.aspx
Posted by Steel, Friday, 11 July 2008 5:03:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

>> “The UN ... would have eventually reached the conclusion that a concerted effort by a broader "coalition of the willing"….”

What ?? WTF?? You like my throw away line ?? Mate after the fantasy you opened your post with I cannot for the life of me see how it is you have the gall to be snide about anything I’ve said.

So this UN you speak of. Is it the one that, after dragging its feet for years, agreed to an understrength, African armies only (ie weak and easily subverted), intervention in Darfur which is worse than doing nothing at all. Is that the UN which allowed the holocaust in Rwanda? Or is that the UN which allowed declared safehavens in Bosnia to be overrun and the occupants “cleansed”. Is it the UN which has stood by and watched while brutal dictators in Burma and China have forcefully put down democracy protests?

Tell me Pericles where exactly has the UN had “ANY” success in deterring/disarming/overthrowing tyrants in the last 50 years?

>> “Who knows, faced with such unanimity Saddam may actually have backed down ...”

And as someone else pointed out the other day, what if the moon was made of green cheese. This is speculation with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and you’re still flailing about. Saddam successfully resisted 12 years of concerted UN action and he had many examples of how to flout the UN and get away with it, to choose from.

>> “why, if you indeed believe the US is "winning", you think that their troops are needed ”

Because the stability and breathing space that the Iraqi Gov’t needs to repair Iraq’s infrastructure, bring their Army and Police forces up to speed, and cement their authority is guaranteed at the moment by coalition forces. When Iraqi forces can take over they absolutely should.

There is a difference, by the way, between winning (ie. in front but the war isn’t over) and won (Result decided). I know it doesn’t fit well with your rhethorical flourishes but it’s not a complex concept.

TBC
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 12 July 2008 11:10:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont,

So, how you get the idea that I think that the job’s done is beyond me. It’s certainly not from a reading of my posts.

My major beef is with this idea that you can schedule victory and withdrawal on a calendar. Withdrawal will (*must) happen but it should be linked to observed progress on the ground, not election cycles or some politically convenient timetable.

I'm quite amused by your characterisations of Bush, Blair and Howard. Whenever I hear the term lap dog in reference to this issue I know that I’m dealing with someone petulant about their own impotence. Grow up. It’s easy to throw derogatory comments about with abandon. You’re not actually shedding any light on the issue, just heat.

Steel,

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if health and education have slipped below standards in Tikrit or in some other of Saddam’s favoured localities. But to suggest that overall health, education and other services are worse now than in those areas where Saddam was “punishing” the residents, Ie the marsh Arabs, Kurds or the Shia is beyond comprehension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq#Suppression_of_the_uprisings
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2742/is_2002_Feb/ai_n25042482/pg_2

The word “puppet” makes me laugh. It’s such a socialist staple insult and its clichéd in the extreme. Tell me why it is you believe that Maliki’s gov’t is not a true representative of Iraq’s people? After all, they voted for him.

Even if I were to agree that services are worse now than under Saddam, what are you suggesting? Bring Saddam back from the dead? Are you seriously suggesting that Iraqis as a whole (not just his favourites) would have been better off if Saddam has continued on, and then passed the baton on to Uday or Qusay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uday_Hussein#Allegations_of_crimes_or_misconduct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qusay_Hussein#Before_the_2003_invasion

Services tend to be a bit difficult to deliver when islamo-facists are blowing up gas and electricity plants and bombing schools and hospitals. No doubt, when that is finally under control, things will start to improve fairly rapidly. But if you want to blame someone for this, blame the insurgents. The Coalition is the only side trying to build/rebuild schools and services.
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 12 July 2008 11:21:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My only defence can be that it was an easy mistake to make Paul.L

>>So, how you get the idea that I think that the job’s done is beyond me. It’s certainly not from a reading of my posts.<<

This did make me wonder how I could possibly have reached this view.

Your opening line was:

>>Now that there is a strong chance that we might win/prevail in Iraq<<

This might have set me off on a false trail, because my first question to you was "where can I read about the 'strong chance that we might win/prevail in Iraq'?", followed by "I'd be very interested to understand better the definitions of "win" and "prevail" in this context."

You came back with a whole raft of quotes, all of which suggested that it was all over bar the shouting, e.g.

>>“Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has also led a crackdown on the Shia Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his Government had "defeated" terrorism.”<<

Now you say that you didn't intend this to be taken as meaning that the job is done. Which leaves me totally confused as to the point you are trying to make.

>>There is a difference, by the way, between winning (ie. in front but the war isn’t over) and won (Result decided). I know it doesn’t fit well with your rhethorical flourishes but it’s not a complex concept.<<

(I loved that "by the way". Nice touch.)

Since as you say "it’s not a complex concept", perhaps it might help if you made matters a little clearer.

1. Who is "winning" in Iraq.

2. What are they "winning"

3. How will we be able to tell when they have "won".

Once you have clarified your position on these points it might be possible to engage more meaningfully on the topic.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 14 July 2008 9:25:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy