Who else thinks Iraq is going to be some weird Orwellian eternal war?

midnightoil's picture
Rank: Baboon | banana points 108

I'll be long dead before we leave Iraq/the Middle East...

Find Your Mentor

  • Increase your chance of landing a job by matching with one of our 200+ mentors.
  • Our mentors are top employees at the most selective firms.
  • Proven process with over 1,100 clients over 10 years.

Comments (63)

Mar 18, 2007

Well, according to all the Dems, we'll be out of Iraq as soon as one of them is elected President...we'll see. But as far as the Middle East as a whole, the only way to do that would be to not give a shit about the oil anymore. Look at places like Rwanda and Darfur. No one cares because there's nothing in it for us, as cynical and harsh as that sounds. I really think that for the Islamic fundamentalists over there, nothing will be over until every man, woman, and child on the face of this Earth is praying to Allah. Conclusion: Out of Iraq, eventually; out of Middle East, geographically speaking its a possibility, but as far as fighting Middle Easterners wherever they show up, I think that's here to stay.

Mar 19, 2007

It's a war for oil, everyone who's not a fool can see that. That means staying the distance so that when the World realizes that we'r running out of gas, our future is somewhat secure.

So yes, the troops will stay, most likely expect to see an Iran invasion if a Repub is elected to office in '08, especially Romney or Giuliani.

Mar 18, 2007

Why would Iran immediately be invaded if a Repub is elected? Aren't you forgetting about the Dem-controlled Congress? As vehemently opposed to the Iraq War as they all say they are, it seems like it would take a nuke striking a major U.S. city that can be confirmed coming from Iran before they would pass a resolution to go to war with Iran. I think its going to be very interesting to see what happens if a Dem gets elected President. They all say they will pull us out, but I don't think it will happen that quickly.

Mar 19, 2007

I did overlook that fact, but regardless, people don't realize how drastic the oil situation is, even with the recent discoveries.

Fact of the matter is, sitting back is not gonna be an option anymore and that's exactly why you see all this build-up of animosity towards Iran. I'd be very surprised if those imbecile Democrats don't realize this.

Mar 19, 2007

Are you on crack? If we invade Iran this whole middle east situation will erupt into a holy war,only this time nukes will be used.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Mar 19, 2007

You don't understand geo-politics so don't attempt to debate me. Don't try to oversimplify issues.

Mar 19, 2007

chiming in on this...as a Persian and Canadian. I must agree with Seanc's point.

If you look at middle-eastern history, and some other areas you see alot of wars are based on the idea of who has "contorl over natural resources". Both politically and economically. Right now with Oil being so important, it would make no sense for the USA to leave the middle east, every western nation would want influence and control in the middle east right now.

Also with the moron next door, changing Iran's view on certain issues, you would not want to risk losing control over the region at a crucial time like this.

Based on the rumors out of Iran and the media though, I got to say any ideas of invaison etc, is dependant on how China and India will play a role, as those are 2 of the fastest growing and oil-hungry nations atm in the world.

Mar 19, 2007

i doubt that america will go into a direct war with iran. more likely a war by proxy. i think that a direct war would be foolish, especially considreing what is going on in iraq and with the current iranian regeme. i think that it would likely trigger ww3 if it was a direct war as i can see iran retaliating by trying to attack israel and the gulf countries that contain american bases. basically, i can see it escelate far beyond iran if there is a direct war.

if that happens, we can all kiss our bonuses goodbye.

also, agree that iraq will always be in turmoil. the world has created a new middle eastern conflict (israel/pallistine/lebanon/syria) next door to the existing one. well done!

Mar 19, 2007

Agreed.

US government wants to take this off the radar, so the CIA will take over and make their own kind of mess to try and keep Western hands on Eastern oil.

Mar 19, 2007

I highly recommend the book, "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin.

It goes through the entire history of oil and its influence on business, politics, and war.

None of this is new, it's simply repeating what's happened time and again.

It will change the way you look at the world.

