REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a terrorist threat to the US

POSTED BY: LYNCHAJ
UPDATED: Saturday, December 17, 2005 11:21
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 8936
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, December 9, 2005 9:11 AM

CHRISISALL


Sure, SignyM, it's easy to right all the time.

Have you no compassion for those souls who argue having hollow, fallacious or circular reasoning as their only tools?

Unlike you, I have feelings for our [non independent-minded] brothers and sisters of this board, and try not to incorporate too many facts into my posts.

(..in other words, I don't know as much as you, Dreamtrove, Rue, etc. )

Just Chrisisall, being obtuse as usual

Edit: look at the time on my post; I swear it was unintentional...Just a RWED anomoly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 9, 2005 9:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Know??? HA! I just scarf all the best ideas from my colleagues and my SO and this RWED- including you Chrisisall- who are ever so much brighter than I- and pass them as my ideas! Clever plan, what? Heh heh heh.

And BTW I haven't the FAINTEST idea what Jaytee is saying. Jaytee- care to elaborate????

EDIT:
Ok- and now I am at home and I have an hour or so....I'm going to reprise my previous post a bit, which is in reponse to Dreamtrove's lucid description of how we've painted ourselves into an Iraqi corner w/ apparently no way out.

"However, it's also clear that we can't stay in Iraq, since our presence is destabilizing. So... how can we w/draw from Iraq and assure our security in the area?

The current {Admin} plan seems to be to ditch at least one of the "legs" of the three stated {governmental} goals (unified, secular, democratic) and possibly two: We are no longer insisting on a secular government, and may be okay with a government that oppresses 70% (women plus Sunnis) of the population. In other words, we are throwing our weight behind a Shiite theocracy. I suspect that this is exactly what the Sunni insurgents fear- payback being such a b*tch and all that.

I would suggest that it would be best if we simply allowed Iraq to break up. Iraq now is like former Yugoslavia: a synthetic nation created for the convenience of an empire. And Hussein was like Tito: A strongman holding together a pastiche of ethnic, language, and religious minorities through sheer terror. It took seventy years and over 250,000 deaths until the Yugoslavian fantasy was allowed to dissolve. http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011998.htm

What are the possible repurcussions, and how could we control them in our favor?"

Well then, who are the players and how are they likely to repond?

In Iraq:

The Kurds have been autonomous for a decade. I think they would LOVE to take control of their oil fields. The Shiites are not as organized as the Kurds. But if they controlled oil fields they would prolly not be too interested in vengeance on the Sunnis, since the Sunnis have nothing to offer. The Sunnis would be ambivalent. OT1H they would be able to control their own internal security and not have to fear domination by and reprisal from Shiites. OTOH they would lose thier oil revenue and their ethnic pride. How could we get them to favor this approach? Simple: offer them aide to rebuild and restore Baghdad as a (SECULAR) center of learning and industry. The foreign fighters- presumably of Al Qaida and Syrian- would not have the USA to fight. They might try to find a safe harbor in Sunni central Iraq, but if the restoration plan is meaningful and effective then Sunnis would prolly not provide haven.

NEIGHBORS
Turkey would b*ch like hell. But having an independent Kurdistan might actually take pressure off Turkey by providing a relief valve. Iran would only gain control of a PORTION of Iraq, not the entire nation. Many of the neigbors- themselves consisting of rammmed-together factions- might take a lesson from the division that they need to provide more democracy for their subjects. Later....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


RUSSIA, CHINA, EU
I don't think that any of these nations would have a problem dealing with a separate Kurdistan, Golden Iraq (central Sunni) and Mahdi Iraq (Southern Shiite, to make up some names). In fact, Kurdistan is ALREADY making separate oil deals with foreign nations www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=10727. When Sittes have formal control over their oil they will likely be just as happy to sell to whomever.

UNITED STATES
Looking at the USA security interests: Kurdistan would likely be friendly or at least neutral to the USA. Mahdi Iraq would be less hostile to the USA than they are trending now. Altho considerable help is flowing into southern Iraq from Iran, this would prolly slow down once the irritant (USA and British troops) are removed. Sadr's claim to fame evaporates. Golden Iraq would likely be hostile to the USA until their national pride, living standards, religious and national security are restored. But being flanked by potential enemies, Golden Iraq wouldn't make much military trouble.

The only faction in the USA that would actively work against this is the Halliburton/ Chevron-Texaco faction. Their concept was that they would grab Iraq oil and the Iraq economy by imposing a single puppet government (with rules set up the the CPA). All of that would go down the drain if three new governments were formed.\

So: Iraq is already "broken". We can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and until we can meet the legitimate concerns of the Sunnis they will continue to resist our (puppet Shiite) government.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2005 10:08 PM

DREAMTROVE



Quote:


Originally posted by Signym:

Well, and of course Putin would NEVER lie because he would NEVER want to see our troops tied up in Iraq, and would NEVER want to see us spending hundreds of billions of dollars, bankrupting our economy, and diverting both world and Islamist fanatic attention

from Chechnya! And being the ex-head of the KBG, Putin is an honest man who only has our interests at heart! HAHAHAHAHA!!! Snort! Guffaw!




Signym, also Rue,

You know what I find works really well? Googling conspiracies before posting them. I'm not being snide here, or if I am I don't mean anything by it. But I'm serious, this is a good way to get extra info.

Putin is getting the Kurd's oil. It's all pretty much a sealed deal. Putin opposed us initially because Saddam was giving him a sweetheart deal on Kurdish oil. about a yer ago Bush met with him and said "Oh, you can keep the kurds oil." It was big news, it's no

conspiracy theory, the Russian news was full of headlines that basically said "Yay! We get to keep the oil." Now added to that the fact that if we lose, and Al Zarqawi gets this oil and then his boss is Al Zawahiri, and his boss is Osama Bin Laden, and guess who is

funding the Chechens, it's clear, option America is a trillion dollars for me, and option anti-America is ten trillion dollars to my enemy. So, while your theory may also be correct, Putin doesn't need any more motivation.

This was all news last year, I guess I picked it up because I was following the whole Yukos case. Another interesting conspiracy thing is how the situation in Chechnya is all about Russneft stealing Chechen oil. Al Qaeda is of course the ones helping them fight it by

blowing up school children. Yeah, those are guys you want on your side :( .


Piratenews,

I needed to nitpick a couple of points

1. The CIA is not a threat to the united states.
2. No one ordered Saddam to invade Kuwait. He's many times the fool that it takes to do that on his own without any encouragement. And yeah, I've read this conspiracy theory. I have a theory about it. Someone being Rumsfeld told Saddam nothing would happen

because he was hoping Bush Sr. would invade Iraq which he didn't do which is why we got Clinton. But Saddam Hussein came up with the idea himself. It wasn't as if he'd never invaded a neighbor on a mad oil grab before.
3. I like Larry Craig, he's a decent guy
4. This cracked me up "Bush Gang's New World Order Satanic Commie/Nazi dictatorship." I think that's very much on target. Well put.

But I disagree that Bush Sr.'s action in Kuwait was about this. I think this is a new game. Kuwait was about defending the innocent people of Kuwait who needed defending from a lunatic named Saddam Hussein. It happened these Kuwaitis had a lot of oil.

I'm making a point here. The take I hear so often, usually from the left sounds like "the Kuwaitis shouldn't be defended by the United States." I totally disagree. Yes they should. But once in a while, in addition to that, I'd like to see some people who do not have oil

also get the same priviledge.


Giant Evil Head,

I disagree, our main point should be how do we get out without creating the Al Qaeda state of infinite cash.


Quote:


Originally posted by Signym:

I know this is hard to keep in mind, but Iraqs were not "our enemies" until we invaded. Their interests are vitally different from the (less than 5% of) foreign fighters, who really are terrorists and who migrated into Iraq specifically to fight the great Satan. If you lump

them all together, you will eventually find that every Iraqi becomes an "enemy" in any policy that you might propose, and you simply can't win that kind of fight.



Agreed. Totally.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Moqtada Al Sadr is not a terrorist. I'm not so sure about George W. Bush, or for that matter Dick Cheney.

Let's all take a moment to get a handle on what we're talking about here.

