What is really going on in Iraq?

[Don Corleone]

It is public secret that Iran had influence in Shiite Iraqi Government.

Newsflash: Sky is blue. What has either of these 'secrets' got to do with partitioning Iraq into three states?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Would 400k initially have done it? NO -- but the hole dug for us in the initial aftermath/"mission accomplished" phase wouldn't have been as severe.

We needed to have the 10 divisions Redleg suggests, quickly supplemented by another 5-10, plus all of our coalition allies.

You need lots of boots for a proper subjugation.

Return army units to barracks and disarm immediately but demobilize in a controlled fashion. Separate the bad eggs from the good ones, keep as many of the latter as possible as cadre. As it was, we just let them fade away...

Establish rigorous control over water, power, transportation and commo infrastructure. Develop plans to improve and extend all of these services.

Maintain existing civilian control structures in place with coalition "watchdogs," gradually collecting info on who needs to be: promoted, kept, let go, or shot.

Hammer the crap out of any nascent insurgency efforts using slightly more force than is required.

THEN you begin the road toward democracy. Democracy can emerge from chaos, but this is rare. Most culture groups are more likely to move towards it when moving from a physically -- if not politically/culturally - secure basis.


So far, the USA hasn't shown itself willing to undertake that kind of arduous -- and messy and occasionally repressive -- task in hand for some time. Like, about 60 years.



Additionally, the central player in the drama that embraces everything between the Tigris and Islamabad hasn't been brought openly onto the stage. The only intelligent reason for taking on Iraq when we did was to put Iran in a box between a somewhat secular, democratic Iraq and a somewhat secular, democratic Afghanistan. Our unwillingness -- mostly for political reasons as Redleg asserts -- to commit the resources necessary to make that happen in Iraq has allowed Iran to wage war against us "on the cheap" with no repurcussions.


There was a time when the USA, with its soldiers deployed in the field in an action sanctioned by Congress -- don't let me get off on their abrogation of Constitutional responsibility, would have responded much differently to clear evidence of foreign support for -- and tactical leadership of -- insurgents who were killing U.S. soldiers. Do the words Casus Belli ring a bell? That time is apparently long past.

[Idaho]

Basically more cops walking the beat in bad neighborhoods and engaging in aggressive policing means there will be fewer opportunities for criminals to do their dirty work unhindered (i.e. insurgents planting massive roadside IED ambushes in Iraq).

You've missed the point here. The Sunni insurgents are fighting Shia militia, Shia secret police death squads and the US forces. To compare it to the law and order problem in US cities is frankly laughable.

[doc_bean]

So what do you purpose we (or the US) do to rectify the situation ?

[Idaho]

Our aversion to killing and our enemy’s inability to do anything else is what has screwed our efforts in Iraq. More troops will help but the real trick is having a civilized people that want democracy and can agree to work it as their system. It seems that most of Iraq wants the benefits of democracy but only if their party is dominant, and if it is not, it’s fighting time, not voting time.

That is extremely niaive. When you have armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soliders and secret police, you aren't going to be that impressed by a concerted leaflet campaign by you prospective parliamentary candidate

[Idaho]

So what do you purpose we (or the US) do to rectify the situation ?

Accept that you can't have a US-centric and controlled Iraq and start dealing directly with Iran and Syria.

[yesdachi]

So what do you purpose we (or the US) do to rectify the situation ?

We need to kick out the media, decide who we want to be the bad guys and then kill them; you can’t win a war by allowing your enemies to live. Who can we get along best with? Pick them and kill everyone else. Make Iraq the 53 state (after the Virgin Islands and Porta Rico) and have cheep enough oil that we can have afford free fricking health care (offering the health care is the only to get the left behind it). Once established as a state, control everything in Iraq so that the only way to receive anything (food, water, medicine, etc.) is with a token that can only be obtained by turning in an Iranians head. This way we control the Iraqis animalistic blood lust by focusing their aggressive needs on our nuclearly deprived “evil” enemies. Smidgen of sarcasm in every bite.

[Pannonian]

There was a time when the USA, with its soldiers deployed in the field in an action sanctioned by Congress -- don't let me get off on their abrogation of Constitutional responsibility, would have responded much differently to clear evidence of foreign support for -- and tactical leadership of -- insurgents who were killing U.S. soldiers. Do the words Casus Belli ring a bell? That time is apparently long past.