To throw in my 2 cents, I really hope there's not some World War in the next 50 years with Middle East/China/Russia alliance against a US/Europe/India block. That would be disastrous.

Mar 19, 2007

We already had a 'proxy war' between Iran and the US.....

It was dressed up as the conflict between Hizbollah and Israel, and I am afraid the outcome was not great for the US.

From the ghetto....

Mar 19, 2007

Euro, I have spoken to people who are familiar with the CIA's stance as an organization. From what I've heard, which may or may not be entirely true, there is increasing resistance to the agenda of the executive branch. To the point of removing NOC people from the theater.

I'm not so sure the CIA is willing to make a mess over oil right now.

As to what effect this resistance would have on the US military involvement... well, it could go both ways.

Mar 19, 2007

"removing NOC people from the theater": that would be unheard of! Whether successfully or not, the CIA's always had a finger in every pie. Extreme irrational reaction to the W policies?

Alex, at least if that war happens I'll feel safe since we'll have the gods from HBS and those from IIT and IIM on our side!

Mar 19, 2007

Euro, let's not play the "spooks under every bed" game. The CIA is almost certainly not always active everywhere and is much smaller today than it was at its peak. Also, from time to time over the past few decades, people have frequently been pulled out of various areas due to changing government policies, changing Agency policies, changing resource levels, rapid destabilization of the area, etc. It's not at all unheard-of. This may be the largest of these trends, but the trends do exist. Particularly as they're chronically underfunded and understaffed.

As my info comes primarily from friends, I'm certainly no expert on CIA ops at every level and across every department, but I know the substantial majority of people the CIA employs are not in NOC roles. Also, and this may upset you if you subscribe to the reassuring 1960's idea of the CIA as operating solely abroad, most of them are based stateside and travel isn't really in the job description.

In essence, the CIA consists mostly of a whole lot of people staring at a whole lot of computer screens. NOCs are expensive, time-consuming, difficult to place in the proper positions, and even considering what little deniability we have, place us at constant risk of international diplomatic incidents. Moreover, they frequently give the US and the CIA a bad name. So even aside from the agency's recent moves towards disengagement, I believe the general trend has been away from the use of NOCs abroad (whether long- or short-term).

If there are more or escalating conflicts, I'm not sure we'll be able to point fingers at the CIA. I believe it's become pretty dove-ish over the past few years.

Mar 19, 2007

The CIA's always been in highly volatile places (taking into account global impact of the situation), and in some smaller places (Africa not so much anymore but always been in South/Central America to my knowledge, and not just in the bigger countries). They're not in every country but generally where it matters and more. As you said, just look at all the places NOCs and related operations/financing gave the US a bad name.

As for the role of the CIA, I've looked into equivalent jobs for my country and am aware it's a lot to do with data and technology. If I remember correctly from a post of yours you'll know a lot more than me about this since you actually went through the process. Not so glamourous anymore is it?

The CIA's been scaled back and the Director has much less influence over the White House as he used to. Yet with Putine and China sending spies all over they'll probably want to keep some kind of intelligence and propaganda agents in areas as important as the Middle East. After all you can't sort everything out with Battalions of marines.

Mar 19, 2007

Typical of Mis Ind to hijack a thread and go off on some wierd tangent until it becomes upto me to bring her back to the subject at hand.

Mar 19, 2007

I think we've reached a consensus that Iraq's goning to be a huge long term mess. I'm curious to see how many believed this back in 2001.

The stats showed huge support in the US and either similar or opposite sentiment in other countries. But how about the HYP/Oxbridge future ibanker?

Mar 19, 2007
EuroMonkey:

I think we've reached a consensus that Iraq's goning to be a huge long term mess. I'm curious to see how many believed this back in 2001.

The stats showed huge support in the US and either similar or opposite sentiment in other countries. But how about the HYP/Oxbridge future ibanker?

agreed. i knew it was going to be a long term mess before iraq was invaded.

re: the us as part of the middle east.

as to the other comments about leaving the region and having it sort out its own problems, this won't happen. not because the us is an "honest broker" despite what it may seem like to some on this forum, rather because it has been involved in all sides and fro a very long time. the us may be ina different continent, but it has actively and intentionally been involved in middle eastern affairs for decades. this didn't start with 9/11, al quaeda,usama bin laden or ahmedinajad. if the us pulls out, will it cut support for israel or the rulers in the arab gulf states? didn't think so. it cant and it won't let things be. not going to happen, not only because both israel and the gulf country arab rulers want them there, but also because the people who run the us want them there. it doesn't matter what we think, we're just a few finance dudes (& dudettes) on a messege board.

feel free to disagree with me (i respect your right to do so), but know that i am right.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Mar 19, 2007

It's a necessary mess, Bush knew what he was doing and what he needs to do next. Well now time has run out for him so it'll be up to the next Repub to do his bit. It's a question of who gets their hands on resources first.

Mar 19, 2007

So if I understand your point, you're view is that the US should use conflict as a foundation for foreign policy, take resources from those to whom it belongs, accept ridiculously high direct and collateral damage on both sides in the short, medium and long term?

Local democracy and global dictatorship, is that it?

Mar 19, 2007

SeanC
I'd like to see you dictate policy by picking up an M-16 and standing on the line instead of dictating policy with your big mouth.

Mar 19, 2007

Nobody asked me, but my personal opinion is that our problems in the middle east result from our attempt to be the honest broker. We should stop trying to be part of the solution and start actively being part of the problem.

Pull out, let the locals deal with each other, and use our resources to make the situation worse. Right now, Iran, Syria, al Qaeda and everyone else has the luxury of being a troublemaker because all they have to do is muck up our efforts. Turn the tables, and the incentives change fast.

Mar 19, 2007

Yeah, let's be part of the problem!

Mar 19, 2007
aadpepsi:

Yeah, let's be part of the problem!

"To a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

Remember Aadpepsi, my background is making the solution possible by being part of the problem. It works.

I clarified my prior post with an edit.

Mar 19, 2007

If we lived in a perfect World, and we had an unlimited supply of Oil, it'd be a different story. But fact of the matter is, we'r running out of oil, whether it happens in 2,5 or 10 years hardly matters, it will happen and we should be prepared.

Being prepared means having control over known oil reserves that can at least secure our future until an alternative source is found.

Obviously there will be a loss of civilian and military lives but unfortunately, that's just the price we have to pay.

Mar 19, 2007

As I said above you'd just be building up hatred and preparing the world for some kind of "war of civilisations".

I'm usually an advocate of letting regions self-adjust without intervening since an external force will never be considered legitimate enough or fully comprehend the cultural/religious aspects of the conflict. In the Iraqi/Afghan case however, although I was against the war in the first place, I now believe it's our responsibility to try harder to help each country to find some kind of stability, even if it's a long shot.

Anyhow, letaEU(tm)s assume "the West" pulls out and lets things adjust, along the lines of GenghisaEU(tm) view. The US would be able to unlock more funds for developing alternative fuels or implementing technologies we already have (lets not also get into a debate about this right now). Just look at how expensive the war has been: officially several hundred billion $ have been spent directly on the Iraq war alone for the US alone (+ the extra $100bn Bush asked for yesterday). Then you get huge indirect $ costs (didn't the war push up the Brent? etc). US Government spending on alternative fuels has been $10bn so far.

Compare views: we run out of oil in both, we get new alternative power in both, in one we eventually end up with some kind of civilisation war, in the other the war is limited to one region for a shorter (yet long) period of time.

Mar 19, 2007

The US as an honest broker - of course.

Simple facts - late 1970's to early 1980's - CIA use Pakistan as conduit to send huge amounts of money and armaments to Afghanistan and set up the 'import' of Arab fighters, thereby creating the whole 'Jihadi' ideology. The naive view is that this was a simple mistake, albeit it allowed the Soviet Union to be defeated.

Fast forward to 2001. A little research will again reveal worrying ties to Pakistani Intelligence and thus the terrorists (putting to good use the 'assets' from the Afghan war).