Terrorism

Quote:


Full entry from dictionary.com

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity —ter·ror·ist /-ist/ adj or noun —ter·ror·is·tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]



Since the purpose of the torture policy of the DoD is not to gain information but rather to intimidate, and the bombings done by our military are, by the admission of our own pentagon, being conducted more or less at random in civilian populations, our

leaders are essentially attempting to foster an environment of fear in order to forward a political agenda.

So too, when our leaders discuss the threats potentially posed by our enemy, Al Qaeda, in real and imagined terrorist acts such as attack with biological and chemical weapons poisoning our water supply and our air, our leaders are trying to foster in us an

atmosphere of fear, in order to forward a political agenda.

So, definitively, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et. al. are terrorists who have laid seige not only to Iraq but to America. Their own doctrine which has been made into our law dictates that we must stop them or America is forfeit.


Lynch,

you're error in your argument against Chris is that you don't really seem to know what Al Qaeda is. Al Qaeda is a communication network, not a command structure. But it is discreet and organized. If someone has connections to Al Qaeda, and can use the Al Qaeda

network, that does not mean a damn thing. People who know that person are unlikely to ever learn that they are an Al Qaeda operative. This would be as daft as saying that these Al Qaeda people who had contact with people who worked for Valerie Plame were

CIA agents, or that she was an Al Qaeda operative. This is absurd. In order to be a CIA agent you need to have access to agency resources. Ditto Al Qaeda. Saddam did not have access to Al Qaeda resources. I feel this case is extremely closed. It's about as

closed as whether or not Daffy Duck shot JFK.

Furthermore, no, you're trying to convince people that a connection known not to exist does exist, something you know definitively to be not true. The response you get is identical to the one you would get if you tried to sell us all on intelligent design.

Whether or not we did the right thing is another issue. Clearly at this point we didn't, because we f^&ked it up so horridly. But could it have been the right thing to do? It would have been a very solidly social militarist thing to do, and historically that means it fits

somewhere into the left fringe of the democratic party or perhaps somewhere over in some socialist party, so it's not likely to be a position that I would support. Ever. But was it right to remove Saddam, if that's all we did? Maybe. Provided two things: 1) that the iraqi

people wanted him gone, and 2) that we replace him with something better. Since we have yet to prove either is the case, it's dubious. But I'd be blissfully happy if this discussion moved in that direction, away from this blatant attempt to misinform the public.



Signym, again

Quote:



I think the USA is making serious but (on the whole) reversible mistakes. Maybe we need to rid ourselves of some cherished but unrealistic goals in order to see our way.

Just after we invaded, I thought about the natural constituencies in Iraq and I realized that there was no natural constituency for a united, secular, democratic Iraq. Every major power had SOMETHING against that formula: The Kurds didn't really want unity, the Sunnis

didn't want democracy, and the Shias didn't want secularism. It's not a winning formula. What happens if we jigger the goals?

Ooops I will have to finish this tomorrow.



Three State Solution.



It works out pretty well. There might be small amounts of relocation, but everyone gets a fair share of the oil, and we have a base in each territory to provide support if requested. This is the way it should be. We shouldn't leave, we owe them protection now, or

they'll just get eaten by Iran. But that protection should be in the US Bases we are building, not patrolling their streets. This is very similar to what became the ultimate solution in Bosnia.



And again, Signym,

Quote:


However, it's also clear that we can't stay in Iraq, since our presence is destabilizing. So... how can we w/draw from Iraq and assure our security in the area?

The current plan seems to be to ditch at least one of the "legs" of the three stated goals (unified, secular, democratic) and possibly two: We are no longer insisting on a secular government, and may be okay with a government that oppresses 70% (women plus

Sunnis) of the population. In other words, we are throwing our weight behind a Shiite theocracy. I suspect that this is exactly what the Sunni insurgents fear- payback being such a b*tch and all that.

I would suggest that it would be best if we simply allowed Iraq to break up. Iraq now is like former Yugoslavia: a synthetic nation created for the convenience of an empire. And Hussein was like Tito: A strongman holding together a pastiche of ethnic, language, and

religious minorities through sheer terror. It took seventy years and over 250,000 deaths until the Yugoslavian fantasy was allowed to dissolve. http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011998.htm

What are the possible repurcussions, and how could we control them in our favor?

Neither the Kurds nor the Shias have any love for AQ. That leaves the Sunnis, who might be looking for support and who are nominally of the same religion as AQ.



There are several things to take into consideration here:

1) First, the three state solution is coded in to the new Iraq constitution as a possibilty of the differences don't resolve reasonably.
2) The one state solution was arrived at by the British at the end of WWI. It was inherently corrupt in it's design, so there is nothing sacred about it. Iraq, which had been some 20 some califates were suddenly lumped into one nation with essentially the main goal of

preventing the French from having any oil.
3) The problem in Yugoslavia is extremely pertinent. I have a friend who was on the UN team that redrew those borders and they experienced some of the headache and heartache that went with it, but their ultimate solution is probably applicable here, because the

two seem very similar, so it would be logical to skip all the massacres and jump straight to the end solution.
4) This means relocation for some people. Expensive and tricky, but probably necessary. Cities will be especially tricky, if they are sectioned off they may need to be walled off. Attempts to retain the multi-ethnic style of Sarajevo were a disaster.
5) It means maintaining an arms length military presence but not an active combat presence. Each state will have the right to ask us to leave, but after we're sure that we're it's safe.
6) Oil ownership issues are something that are best addressed at a time when Bush is not president of the US and when the leader of Iraq is not Al Zarqawi. It's pretty obvious that ownership of the oil should not be handed to an American company in a sweetheart

deal, and nor should it be given to a Jordanian terrorist or his Eqyptian master. It's equally clear that it should be given to the Iraqi people. I'd like to see it broken up into several oil companies, and a portion of those companies shares to more or less be

distributed among the people, so the people of Iraq would have a dividend to start building their lives back. This would be similar to what's done in Kuwait and Alaska.

I think the casualties in the Yugoslav disaster were far higher than that. And, yes, I agree, these multi-ethnic states are a socialist fantasy that only lives as long as no human freedom is allowed. When I was in Yugoslavia a few years back, the war had ended quite

recently, and I was quite impressed by how well everyone was getting along. I remember I was chatting with a friend of mine who was a slovene but had fought in croatia, and a guy I had met there who was a serb. After the serb left the slovene turned to me and

said: every day I burried the bodies of 1000 people, they'd arrive in dump trucks often with their hearts cut out. Every day for two years. His people did that. But he didn't do that. He's a good guy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2005 10:24 PM

DREAMTROVE


Signym,

I just read your updated post. I see yeah, I've seen you've seen the three state solution. I hope acting president McCain can see the wisdom in this if we can jail Cheney for treason. The borders might have to be tweaked slightly to account for a few oil points
1) make sure everyone had completely equal per capita oil
2) make sure no oil fields cross borders.
It would be best if we could do this by gerrymandering the desert, so that we wouldn't end up giving a sunni town to the shiia which might turn into a war of reclamation later.

But I think this isn't a major issue because eyeballing it, it looks like the oil divides up pretty evenly.

I have no problem with a Mahdi state. Iran gets no control because the Mahdi state would have a US base in it. They would talk a lot, but they'd never become even de facto one country. It would be like Kuwait is to Saudi Arabia.

I have of course no problem with a Kurdish state.

I have a little problem with the Al Qaeda state of Zarqawi. We need to be able to bring the Sunnis to the table to accept a solution which fits the following criteria:

1) Al Zarqawi, Al Zawahiri and anyone else who is not an Iraqi cannot be its head.
2) No Al Qaeda terrorist can be its head and it can't used the oil money to fund Al Qaeda
3) It can't be used as an Al Qaeda terrorist training ground.

I think these will be hard pills for Zarqawi to swallow, but one thing we can use in our favor is that these people are religious extremists, something we in America are very familiar with. If we use this to our advantage we can probably offer them some concessions for their Sunni state which will grant them keys to paradise etc, happy religious brain cell dance.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hey! Someone replied!


Wow, DT- there's a lot of meat in them there posts. I need to digest.... (urgh! burp!) You know a LOT of folks, don't you? BTW- How's the houseguest thing? Me personzlly, I got a loanee I have to chase after. I will NEVER bail anyone out again!

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2005 4:44 AM

DREAMTROVE


No meat. Just really well textured tofu.