Perhaps, but isn't most of the support coming from Saudi and Jordan to the Sunni insurgents who are doing most of the damage? Isn't it the case for at least a decade now that most of the funding for anti-American actions has come from US allies?

[yesdachi]

That is extremely niaive. When you have armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soliders and secret police, you aren't going to be that impressed by a concerted leaflet campaign by you prospective parliamentary candidate

You are strengthening my point. If the “armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soldiers and secret police” were civilized people that were working within the system it wouldn’t be a problem, but instead their “party” is not dominant so they strike out with violence. The “Why vote for something you don’t like when you can just blow it up.” attitude makes a democracy impossible.

Originally Posted by yesdachi
Our aversion to killing and our enemy’s inability to do anything else is what has screwed our efforts in Iraq. More troops will help but the real trick is having a civilized people that want democracy and can agree to work it as their system. It seems that most of Iraq wants the benefits of democracy but only if their party is dominant, and if it is not, it’s fighting time, not voting time.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@ Pannonian:

Possibly true. Certainly true if you consider private Saudi funding that hasn't been effectively squelched by the Saudi government to be a violation.

I'm just a little tired of leadership that wants to fight a war without declaring war; that wants to project power without accepting the price of that projection; that pretty much always tries to have its cake and eat it too -- even when history tells us that only is successful once in a very blue moon. Most insurgencies fail -- a simple lesson of history -- they win only when they cease to be an insurgency and win or at least hold their own in the "open field" or when the dominant power they face decides to quit. The USA has become prone to quitting. Despite the best military on the planet, we could arguably be viewed as a collection of candy-asses. This would be far less of a problem if we were in our old isolationist mode, but it's a pretty stupid way to do business if you're going to be a world power.

One of my favorite stories is a profile in political courage is Jeanette Rankin. That lady was one of only 49 representatives to vote against our entry into WW1. She was ousted in the next election. She finally managed to return to Congress 20 years later in 1940. She was the only person to vote against our declaration of war upon Japan. She was ousted again.

I don't like her politics -- she was a pacifist and socialist and quasi-communist -- but I have always admired her grit. We have few political leaders today who are willing to take a stand and pay the price as did she. I think we'd be better off if we had a few more.

[caravel]

Newsflash: Sky is blue. What has either of these 'secrets' got to do with partitioning Iraq into three states?

Repartitioning Iraq into the old Ottoman Vilayets of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra and creating independent states from these, would probably be the same as effectively handing them over to their interested neighbours yes. But what other solution is there that doesn't involve countless more deaths and increased militancy for decades to come?

[Pannonian]

One of my favorite stories is a profile in political courage is Jeanette Rankin. That lady was one of only 49 representatives to vote against our entry into WW1. She was ousted in the next election. She finally managed to return to Congress 20 years later in 1940. She was the only person to vote against our declaration of war upon Japan. She was ousted again.

I don't like her politics -- she was a pacifist and socialist and quasi-communist -- but I have always admired her grit. We have few political leaders today who are willing to take a stand and pay the price as did she. I think we'd be better off if we had a few more.

We have a whole bunch of them: hardline leftwingers who oppose any war, rightwing xenophobes who like nothing more than to give foreigners a good kicking, left and right wingers who want an isolationist Britain of differing models. All of them are regarded as lunatics whom the electorate wouldn't want to see in power in a thousand years. Yet they are constantly re-elected, because their lack of prospects for cabinet power means they have time to be extremely good constituency MPs. And you know what, despite their wildly opposing political views, they are often good friends with each other, not only because of their political convictions, but also because their "eccentricity" makes them interesting company, sharing a drink as they sneer at the middle ground which they refuse to occupy.

Look up the career of Glenda Jackson, who has pursued an unrelenting feud against Blair ever since she was sacked from a junior ministry for refusing to toe the Blairite line (she's an unrepentant socialist). She's one of a group of troublemakers who can be relied on to vote against anything that smacks of New Labour. Their antics can be quite entertaining.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

One of the major problems with how the Us went about the war is this.

The US Army does not listen to anyone at all, they were messing things up a lot and not training the troops for what they would be doing whilst over there, but wouldnt listen to anyone who said so.

The lack of training meant that scared kids got trigger happy and kill a lot of people for no reason, by the time the fresh troops got to understand the AOO they would be shipped off as the tours were too short (6 months i think) with little to no phase out, i.e some of the current solders stay to help ease the next bunch in.

The army was not equipped for the job at hand, Hmvee's were not fitted out as they should be. for example.

Arty was used on civilians.

Services are still not reliable.

The CPA did not spend any time training locals.

the contracts for recontrustion were a complete sham. they should of be opened up and to international companies.

Iran and the saudis should of been brought in to help with the oil constructions


the baathist should of been giving positions in the new structures of governance

the Iraqi army should of been put under joint iraqi/us control and spent to areas out of the cities to test them out and as a process of trust building.




On a big side note; does it take a man like Saddam to control the messy brood in Iraq? and if it does, was he such a bad man?

[Redleg]

One of the major problems with how the Us went about the war is this.

The US Army does not listen to anyone at all, they were messing things up a lot and not training the troops for what they would be doing whilst over there, but wouldnt listen to anyone who said so.

The lack of training meant that scared kids got trigger happy and kill a lot of people for no reason, by the time the fresh troops got to understand the AOO they would be shipped off as the tours were too short (6 months i think) with little to no phase out, i.e some of the current solders stay to help ease the next bunch in.

The army was not equipped for the job at hand, Hmvee's were not fitted out as they should be. for example.

Arty was used on civilians.

Services are still not reliable.

The CPA did not spend any time training locals.

the contracts for recontrustion were a complete sham. they should of be opened up and to international companies.

Iran and the saudis should of been brought in to help with the oil constructions


the baathist should of been giving positions in the new structures of governance

the Iraqi army should of been put under joint iraqi/us control and spent to areas out of the cities to test them out and as a process of trust building.




On a big side note; does it take a man like Saddam to control the messy brood in Iraq? and if it does, was he such a bad man?

You realize how naive about the military your initial part of the post sounds. Three divisions on the ground destroyed the Iraqi Military with abosolutely no problem. Criticize the United States Military's ability to conduct an occupation and your dead on. Critizing the ability for the military to fight battles against other armed forces and your going down the wrong track.

Fighting battles the US military is good at, keeping the peace and performing occupation duty we suck. We can not handle the political aspect of doing so. We don't train for it, and we don't learn lessons from other nations in regard to that. Our political appratus within the military often gets itself in trouble,

Care to guess how long a man can function in a combat environment before they should be rotated out? Several studies by different militaries have been done in this regard.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

You realize how naive about the military your initial part of the post sounds. Three divisions on the ground destroyed the Iraqi Military with abosolutely no problem. Criticize the United States Military's ability to conduct an occupation and your dead on. Critizing the ability for the military to fight battles against other armed forces and your going down the wrong track.

Fighting battles the US military is good at, keeping the peace and performing occupation duty we suck. We can not handle the political aspect of doing so. We don't train for it, and we don't learn lessons from other nations in regard to that. Our political appratus within the military often gets itself in trouble,

Care to guess how long a man can function in a combat environment before they should be rotated out? Several studies by different militaries have been done in this regard.

No one ever doubted that the biggest military in the world could destroy the Iraqi army, by all reports it (the iraqi army) was not that strong after all. the point i was making was, that fighting armies is the easy bit, reaching bad-dags is the easy part. staying there and sorting out the god-forsaken mess that it creates is hard part and thats the part where things went seriously wrong.

The politics is another area where things went very wrong, both the administration and also the armies ability to handle the local population, blend in a little and not being seen as all that different from the locals. also not arresting people for no reason would of help as well.

the point with the 6 months rotations is that the locals and the soldiers start to understand each other and things start to almost become a state of "normal" then the solders up and go and the locals need to get shot to bits while the new guys get used to it all over again... this was not very well thought through at all, and could of saved a lot of ill will towards the army. This is something that the british and even better the australians do very very very well.

[Redleg]

No one ever doubted that the biggest military in the world could destroy the Iraqi army, by all reports it (the iraqi army) was not that strong after all. the point i was making was, that fighting armies is the easy bit, reaching bad-dags is the easy part. staying there and sorting out the god-forsaken mess that it creates is hard part and thats the part where things went seriously wrong.

Then you should of stuck with your point. Oh by the way the United States military is not the biggest in the world. At least one other nation has that honor.

Your previous attempt like I stated was naive, this is much better.