Iraq - 2003 - abhorrent atrocities allegedly perpetrated by sectarian groups, e.g. destruction of Golden dome in Samarra etc etc. The NeoCons need anarchy in Iraq to justify a US presence. They do not plan to move out. And as long as you hace civil strife there is no native control over natural resources.

From the ghetto....

Mar 19, 2007

Relinquo: I agree with you about them not pulling out. My previous post was presenting a hypothetical situation. The aim was to question how wise it would be to fight for oil leftovers (a popular view).

As you say, in reality the US won't pull out (completely). If the military goes (and it'll have to at some point), the CIA will do what they do best: finance the right people to channel fighting in the direction they want. After all the CIA's very experienced in supporting warlords, dictators and their coups. History could well repeat itself with the situation getting out of control again. Would be a coherent continuation of Tier2StaaEU(tm)s chronology.

Mar 19, 2007

These old Cold-War strategies won't work anymore, they backfired in the past and they'll backfire again, especially because there are more players now. The job will have to be done by Western troops.

Mar 19, 2007
Seanc:

These old Cold-War strategies won't work anymore, they backfired in the past and they'll backfire again, especially because there are more players now. The job will have to be done by Western troops.

because troops are so effective at the moment, right? perhaps you should consider that the job shouldn't be done at all.

Mar 19, 2007
relinquo:
Seanc:

These old Cold-War strategies won't work anymore, they backfired in the past and they'll backfire again, especially because there are more players now. The job will have to be done by Western troops.

because troops are so effective at the moment, right? perhaps you should consider that the job shouldn't be done at all.

Troops aren't effective right now because the public isn't allowing them to be. There's too much opposition to the war from Congress, the liberal media and other quarters.
Double the size of the contingent over there, send in fresh troops that haven't done a tour of duty in Iraq, start using more force to punish the insurgents and then watch how the tude turns.
Also, wouldn't mind seeing the Air Force being brought in for runs in the insurgent-controlled areas.

Mar 19, 2007

With reliance on troops do you not enviasge overstretch pretty soon?

A conventional assault on Iran whilst retaining commitment to Afghanistan and Iraq in terms of troop would soon cause some serious problems to the US military. You seem to forget that apart from the US there are other countries in the world that deem themselves to be of strategic importance and have some form of military capability. It would very much be in the interests of Russia, for example, that the US get bogged down in a ground war in Iran. They would love the fact that Central Asia would have to open up by default. You do realise that soliders are human and don't grow on trees. Peoples' appetite for perpetual war will grow thin.

From the ghetto....

Mar 21, 2007

Not that I'm practiced in the subject, but funding seems like a significant constraint. Happened with many empires before, including the Soviet most recently. The general trend away from the dollar also seems detrimental for the edifice.

It would probably help if more are aware of the circumstances for what many call 'blowback', but these are not the times to raise unpleasant histories. Madison warned that 'if tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.' Cuo Bono? Guise seems an apt term, as foreign policy seems to serve interests aside from our security. Truly an 'LBO', if there was one, with assets being our soldiers.

The ill conceived advice has betrayed our hand in the 'great game' and alienated allies and suppliers. Now we see glimpses of how the SCO and others react to these opportunities. Well, at least the commodity traders are happy and CCO structures are popular...more often than before in Europe.

Mar 19, 2007

Seanc, large troops+air force have their purpose but they're not magic, that's not how you win gorilla warefare.
- punish insurgents: they don't care, it's a holy war
- air force in insurgent-controlled areas: doesn't mean the majority of the population supports them

What you're describing (assuming those resources exist) would just result in enormous innocent casualties and set the country back another decade or two. Also, that's exactly what Al Qaeda & Co are hoping for, to boost recruitment, financing and general support for the jihad.

Any similarities between your suggestions and Nam in '65?

