Iraq is a nightmare

[Zonex]

Will it ever turn around? I'm starting to think it will be just like Vietnam. Eventually we will leave without a victory and let them fend for themselves. They won't last long and it will become a major terrorist state.

I oppose the war in that I strongly disagreed with us invading Iraq. Once we did it, I felt there was no turning back. Stay no matter what the cost. Somehow I just don't think it's going to happen. I see no improvement.

[ChrisLM2001]

What went wrong is the failure to understand history and the mindset of any nation <-- they dislike foreigners. They can so grateful of help, but they want foreigners out as soon as the aid is finished.

Iraq is turning out to be another Vietnam, because the West refused to understand that freedom given isn't freedom earned. Just giving folks freedom isn't enough (see how it's played out in Russia -- a country that has lived under brutal dictatorships for 1000 years. They don't even know how to be free!). They have to want it more than just a freebie, and they want themselves to do that bidding.

Failure in Vietnam was coming in during a civil war. If it's a local strife, no foreign country should intercede (even if it's hard to bear), because that country can become a target in it's own self (a scapegoat, by either opposition). Which makes it very difficult to get locals to support the transition (or want of one). An interesting tidbit: a young Vietnamese women was asked by an GI who came back years later, why didn't the population that claimed to support not living under communism not be more trusting to those who could help. The response was, that if we supported you during the day, the Viet Cong would come in at night and kill us. It's the same mentality that is occurring in Iraq -- yes folks want to support this liberation from under Hussein's rule, but if they do the bad guys that kept them slaves will come out and murder them too.

It's hard to watch and sit on the sidelines in an ethnic and other forms of civil wars, but sometimes it is necessary. Only locals can settle their differences, anyone interceding will just be a scapegoat (much like OBL is using the US now, even though he was happy with the US in 1980 combating the Russian occupation of Afghanistan).

Chris

[TruthElixirX]

Also the way we wage war there. We are being very gentle. We had the chance to nab Zaraqi (Spelling?) but he wsa in a mosque (Spell check again...) so we let him out. I know it is sacred ground but when you go to war you wage total war, there should be no western ethics involved. Now don't think I'm saying kill them all or be inhumane but we definately have to step it up notch.


And I also agree with the post above me.

[Lenni]

there was a reason why they did not enter the mosque.

[TruthElixirX]

That being?

[Jose Amaral Rego]

Why do not the U.S just do a no fly/travel zone and just monitor the perimeter like they do here with Alberta/B.C. - USA boarder with surveillance? The only way to stop the fighting is to stop outsider coming in. Train Iraq to defend themselves with old techniques and banned weapons and the sale of bomb making devices of any kind. No motor cars within city limits and building to building search for any weapons. So some die, but at least it will not be the troops.

[BamaStangGuy]

That being?

Cause we didnt want to offend the rest of the middle east.

Because they loved us so much before that

[TruthElixirX]

I knew that. I thought he/she was going to offer up another reason.

[Zonex]

I'm reading some recent news that seems to indicate a want for a dialogue to take place. Perhaps that's our only hope. Some kind of negotiated settlement.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said he was prepared to hold talks with those who opposed his government.
"I want to listen to all Iraqis. I am committed to listen to them, even those who are criminals and are on trial," he told reporters in Cairo, Egypt, adding that he would only meet those who had laid down their arms

And here's something I never thought I would here from Bush...

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," the president said. "I heard somebody say, well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position. I totally reject that thought. This is not an issue of who's [a] patriot and who's not patriotic. It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

Looks like a change in direction.

[Martz]

Iraq needs to be stable for 2 major reasons:

1) Its GW Bushs biggest current problem and headache which his administration started and cannot recover from. It's a PR problem that he can cope with, but is angering many millions of people worldwide.

2) Iraq has the biggest oil reserves in the world - proven 100 billion barrels in reserves and a potential for another 200 billion+ with further investigation. Proven gas fields of 110 trillion cubic feet. And only 10% of it has been explored with decent up-to-date equipment - so its potentially is huge.

This is a very rich country in resources, which had it's leader toppled in a coup and a new leader installed called Saddam Hussein - with the help and assistance of the CIA. The idea being to have someone friendly in the country who they could persuade to control the national resources and get away from OPEC dominated oil prices.

Saddam obviously didn't want to play this game, he had been given the power and didn't fulfill his dirty obligations to the west. Instead, he thought "Screw them - I have what I want (President of Iraq) and I'm going to keep it regardless of what I agreed to in the deal".

So the US via the UN (with US veto powers) has imposed sanctions upon Iraq for decades, primarily as a way to stop it from taking its resources out of the ground and putting them onto the market at prices which contributed to the stability of OPEC (run by most Arab nations)

For the US to gain control over the Iraq oil infrastucture - its not that the US wants to steal its oil, it just wants to control the prices it is sold at and who can buy it - it had to move in and remove that control from Saddam again. I bet they are wishing that they did this in the first place rather than put Saddam there.

The US gets 45+% of its oil from OPEC controlled countries - which means that nearly half of it is fixed at a higher price. Originally the US/UN were expecting to be able to privatise the Iraqi oil industry and undermine the OPEC prices, to hopefully create more competition.

This is all well and good from an economic perspective, a monopoly/cartel isn't good for consumers and very good for foreign investors. However, the means in which this was executed by the US was to spend $200 billion invading a country and taking control of resources.

[ChrisLM2001]

Bush went into Iraq for payback (not only for his dad, but those who's running the Neo-Con movement).

There's a lot of underhand dealing going on in US politics now, and there's questions why these FOREIGN ultra-nationalists have hijacked the Republican party too. But they have, and they have powerful influence on the Middle East public policy. It has turned this into a religious war when it never needed to become.

I won't get into detail about it here, but the more folks connect the dots, more folks will see this Neo-Con movement isn't very much home grown.

Chris

[BamaStangGuy]

Bush went into Iraq for payback (not only for his dad, but those who's running the Neo-Con movement).

Give me a break.

There's a lot of underhand dealing going on in US politics now, and there's questions why these FOREIGN ultra-nationalists have hijacked the Republican party too. But they have, and they have powerful influence on the Middle East public policy. It has turned this into a religious war when it never needed to become.

Talk about blowing something up

I won't get into detail about it here, but the more folks connect the dots, more folks will see this Neo-Con movement isn't very much home grown.

Chris

I love conspiracy theories

Please tell

[ChrisLM2001]

No "conspiracy" theory to it. You can read it right off the pages of the Wikipedia -- under Neo-Conservatism.

It's not home grown conservatism by any chance, but one built by ex-communists, turned Wilsonian-Capitalists.

If you wish to be considered a home grown conservative, there's 2 branches to choose from: traditional (from Lincoln, TR to Esienhower) or paleo (who would think Edmund Burke defined conservatism, and anything later is "new").

Chris

[ChrisLM2001]

Oh, here's a tidbit of what I'm talking about....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)#Kristol.27s_influences

Great Depression and World War II

The Great Depression radicalized many immigrants, and introduced them to new and revolutionary ideas of socialism and communism. The forerunners of neoconservativism were generally liberals or socialists who strongly supported the Second World War, and who were influenced by the Depression-era ideas of former New Dealers, trade unionists, and Trotskyists, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman (A number of future neoconservatives such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz were Shachtmanites in their youth, while others were later involved in the Social Democrats, USA, which was formed by Schachtman's supporters in the 1970s), although some leading neoconservatives have pointed out that by the time Shachtman had an influence on them inside the social-democratic movement, he had long since broken definitively with Trotskyism.[3]

And what I mean ex-commies...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shachtmanite

Then Neo-Cons wonder why they're not considered real conservatives, by real conservatives????

Chris

[thethethe]

Coming home?

My town's public Access: News block

announcements say that the soldiers are expecting to come back home to the United States from Iraq soon enough.

If it is, then all you wives of the men and the children of the father, look out your window and welcome them home!