The houseguest has move on after deciding in a paranoid was that I was trying to get him away from heroin, which was his medicine, his cure that he needed to survive, and now he's somewhere homeless in Portland, OR, sticking a needle in his arm.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:38 PM

HAYWARD79


"Only through statecraft can you truly protect your citizens from harm."

Do you realize how ridiculous. Yeah, statecraft certainly did a lot to save 6 million Jews from near-extermination in WWII. It was this absurd over-reliance on "statecraft" that turns bad situations into global atrocities.

So you still think that ONLY statecraft can protect your citizens? Tell it the the millions murdered because certain governments and certain peoples did not take military action against their enemies when they should have. I hate war as much as anyone, but unfortunately, if you have knowledge of 20th century history whatsoever, you'd realize that statecraft just doesn't always cut it.

I honestly cannot believe that an educated person would make the argument that you've made.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:45 PM

HAYWARD79



nor do I believe democracy can be created at swordpoint. ]


Except for post-war Germany and Japan, where enforced democracy has seemed to work pretty well. I think that pretty summarily destroys your view on this point.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:12 PM

SEVENPERCENT


Quote:

Originally posted by Hayward79:

Except for post-war Germany and Japan, where enforced democracy has seemed to work pretty well. I think that pretty summarily destroys your view on this point.



Hey, way to come to the party late, out of context, and wrong. Glad you could pick me as your date.

First point, our goals were in WWII were the unconditional surrender of Axis forces who began the war, not "regime change for our own personal amusement." We were not 'creating democracy.'

Second, and most importantly, Germany had a democracy before we invaded (though, admittedly, a fledgling one - you are aware of the Reichstag, right?). We were not completely introducing a foreign system of government to them. They were also a Western culture, with shared values and beliefs.
As far as Japan went, though ruled by its emperor Japan had a governmental system including ministries and a parliamentary diet (though, admittedly, a rubber stamp for the military). Again, even with the removal of the emperor, not introducing a foreign system of government or a new governmental body. Japan still kept the emperor (although not divine), still kept a parliament, etc.
The two countries also were not created by oil interests involving mashing together ethnic groups with violent histories and putting absolutists in charge of them (everyone remember how the same thing worked out in Yugoslavia? What happened there when the dictator was removed and the Soviets left? Look it up if you don't know, it's going to happen in Iraq).

Comparing creating democracy in Iraq to the aftermath of WWII is like comparing apples to carburetors (not the same shape, not the same fruit, and -in the words of Julius of PFic that I hold so dear, "not even in the same motherfuckin' ballpark"), but I see this comment a lot on the wingnut sites like Newsmax or Free Republic. Usually, those comments are passed around as jokes by my historian colleagues.

Iraq has three different ethnic groups that hate each other who (as judging by polls, word of interview, and insurgency) would rather be ruled under the religious rule of their peers in the area.

The other, more important metaphorical idea that I was getting across, which you seem to have missed completely (one reason I hate arguing on the intarweb), is that you can't make people adopt a system of government that they don't want to adopt. If someone told you today that a monarchy was the best way to go, and brought in troops to insure that you installed one, how long do you think that monarchy will last once those troops are gone? My bet is about 5 minutes - which is how long it will take Iraq to break out into civil war once we pull our troops out (and then promptly form a government ruled by Shia law).

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:28 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:


originally posted by 7%,

Hey, way to come to the party late, out of context, and wrong. Glad you could pick me as your date.



LOL. well put.

Quote:


originally posted by 7%,

Comparing creating democracy in Iraq to the aftermath of WWII is like comparing apples to carburetors



You really have a knack for this sort of thing, a way with words. Another great image.

Now I'm done with the pile on Hayward session.

Instead I'm going to give a little friendly advice:

Hayward, you are spending a lot of time an effort viciously attacking everying in the room as if they were Osama Bin Laden. I think we're all pretty much friends here, even if we vehemently disagree sometimes. Try a little less personal hosility in your attacks.