Mar 19, 2007

seanc, i realise that you are trying to see a solution to the problem through the logistics of the millitary. there is none.

the point that euromoney raises and that i would like to build on is that even if the us had its whole military, airforce & navy/cia/cheerleaders/whatever in iraq and could commit all of its financial reasources to this cause (securing peace while american occupies iraq) it wouldn't solve the problem. there would still be war and no peace. for whatever reason, the us has occupied iraq and will face resistance in the same manner as any other country would were it to occupy the us. it doesn't matter if you call them insurgents, alqaeda, terrorist, freedom fighters or flowers. they will fight their occupier in the name of thier land, religion, family, friends or for the simiple honor of not being slaves.

the only way that you may possibly rid iraq of resistance to american occupation is if you kill everyone in iraq who isn't american. even that might not work. this is the reality that you need to accept.

Mar 19, 2007

You seem to live in a cocoon where the US military has infinite resources and infinite manpower.

Your understanding of how to solve the issue in Iraq is so simplistic it is funny.

Relinquo makes a very apt point - resistance to occupation will remain until the last Iraqi.

From the ghetto....

Mar 19, 2007

To most of you of course, especially Tier & Euro, the only suitable move would be for America to withdraw ASAP with our tail between our legs. If I disagree with that idea, and suggest using more force, my stand is "simplistic", but yours is even more so, "Oh, we can't win in Iraq, let's pack up and leave".
I know we don't have infinite resources or manpower, but I also know that this "resistance to the last Iraqi" idealistic view is as hollow as the claims of "holy war" every time America invades a muslim nation. This is not gonna be another Nam because we have way more firepower and a far more sophisticated military now, what is different is the public's appetite for war. If the current populace exhibits the same cowardice and lack of will as the Nam generation did then this war and others are as good as lost, but if we can get one good surge out of our soldiers, I guarantee you every one of the Insurgents and "brave" Iraqis will be begging for mercy.

Mar 19, 2007

"...if we can get one good surge out of our soldiers, I guarantee you every one of the Insurgents and "brave" Iraqis will be begging for mercy."

Substitute Yankees for Iraqis, and this is almost word-for-word the speech that was being shouted on every street by the Rebels after Fort Sumter.

If only the size of our egoes could win a war... and no, technology does not make egoes more effective. Nor do the plethora of young unenlisted men mouthing off in the States make enemy combatants fall down dead overseas.

It is time to draw a line between our posturing and our strategy. If it ends with "We're gonna make you beg for mercy," it's probably posturing.

Mar 18, 2007

I agree with Seanc. I really don't see this as any different than something like the Super Bowl (not to diminish the seriousness of the war, just to make a point). Just because you are down by a handful of touchdowns at the half, doesn't mean you stay in the lockerrooms. You go back out and play as hard as you can because winning is so important to you. The thing that I think is the worst is the people who started out wanting the US to go to war, and now think that casualties are getting to high. If people aren't comfortable with the realities of war, then they definitely should never be in support of such a thing. Also, I can't imagine how disgusted I would be as a soldier if my buddies died and I was left with physical and mental injuries for the rest of my life, only to leave having accomplished little. All of this is just the American civilian's inability to stomach the truth of war, and I don't think our soldiers appreciate that one bit. None of those Rangers and Delta operators in Mogadishu wanted to leave after only 19 of their comrades died. Of course they wanted to stay; to avenge the deaths of their friends. Leaving sends a powerful message to our enemies: kill enough US soldiers, and the "Great Satan" will leave...and then we get to welcome them to US soil to continue their activities.

Mar 19, 2007

Noone's "posturing" here, I'm simply stating the facts, we withdraw, we lose the war and lose the right to go to war for many,many year. We lose our credibility as the World's only superpower, and someone else WILL take our place in that regard. Lily-livered liberals will never understand this until it actually happens, and fact of the matter is that their opinion really doesn't matter to me because I know they hate America and want to see it lose.

Mar 19, 2007

Seanc:
- "only suitable move would be for America to withdraw ASAP with our tail between our legs":
=> refer to one of my previous posts, the 6th, where I say the US has to stay. Although I didn't want it there in the 1st place, given the circumstances and every effort must be made to seek stability.