The politics is another area where things went very wrong, both the administration and also the armies ability to handle the local population, blend in a little and not being seen as all that different from the locals. also not arresting people for no reason would of help as well.

Have you ever been there? Do you realize how much an American Serviceman or woman stands out compared to the local population. Give you a hind blending in was not an option? What the United States planners failed to take in consideration was how many soldiers it would take to successfully occupy a country. Give you a hint - we would have had to take all our forces both Active and National Guard to do a proper occupation. So we where short from the get-go.

Then again you won't want to hear what soldier's state needs to be done to sort out the occupation, its rather simple and effective. But the politicans won't want to even get close to going there. So its rather a simple fact as someone alreadly mentioned. Bush is looking for a way to have an exit, which isn't going to happen until some type of agreement is struck with Iran - one that will surely be broken as soon as the United States withdraws.

the point with the 6 months rotations is that the locals and the soldiers start to understand each other and things start to almost become a state of "normal" then the solders up and go and the locals need to get shot to bits while the new guys get used to it all over again... this was not very well thought through at all, and could of saved a lot of ill will towards the army. This is something that the british and even better the australians do very very very well.

Again your mis-informed the rotations are one year. Your point about getting to know the population is valid - but once again how long can a man maintain is sanity in a combat zone? I see you avoided answering the question. Are you so sure about the brits and the aussies - I have heard that they also rotate out every year.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The USA does not have the political will to do in Iraq what was done in the Phillipines. Unfortunately, I think half-measures are less than adequate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the entire American view on occupation is screwy, no offense. The British go through three stages.

Peace Keeping

Peace Enforcment

War Fighting

The US forces, by accounts from British senior servicemen and their American counterparts do not understand the first, have trouble with the second and then default to the third. It is not a question merely of manpower, but of handling the situation.

Question: In Bosnia what were the two things that came out of every Warrior when it stopped?

Redleg: I believe breaking point is 140-180 days by US studies from WWII. That's about six months, which is what British troops spend in theatre, and twice what Americans did in Vietnam.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

Alright bear with me hear, lets see how i go.

to highlight the point i am making about fitting in with the local population, i don't mean dress in local drab, live in huts and eat goats. I mean making concerted efforts to establish good relations with the local community, this takes a little bit of understanding and a little understanding local customs. A great example of the difference is by this. In the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan an Australian SAS patrol lived with the various villages around the area, making a concerted effort to understand the locals and getting the locals to trust them, so if things were happening the locals would be the eyes and ears for the patrol. the area in question is huge. after several months the 8 Australian SAS men were replaced by 1000 US marines, who built a huge base and never once tried to relate or build trust and understanding with the locals, the locals in turn stopped providing any information to them. the 1000 marines failed where 8 sas had done so much. boots on the ground does no one any good if you turn the local popultion against you due to over-whelming force, the pointless killing of innocent civilians and bad policy like arresting people based of nothing more then accusations of rival families or tribes.

Of cause bush is looking for an exit, he has 2 years to turn iraq into a non-issue for the elections or the republicans will loose the power they had dreamed off through the Clinton era. The republican party is basically now looking ahead to the next election and will be only doing things or saying things that give it a chance in 08.

The rotations were changed in the 2nd year of the war weren't they? as well as the rule of how many tours soldier's could do, as well as calling up any newly retired service personnel? and my point is not the the soldiers shouldn't be rotated but it is that they should be phased, so that the new guys learn from some vets until they ease into it. this was not done at the start at least.


FYI. My experience that i use to make most of my comments comes from the time i spent in East Timor during the UNMISET. I was there as a contractor teaching, instructing and reporting. i know quite a few Australian SAS who had/have/are working in Afghanistan, Iraq and timor. i have read a fair bit about all things iraq/Afghanistan and indo. whilst not a serviceman i would consider myself well-enough versed to comment on issues involved in nation building, peacekeeping, occupation.

[Redleg]

I think the entire American view on occupation is screwy, no offense. The British go through three stages.

Peace Keeping

Peace Enforcment

War Fighting

The US forces, by accounts from British senior servicemen and their American counterparts do not understand the first, have trouble with the second and then default to the third. It is not a question merely of manpower, but of handling the situation.

Question: In Bosnia what were the two things that came out of every Warrior when it stopped?