Also, while you're at it, try a few less attacks. You've spent so much time posting that what everyone else posted is wrong, I have no idea what your position is. From what I've read so far, I suspect your a communist. If this isn't the case, then perhaps you should spend a little more time telling us what your positions are and not how stupid everyone else is.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 16, 2005 12:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The houseguest has move on after deciding in a paranoid was that I was trying to get him away from heroin, which was his medicine, his cure that he needed to survive, and now he's somewhere homeless in Portland, OR, sticking a needle in his arm.
From family experience I know that the only way to separate a junkie from his/her addiction of choice is when the addict decides it's time. There is some truth to the joke "How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but it has to want to change." Still, it's tragic to see someone circling the drain.

As far as Iraq is concerned, it seems that Sunnis participated in much higher numbers than before. That is a good sign. But the Shias will still dominate Parliament and they have a mess to clean up. They have to be careful not to create a "tyrrany of the majority" when they decide things like where oil revenues will go. Furthermore, if the USA doesn't bug out SOON then EVERYONE will be dissatisfied with the Parliament.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2005 11:21 AM

DREAMTROVE


We just need to get the Sunnis at the table and take away the best selling points for Al Qaeda. If I had to take over this mess right now, I'd probably start offering them some heads, people on our side who tortured and ordered torture. As a peace offering. I think in a Muslim world this is what would have to happen. Instead we have Saddam, and they don't have jack. or George.

Afterwards, it would be really nice if this withdrawal talk really got canned and this Mirtha 'redeployment' plan be talked about.

What I think people aren't getting is that, okay, Iraq was a f^&k-up, sure. But now we owe the Iraqis. What we owe them is the democracy we promised them. If we leave, Iran with the healthy open backing of Beijing will invade and conquer or Al Qaeda will, and either way, oil will be funnelled out and the Iraqis will get nothing.

If we stay in a combative way, we'll just do more damage. We need to start building up a defense to defend Iraq against foreign invasion.

I figure since 1991, we've probably killed about one million Iraqis. Most of that was Clinton, but a fair amound of it was Bushes, particularly this latest Bush, and so I can see why they wouldn't be real happy seeing us around, partolling the streets of Baghdad and whatnot. And I agree, I think we should pretty much start retreating on to bases never to be seen again, except in the event of a war.

But the thing is, unless there is something like a US Air base there, Iraq doesn't stand a chance against anyone else who might want to come in and take the oil. Iraq is the second most oil rich nation in the world, and it has no defenses of its own, and on top of that, it is completely surrounded by hostile nations, some of whom are quite warlike. China has already expressed an interest in that oil, and a willingness to support Iran militarily into what they call a 'regional leadership role' so decipher that euphamism, and Al Qaeda is trying to take it to fund global terrorism right now as we speak. To assume that none of these people would take over if we just packed up and went home is beyond absurd.

The handy thing for us is that most of the people fighting us even within the Al Qaeda forces right now are Iraqis. This means that though Zarqawi and Zawahiri want to funnel money out of Iraq, the Iraqis there undoubtedly don't, and so if we can get them to the table we can say, okay, you control this much, join us, we'll give you some say in the outcome.

My guess is, if we leave, Al Qaeda will beat the Mahdi and our Iraqi govt. and take over and start adding a few billion to the Al Qaeda coffers, enough to give it enough cash to buy a few nukes and seriously upscale operations from the nickle and dime stuff they've been up to so far. After that, I would expect after a couple years, Iran, with weapons from Beijing, would annex Iraq and make it their oil belly, fueling the Chinese need for petrol. I think in these two conflicts, a million more people would be killed easily. Maybe a million in each, and at the end the Iraqis would still be poor. We owe it to them that that not happen. If we stay in ground combat in Iraq for 8 more years, that will also happen, so we definitely owe it to them not to do that.

At the moment it looks as if Iraq were better off with Saddam Hussein in power, and if we could just prop that statue back up, I'd reluctantly support the idea if I thought it would work. But as much as I hate the plan and the people who crafted it, I think we have to make this work because we owe the Iraqis that, otherwise they will be robbed and slaughtered by their enemies, which as a country that tried to target exterminate civilian populations in wars against almost all of its neighboring countries, it has quite a few enemies. But we also need to do two things right away:L

1. Talk about getting some of these insurgent groups to the table.
2. Start talking about redeployment away from defending US oil theft and away from launching ground offensives and towards at least starting the preparations for being able to defend Iraq in the event of a foreign invasion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL