The Current Status of the Conflict in Iraq

[Tribesman]

I'm sorry Tribe, but I had to attend to some business for a bit, and just now got back to the Org. Do you really think that Washindton is going to let Al Malaki ruin all the hard work done so far? They will stall or ignore him until they can see him replaced.

Once the mandate runs out it runs out . As for replacing him can you name any politician or party that has said anything other than yankee go home in elections ?
Besides which any attempt to force a western backed leader on the country will backfire and be a loss .

PS: I would have thought that ridding the world of tyranny is something an Irishman would applaude.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-cZWVChgYk
No don't forget that you have just said that the local choice will be fecked out by the foriegn occupiers if he doesn't do what the occupiers want , so perhaps you should drop that tyranny line eh .

. Even if there is "victory" the majority and most especially the media will never allow it to be seen as a victory.

Dave can you envisage any event that could be called a victory using your presidents speeches of what the aims for Iraq were ?
If you can then perhaps you can moan about the media and the majority ....if not then you are trying to rewrite history to fit with your denial .

[Geoffrey S]

It's lost. Can't see the damage the invasion has done to US prestige and the region being fixed anytime soon. And how much longer can the US afford to remain there? Public opinion is turning against (has turned? Not up to date on this), probably more because of the financial burden than anything else.

[rotorgun]

[QUOTE=Tribesman;1953799]Once the mandate runs out it runs out . As for replacing him can you name any politician or party that has said anything other than yankee go home in elections ?
Besides which any attempt to force a western backed leader on the country will backfire and be a loss .

No don't forget that you have just said that the local choice will be fecked out by the foriegn occupiers if he doesn't do what the occupiers want , so perhaps you should drop that tyranny line eh .QUOTE]

Good point. We would look like a sad bunch of srubs forcing "our guy" on the Iraqis. Still, if they are dumb enough to think that they can slavage this situation without our help, then they deserve everything that will come their way. That we have gotten ourselves to this point in the first place is our fault entirely, but that doesn't mean we should just quit, now that things are getting a bit tough.

Is...is....is that - could it really be - is that a non-ironic 'why do you hate freedom?'-Louis VI the Fat

No Louis, that was just lil' ole' me, asking Tribe about tyranny, something he's an appearant expert on.

[Odin]

That we have gotten ourselves to this point in the first place is our fault entirely, but that doesn't mean we should just quit, now that things are getting a bit tough.

Well tribesman is right if the mandate runs out its over, hence the Bush boys trying to negotiate a long term defence arraingment (think south korea as a comparative). The best possible scenario would be to leave now, no mandate and no defense deal.

Otherwise your in for the long haul. 20-30 years of rebuilding, defending and dying for a country we shouldnt be in in the first place and dont want us there.

I say lets cut bait now and let the chips fall as they may, to much blood and to much treasure has been spent already Im not up for shelling out more of either.

[Tribesman]

Well tribesman is right if the mandate runs out its over, hence the Bush boys trying to negotiate a long term defence arraingment (think south korea as a comparative). The best possible scenario would be to leave now, no mandate and no defense deal.

And the problem there is that while americais trying to negotiate a defence deal the Iraqi government is doing meetings in tehran to get their defence deal ..one major condition of which is US out of Iraq .
So there is a real possibilty that Americas dream of creating a western friendly environment in mesopotania is resulting in a military pact for Iraq/Iran and Syria(and by extention Lebanon) and the majority of the other gulf states stating quite clearly that they ain't gonna play ball with the US down that road .

No Louis, that was just lil' ole' me, asking Tribe about tyranny

It works better if you ask that question and come from a country that doesn't have a long and continuing history of supporting tyrants Rotor .

[Odin]

And the problem there is that while americais trying to negotiate a defence deal the Iraqi government is doing meetings in tehran to get their defence deal ..one major condition of which is US out of Iraq .
So there is a real possibilty that Americas dream of creating a western friendly environment in mesopotania is resulting in a military pact for Iraq/Iran and Syria(and by extention Lebanon) and the majority of the other gulf states stating quite clearly that they ain't gonna play ball with the US down that road .

I have absolutely no issue with this outcome at all (admitadly I am in the minority). Let them make a deal with Iran, the iranian threat to the U.S. is vastly overstated anyway, of course Im not so out of it that I dont recognize the pro israel lobby will keep us engaged in sabre rattling.

Im all for allowing the arabs to sort out there own paths at this point, I am even willing to issue an official appology for lying about the intelligence on Iraq in the first place. However Tribes, i suspect that once we do get out of there they full impact of the sunni/shia schism will play out via proxy wars etc (to a larger extent then it is now) and oil and gas prices skyrocket, forcing us to finally get off foriegn oil.

should have happened in the 70's, sadly it didnt. Iraq is a major opportunity for the U.S. to refocus its resources and efforts internally (see signature) and remove ourselves from where we unjustly stuck our noses.

[Geoffrey S]

I have absolutely no issue with this outcome at all (admitadly I am in the minority). Let them make a deal with Iran, the iranian threat to the U.S. is vastly overstated anyway, of course Im not so out of it that I dont recognize the pro israel lobby will keep us engaged in sabre rattling.

Cheers. State has changed plenty over the years since the revolution, easily the most progressive population of the region, and the government is fast losing control over social changes.

[Odin]

Cheers. State has changed plenty over the years since the revolution, easily the most progressive population of the region, and the government is fast losing control over social changes.

Iran? I wouldnt know I find the culture less then intresting. That being said have a look at the wall my friend, the writting on it spells israeli airstrikes. There is a line in the sand in which the Israeli's, once Iran crosses it, will strike. Successfully? I dont know but I want no part of it personally however the assets are in Hormuz to assist.

The real shame is that the invasion of Iraq literally proclude us from a major intervention in Iran. Clearly they are the ones who have the nuke ambitions (yep the WMD bit on saddam didnt pan out). Wonderful that there culture is thriving and the government is loosing control, yet that magic line for israel inches ever closer and if I were putting money on it I would say that within a year there is either a major diplomatic push from the U.S. to reel the iranians in (gasp an obama summit with dinnerjacket?) or israeli airstrikes.

I prefer it happen later in 09 so we have ample time to pull out of Iraq.

[Spino]

Well tribesman is right if the mandate runs out its over, hence the Bush boys trying to negotiate a long term defence arraingment (think south korea as a comparative). The best possible scenario would be to leave now, no mandate and no defense deal.

Otherwise your in for the long haul. 20-30 years of rebuilding, defending and dying for a country we shouldnt be in in the first place and dont want us there.

I say lets cut bait now and let the chips fall as they may, to much blood and to much treasure has been spent already Im not up for shelling out more of either.

We were in it for the long haul after WW2 when we beat and occupied the largest, most powerful fascist regimes in history. True, Germany & Japan were far more technologically advanced and 'civilized' than Iraq but in the end things worked out for the best. Had we not invested in the occupation and rebuilding of those nations' governments and infrastructures they could very well have been exploited by other nations or had their population turn to radical ideologies out of desperation. The world would not be a better place if all of Germany and Japan had fallen to Communism.

Iraq is a case of 'we're damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If we pull out right now (or within one year's time) without some kind of guarantee that ensures that Iraq's security forces can provide some semblance of stability the entire region will turn into a free-for-all and is guaranteed to go up in flames. The criticism leveled at the US for abandoning the region will go from a whistling tea kettle to a to frothing, boiling cauldron. Syrian, Turkish & Iranian intrigues will come into play and play havoc with Iraq in their bid to exploit it for their own purposes. Al Qaeda will use the ensuing chaos to regain a large foothold and the remaining nations in the region will all do their part to get a piece of the pie.

Iraq is NOT Korea... or Vietnam for that matter. Korea was a question of one race of people divided sharply over ideological lines and an infamous line of latitude. Iraq is a question of race, ethnicity, religion, ideology and regional/tribal squabbles. You cannot simply divide up Iraq into two neat parts and save one while isolating and discarding the other.

A victory for the USA, but a defeat for reason and human rights.

Umm... sort of... not really... maybe. Critics of our misguided adventure in Iraq oh so conveniently forget that Iraq's former dictator, the man we deposed and helped send to the gallows, was one of the top mass murderers and human rights offenders of the 20th century. True, Saddam wasn't in the same league with Hitler, Stalin & Mao but he was definitely major league talent and most certainly made his mark on history.

Now I agree with your non-interference position in principle. You see, I'm fully prepared to let dictators, tyrannical goons and fanatics run wild in their own little corner of the world... provided of course that they are contained to their respective little . Iraq, Darfur, Kosovo, Rwanda, Haiti, Zimbabwe, etc., makes no difference to me. I couldn't give a damn if they're eating babies and raping puppies provided they do not prevent the stability, trade and general welfare of civilized nations. Anyone who feels we should take an active role in stopping these atrocities ought to just shut their trap, learn to fire a rifle and risk their own life while playing the good revolutionary so the rest of us in the civilized world can happily go on with our lives.

[Odin]

We were in it for the long haul after WW2 when we beat and occupied the largest, most powerful fascist regimes in history. True, Germany & Japan were far more technologically advanced and 'civilized' than Iraq but in the end things worked out for the best. Had we not invested in the occupation and rebuilding of those nations' governments and infrastructures they could very well have been exploited by other nations or had their population turn to radical ideologies out of desperation. The world would not be a better place if all of Germany and Japan had fallen to Communism.

Yes but this dosent adequately take into account why we were there. Those countries declared on us and were defeated, we declared on Iraq with no good reason.

Iraq is a case of 'we're damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If we pull out right now (or within one year's time) without some kind of guarantee that ensures that Iraq's security forces can provide some semblance of stability the entire region will turn into a free-for-all and is guaranteed to go up in flames.

I am pretty sure you and i have discussed this before, I personally dont care if they are floating down the tigris with crumbled up mcdonalds wrappers, face covered in grease singing "I'd like to buy the world a coke". We made a mistake going in, and everyday we are there we spend more treasure and blood to correct the mess we made. You and i disagree, Im all for letting it go down the crapper, that dosent make me right but 5 years in Im done.

Iraq is NOT Korea... or Vietnam for that matter. Korea was a question of one race of people divided sharply over ideological lines and an infamous line of latitude. Iraq is a question of race, ethnicity, religion, ideology and regional/tribal squabbles. You cannot simply divide up Iraq into two neat parts and save one while isolating and discarding the other.

It was at the time of invasion, but Korea has become an expense for the U.S. that should be borne by the south. Essentially the way I see this is we are entering tnto the long term negotiated base leases we did in korea to provide deterence for the region. It worked for the south koreans but economicially we arent in the position to go down this road again.

[Redleg]

It was at the time of invasion, but Korea has become an expense for the U.S. that should be borne by the south. Essentially the way I see this is we are entering tnto the long term negotiated base leases we did in korea to provide deterence for the region. It worked for the south koreans but economicially we arent in the position to go down this road again.

South Korea does bear some of the expense of the United States Military being in thier nation. Then again you have a misunderstanding of the United States Military mission in Korea. Should they bear more of the expense for our presence might be your real question, or is our presence still required in South Korea? One would have to look at the ongoing peace talks that are a result of the 1953 cease fire between the United Nations and North Korea. Care to intince me with your knowledge on South Korea? Then again you might want to look into the CFC and the UN mission to South Korea also.

So unless you care to address that particuler point - you might want to just stick to your points about Iraq and leave any side-bar discussion about South Korea alone.

[Odin]

Then again you have a misunderstanding of the United States Military mission in Korea. Should they bear more of the expense for our presence might be your real question, or is our presence still required in South Korea?

You're right, the inferred point I was making was the south Koreans have the resources to defend themselves. The U.S. military presence is no longer a necesity given the reality on the ground. Ongoing combat operations ceased decades ago, stationing U.S. forces in Korea as a buffer for a potential North Korean ground assault is no longer necessary IMHO.

Linking it to Iraq in the same breath as "leasing bases" was a stretch on my part to make a larger point in comparisson to what I believe will be the end game should we go down that route.

One would have to look at the ongoing peace talks that are a result of the 1953 cease fire between the United Nations and North Korea.

Again, technically your right. Assuming we continue to adhere to international commitments under the UN. My position is its no longer necessary to fufill those commitments as the U.S. has over played its international police/deliverer of freedom role.

But your point is taken, I used the Korean situation to draw a comparisson to Iraq thats based on what I think should occur, not the reality of the antiquated mission parameters and internaitonal commitment.

its been a while but as I recall the UN resolution regarding the Norths invasion was a condemnation only and asked that memebers provide support for the south korean government, the U.S. was the only nation that had the manpower via japan to act so we did. Truman gave MacAuthur authorization to use ground forces, but the action was under the UN mandate of supporting the south.

Care to intince me with your knowledge on South Korea?

My knowledge of south korea is primarily finanical, but one only needs to look at the CIA world fact book to discern that they do infact have the financial resources to muster there own defense at this point. Considering there GDP is over a trillion and they spend 3% of it (roughly) on defense I am wagering they might be able to match the North on military investment, considering we are a potential supplier.

So unless you care to address that particuler point - you might want to just stick to your points about Iraq and leave any side-bar discussion about South Korea alone.

I think given the clarifications I made in this post I have stepped back enough and provided an adequate cavaet that my infrence was in theory but not based on internaitonal law. I think its a valid comparisson in substance due to my belief that the expense we still incurr in Korea is a relic of a cold war policy relevant 50 years ago.

Again, your point is taken on the technical aspects of the various treaties/commitments we have that keeps us there, but that dosent mean they are prudent. In my view that directly compares to a sustained presence in Iraq, it isnt a prudent expenditure of treasure and assets.

Nor was defending foreign entities with federal tax dollars and intent of the constitution. So is that a tangent as well Redleg? Or a valid remark based on historical precedent? I claim the later but if you dont think so, fine I will defer to the cavaets already given in the post, but stand firm by the comparissons made.

references:

1. http://www.korean-war.com/TimeLine/K...hronology.html

2. https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/ks.html

[Viking]

Umm... sort of... not really... maybe. Critics of our misguided adventure in Iraq oh so conveniently forget that Iraq's former dictator, the man we deposed and helped send to the gallows, was one of the top mass murderers and human rights offenders of the 20th century. True, Saddam wasn't in the same league with Hitler, Stalin & Mao but he was definitely major league talent and most certainly made his mark on history.

Now I agree with you in principle. You see, I'm fully prepared to let dictators, tyrannical goons and fanatics run wild in their own little corner of the world... provided of course that they are contained to their respective little s--tholes. Iraq, Darfur, Kosovo, Rwanda, Haiti, Zimbabwe, etc., makes no difference to me. I couldn't give a damn if they're eating babies and raping puppies provided they do not prevent the stability, trade and general welfare of civilized nations. Anyone who feels we should take an active role in stopping these atrocities ought to just shut their trap, learn to fire a rifle and risk their own life while playing the good revolutionary so the rest of us in the civilized world can happily go on with our lives.

Oh, let's look at what the UN defines as human rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html):

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

And then look at the figures for casualties since the war started; let's operate with Reuter's numbers :

United States 4,106

Britain 176

Other nations 137



IRAQIS:

Military Between 4,900 and 6,375#

Civilians Between 85,141 and 92,871*

Closing on the numbers of Saddam's Al-Anfal Campaign; the massacre of Kurdish civilians. That's not the point though, AFAIK there was no reason expect more massacres.

[Geoffrey S]

Iraq is a case of 'we're damned if we do, damned if we don't'. If we pull out right now (or within one year's time) without some kind of guarantee that ensures that Iraq's security forces can provide some semblance of stability the entire region will turn into a free-for-all and is guaranteed to go up in flames. The criticism leveled at the US for abandoning the region will go from a whistling tea kettle to a to frothing, boiling cauldron. Syrian, Turkish & Iranian intrigues will come into play and play havoc with Iraq in their bid to exploit it for their own purposes. Al Qaeda will use the ensuing chaos to regain a large foothold and the remaining nations in the region will all do their part to get a piece of the pie.

Criticism be damned. While not supporting an illegitimate war I can understand, if this ship sinks, it is just as much due to inaction on the part of almost the entire Western world - stepping beyond an 'I told you so' mentality was clearly something most so-called allies of the US were incapable of.

The US government made huge mistakes in attempting to restructure Iraq, but there was no reason for the rest to take the initial unilateral approach as a permanent given.

I know what your saying, your just not backing it up with any fact other then your opinion on what they believe to be relevant or irrelevant.

Try, generally closed borders and a lack of support for, and even opposition to, homegrown Palestinian organizations over the last few decades.

I understand what your saying, but it dosent support or deny the argument of able to defend and prevent, its conjecture. on the other hand the examples I have given are facts to support my claim that israel can enact the airstrike, its more then my opinion.

I am not supporting or denying the argument of being able to defend, attack or whatever - simply saying that the examples you did give are not applicable in trying to argue either way.

But this is clearly going in circles. I'd prefer to let someone else untangle this.

[Odin]

I am not supporting or denying the argument of being able to defend, attack or whatever - simply saying that the examples you did give are not applicable in trying to argue either way.

But this is clearly going in circles. I'd prefer to let someone else untangle this.

I dont see how historic air campaigns against hostile nations cant be applicable examples. Anyway I am all for agreeing to disagree. Im kind of waiting on Tribes reply anyway, the same logic applies really, we have a tangiable example of an action taken vs a supposed theory of intent.

However I enjoyed the back and forth I will happily give you the last word if you want it, Im about done in this thread too.

[Tribesman]

No you dont get it because you havent provided a reason or rational as to what would prevent them. The 3 countries thus far havent stopped Israels occupation of palastine but they are going to stop airstrikes in Iran?

Of course , since the airstikes will require at least two inflights which lengthens the time and size of the package considerably , unless they go the really long way round on the way back (which would beyond their refueling capability anyway).

Also, I dont suggest it wont involve an all out assault from Iran, however you neglected to address the historical precedent of israeli action on past nuclear sites on arab nations that they were at war with at the time.

Over much shorter ranges with less political complications and after single isolated targets , so what you are neglecting with your "precedent" is that they were completely different . So your tangible example isn't an example at all . Needless to say that even after both Iran and Isreal had bombed that target the US still had to bomb it many many times using large amounts of aircraft .

So Odin since Israel doesn't have the ability to do the job the job is not going to be done by Israel no matter how much you like to think that the writing is on the wall . Remember this Iranian program is put together in light of events at Osirak and planned against the possibility of US strikes from naval assets or allied airbases .
which means you should think a little more before writing....

on the other hand the examples I have given are facts to support my claim that israel can enact the airstrike, its more then my opinion.

because you is doing that apples are oranges thing .

Critics of our misguided adventure in Iraq oh so conveniently forget that Iraq's former dictator, the man we deposed and helped send to the gallows, was one of the top mass murderers and human rights offenders of the 20th century.

Wow has someone forgotten that when Iraqs former dictator was doing them mass murders it was certian governments that were helping him do it because he was their cute little puppy