Redleg: I believe breaking point is 140-180 days by US studies from WWII. That's about six months, which is what British troops spend in theatre, and twice what Americans did in Vietnam.

Yes indeed you have referenced the study that I was refering to.

[Redleg]

Alright bear with me hear, lets see how i go.

to highlight the point i am making about fitting in with the local population, i don't mean dress in local drab, live in huts and eat goats. I mean making concerted efforts to establish good relations with the local community, this takes a little bit of understanding and a little understanding local customs. A great example of the difference is by this. In the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan an Australian SAS patrol lived with the various villages around the area, making a concerted effort to understand the locals and getting the locals to trust them, so if things were happening the locals would be the eyes and ears for the patrol. the area in question is huge. after several months the 8 Australian SAS men were replaced by 1000 US marines, who built a huge base and never once tried to relate or build trust and understanding with the locals, the locals in turn stopped providing any information to them. the 1000 marines failed where 8 sas had done so much. boots on the ground does no one any good if you turn the local popultion against you due to over-whelming force, the pointless killing of innocent civilians and bad policy like arresting people based of nothing more then accusations of rival families or tribes.

Of cause bush is looking for an exit, he has 2 years to turn iraq into a non-issue for the elections or the republicans will loose the power they had dreamed off through the Clinton era. The republican party is basically now looking ahead to the next election and will be only doing things or saying things that give it a chance in 08.

The rotations were changed in the 2nd year of the war weren't they? as well as the rule of how many tours soldier's could do, as well as calling up any newly retired service personnel? and my point is not the the soldiers shouldn't be rotated but it is that they should be phased, so that the new guys learn from some vets until they ease into it. this was not done at the start at least.


FYI. My experience that i use to make most of my comments comes from the time i spent in East Timor during the UNMISET. I was there as a contractor teaching, instructing and reporting. i know quite a few Australian SAS who had/have/are working in Afghanistan, Iraq and timor. i have read a fair bit about all things iraq/Afghanistan and indo. whilst not a serviceman i would consider myself well-enough versed to comment on issues involved in nation building, peacekeeping, occupation.

Teaching as a civilian is different then combat operations - you should be able to get that answer from your SAS friends. It effects everyman different. Some handle the stress with ease, other crack. Hince the reference to the study.

Try it sometime its a lot more difficult to be a soldier facing combat then a civilian in a war zone. And the rotations are phased if one looks at the actually deployment cycles

Here try this site it links a lot of information to include the troop deployment announcements.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nstruction.htm

[Idaho]

We need to kick out the media, decide who we want to be the bad guys and then kill them; you can’t win a war by allowing your enemies to live. Who can we get along best with? Pick them and kill everyone else. Make Iraq the 53 state (after the Virgin Islands and Porta Rico) and have cheep enough oil that we can have afford free fricking health care (offering the health care is the only to get the left behind it). Once established as a state, control everything in Iraq so that the only way to receive anything (food, water, medicine, etc.) is with a token that can only be obtained by turning in an Iranians head. This way we control the Iraqis animalistic blood lust by focusing their aggressive needs on our nuclearly deprived “evil” enemies. Smidgen of sarcasm in every bite.

You try and disguise this drivel by claiming at the end that there is some sarcasm in your post. Of course in order to cut yourself free from this schoolboy nonsense you can claim that it was all sarcasm. You get the option of presenting cloud-cuckoo stuff without really having to intellectually defend it.

From your other posts we can make a reasonable assumption that you do believe the basic thrust. That some how all that is needed is to find "bad guys" and kill them. Like life was some kind of video game. Unfortunately for the rest of us, your government shares this same kind of thinking.

In your other post you say how the problem is that Iraqis aren't civilised. That after the US kindly and generously came and blew up much of the country, starved it with sanctions for 10 years then blew it up again and removed all functions of the state; that it is the Iraqis basic brutal nature to rove around a lawless country in militia bands.

Son, come back in 20 years when you've learnt a little about life

[Idaho]

Who can we get along best with? Pick them and kill everyone else.

Probably, on balance, the Sunnis were your better bet. What you should have done was pick a secularist strong man from amongst the Sunnis. Someone who could keep a lid on things but keep the oil flowing. Someone who we can deal with but who will act as a bulwark against Iran.





Doh!

[Ronin]

Probably, on balance, the Sunnis were your better bet. What you should have done was pick a secularist strong man from amongst the Sunnis. Someone who could keep a lid on things but keep the oil flowing. Someone who we can deal with but who will act as a bulwark against Iran.





Doh!

indeed an ups! moment.

wasn´t saddam supposed to have a bunch of look-a-likes?

maybe they can find one of them...tell everyone it´s the real Saddam and the guy who died was a fake....hey...maybe it´ll work.....with the way things are going over there it doesn´t look like such a bad plan anymore

[DukeofSerbia]

Newsflash: Sky is blue. What has either of these 'secrets' got to do with partitioning Iraq into three states?

Because Iraq obviously can be ruled only by dictator, or divide people how can't live together in democratic conditions.

The same was with former socialist Yugoslavia. There is still "multicultural and multi ethic" Bosnia were foreign rule only can guarantee peace among Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. Serbs want to unite with Serbia, Croats with Croatia, and Bosniaks who want to assimilate the first two (currently they do it to Croats).

Only solution for Iraq is three separate states or loose federation with Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish parts.

[KrooK]

Problem with Iraq is that Bush (short version of word idiot) expected that there will be society ideal like American. People who feel national identity, don't have real fairth (by real I mean strong) and complety without big social connections.
Then they noticed that people of Iraq is completely different. That they can easy organise themselves and they want fight in the name of god. So that they established "iraqui autonomic government" - count mostly from Iraqui emigrants.
Bush forgot to check who are those emigrants - actually big part of them were drug dealers. So we had corrupted government and american soldiers without any respect for culture and tradition of Iraq. And when they started torturing people into Abu Graib, they became nice targets :)
Americans should do better into 2002 - they should establish new government on tribal and religious leaders. That would help them control society because family connections would be supported by respect of religion.

Now Americans have to smile when Juba shot.

[yesdachi]

You try and disguise this drivel by claiming at the end that there is some sarcasm in your post. Of course in order to cut yourself free from this schoolboy nonsense you can claim that it was all sarcasm. You get the option of presenting cloud-cuckoo stuff without really having to intellectually defend it.

From your other posts we can make a reasonable assumption that you do believe the basic thrust. That some how all that is needed is to find "bad guys" and kill them. Like life was some kind of video game. Unfortunately for the rest of us, your government shares this same kind of thinking.

In your other post you say how the problem is that Iraqis aren't civilised. That after the US kindly and generously came and blew up much of the country, starved it with sanctions for 10 years then blew it up again and removed all functions of the state; that it is the Iraqis basic brutal nature to rove around a lawless country in militia bands.

Son, come back in 20 years when you've learnt a little about life

Drivel? That’s a fun little cha cha cha! Of course it is all a bunch of nonsense, nothing I said is realistic (Porta Rico would surly be a state before the Virgin Islands). The US or any western country hasn’t got the guts to kill (not since WWII) and if they did, killing all the enemies in Iraq… would leave the country completely empty.

Want me to intellectually defend something, look back to my earlier post like you mentioned where I call the Iraqis uncivilized. Sure the US fought with them (Iraq) but why? Because they wouldn’t play nice and we are brash suckers, we helped Saddam out and he repaid us by opposing us every chance he had, breaking UN rules, rewarding terrorists, taunting us with the threat of WMDs, etc. He had power over the country, he didn’t need to demonize the US to maintain his authority, he could have stayed our “friend” but he was an egotistical maniac who suckered us into destroying him and making the biggest military blunder in memorable history (the occupation of Iraq). Now with Saddam removed from power and given the opportunity to have a free country with a desired democracy some Iraqis have shown a great desire to make their new democracy work but others cant accept a “new” civilized government where blowing things up doesn’t get you control of the country. They are not grasping the civilized idea of forming a party and running for election, even of a small area (town/village) they wish to control. Democracy is civilized, voting is civilized, protecting your family rather then bringing danger to them is civilized… “armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soldiers and secret police” is NOT civilized. Maybe civilized is the wrong word, perhaps stupid is or insane. Isn’t the definition of insane something like repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Seems like they have been in a pattern of violence with each other and opposing the US for sometime and it has only given them the same results. Maybe to break their pattern, they should ignore other puppet masters like Iran and ally themselves with and embrace the ideas of a prosperous country that respects life and enjoys freedom and relative peace. Oh, but wait, that would be too civilized for a bunch of stupid, insane, religious zealots that cant see they are ruining everything for everyone else in their country.

Defend the Iraqis and paint the US as the bad guys all you want. Tonight I am going to have dinner with my family without worrying about were the food will come from or if I am going to be blown up, on Sunday I will go to one of the dozens of different churches in my area without worrying about being blown up and next election I will vote fore for my favorite candidate and when they loose, I am not going to try and blow them up. I am going to give to charity, send my child to school, have a productive job and not at the cost of blowing up my neighbors for giving to different charities, attending different schools or working at different jobs. I wish the Iraqis could understand that they could have those same civilized options.

[Idaho]

Drivel? That’s a fun little cha cha cha! Of course it is all a bunch of nonsense, nothing I said is realistic (Porta Rico would surly be a state before the Virgin Islands). The US or any western country hasn’t got the guts to kill (not since WWII) and if they did, killing all the enemies in Iraq… would leave the country completely empty.

It's not about guts, it's about the fact that mass slaughters and major wars of conquest are ultimately counter-productive, as a basic reading of history would show you.

Want me to intellectually defend something, look back to my earlier post like you mentioned where I call the Iraqis uncivilized. Sure the US fought with them (Iraq) but why? Because they wouldn’t play nice and we are brash suckers, we helped Saddam out and he repaid us by opposing us every chance he had, breaking UN rules, rewarding terrorists, taunting us with the threat of WMDs, etc. He had power over the country, he didn’t need to demonize the US to maintain his authority, he could have stayed our “friend” but he was an egotistical maniac who suckered us into destroying him and making the biggest military blunder in memorable history (the occupation of Iraq).

What a bizzare version of events. I don't think there is a single clause in there that I would agree to. Beyond crass generalisation and on the rocky road to sophistry

Now with Saddam removed from power and given the opportunity to have a free country with a desired democracy some Iraqis have shown a great desire to make their new democracy work but others cant accept a “new” civilized government where blowing things up doesn’t get you control of the country. They are not grasping the civilized idea of forming a party and running for election, even of a small area (town/village) they wish to control. Democracy is civilized, voting is civilized, protecting your family rather then bringing danger to them is civilized… “armed gangs roaming the street, car bombs going off and repeated raids by militia, soldiers and secret police” is NOT civilized. Maybe civilized is the wrong word, perhaps stupid is or insane. Isn’t the definition of insane something like repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Seems like they have been in a pattern of violence with each other and opposing the US for sometime and it has only given them the same results. Maybe to break their pattern, they should ignore other puppet masters like Iran and ally themselves with and embrace the ideas of a prosperous country that respects life and enjoys freedom and relative peace. Oh, but wait, that would be too civilized for a bunch of stupid, insane, religious zealots that cant see they are ruining everything for everyone else in their country.

Defend the Iraqis and paint the US as the bad guys all you want. Tonight I am going to have dinner with my family without worrying about were the food will come from or if I am going to be blown up, on Sunday I will go to one of the dozens of different churches in my area without worrying about being blown up and next election I will vote fore for my favorite candidate and when they loose, I am not going to try and blow them up. I am going to give to charity, send my child to school, have a productive job and not at the cost of blowing up my neighbors for giving to different charities, attending different schools or working at different jobs. I wish the Iraqis could understand that they could have those same civilized options.

Hmm.. interesting. I wonder if it is because the American people and their government are this misguided that they have been making so many blunders in foreign policy over the years?

[rory_20_uk]

That cunning guy Saddam stated that he'd no weapons, and america was fooled into fabricating evidence into pre-emptive defence and invading the country.

Again, trust an American to ignore the 600 odd years of history in the area. If this is the average view at the top, we are in BIG trouble...



Edit: Let us not resort to trolling, please. - Dariush

[AntiochusIII]

The USA does not have the political will to do in Iraq what was done in the Phillipines. Unfortunately, I think half-measures are less than adequate.

You do realize that, despite all the brutality and other oppressive stuff, it took decades fighting in the Philippines against a bunch of men with sticks on the islands, right?

Iraq is a desert, with very, very long borders; with a lot of people, usually with AK-47, going in and out; and quite a few countries sharing said borders have interests in actually allowing, if not downright sponsoring said people with AK-47's, to bother the occupation process. It might as well just take a little longer than, you know, decades, to do the same crush-them-beneath-our-boots thing.