Seanc & fraser:
- "more firepower and technology":
=> Ms Ind understands. As stated previously, this doesn't beat guerrilla warfare.
- "like the Super Bowl", "begging for mercy":
=> First of all, Seanc, you speak as if the rebels were the general population (women and children included). Anyway, I would argue it's fundamentally different, since the fighting is at one side's motherland; there are differences in tactics, motivations and above all Rules of the Game. I would liken the situation to this: a seven foot tall guy in the street pulls out a knife and asks for my wallet. Well, a very good chance he gets it. But the same guy shows up at my home. I know the place and he doesn't. But above all he's threatening everything I own and my family. I knock his head in like there's no tomorrow. Seanc, I'm sure you're that kind of guy too, you understand?

fraser:
-"The thing that I think is the worst is the people who started out wanting the US to go to war, and now think that casualties are getting to high.":
=> I tend to agree with this, anyone who expects a war without many deaths is just fooling themselves.

Discussions on the war apart, I find it interesting that although we're all supposed to be well educated (and taught to think independently), what we've more or less got here is the opposition of "average" European (eg Tier, myself) vs. "average" US sentiment (Seanc, fraser). DonaEU(tm)t want to go off on a tangent, but shows how much we are influenced by the media (at the end of the day strongly influenced by politics) and most of all our culture specific thought patterns. That said, to quote relinquo, "feel free to disagree with me (i respect your right to do so), but know that i am right" ;-)

Mar 19, 2007
Seanc:

If the current populace exhibits the same cowardice and lack of will as the Nam generation did then this war and others are as good as lost, but if we can get one good surge out of our soldiers, I guarantee you every one of the Insurgents and "brave" Iraqis will be begging for mercy.

beg for mercy? do you mean in the way that they do when some blow themselves up in order to take down a few soldiers.

you misunderstand. it doesn't depend on bravery. pride or survival on their own would be enough for them to keep on fighting. they do not want to be occupied. would you like to have an arab run your country and tell you what to do? visualise that for a second. do you get it now? if someone walked into my home and started to tell me what to do, even my highly moitsurised soft financier hands would bear arms against them.

fraser24gt:

The thing that I think is the worst is the people who started out wanting the US to go to war, and now think that casualties are getting to high. If people aren't comfortable with the realities of war, then they definitely should never be in support of such a thing. Also, I can't imagine how disgusted I would be as a soldier if my buddies died and I was left with physical and mental injuries for the rest of my life, only to leave having accomplished little.

its a sunk cost, i.e. irrelevant (though unfortunate). aren't you a banker?

Question for seanc et al to ponder. how exactly does one "win" a war of occupation in iraq? how does one win peace through force? as long as there is someone resisting us presence there, then the us hasn't won anything, has it? this isn't a sports match with a finite time and scores tabulated at the end. it isn't a matter of distroying a city or a few bases. how can you win something that is unwinnable?

fraser24gt:

Leaving sends a powerful message to our enemies: kill enough US soldiers, and the "Great Satan" will leave...and then we get to welcome them to US soil to continue their activities.

what? continueing their activities on us soil? what activities exactly? you surely aren't suggesting that iraqi's had anything to do with 9/11, are you? seriously. open your eyes mate.

"feel free to disagree with me (i respect your right to do so), but know that i am right"

Mar 25, 2007

Its not a sunk cost. The point is that if we leave now with the way things are, the world will know that we can't get shit done, and we pussied out and left. Obviously things aren't going well, and Im antiwar, but we cant leave now. The money we spend to crush them will be worth it, if we leave now we will face the consequences for a long time.

Mar 18, 2007

Relinquo, I'm not saying that Iraq had anything to do with it. I still say they were a threat, at least every powerful intelligence agency believed this to be the case. But now, Iraq is the battlefield for the West against Islamic Fundamentalists, especially since the majority of "insurgents" that attack our soldiers are foreign fighters. What attacks have there been in the U.S. since 9/11 or the start of the Iraq War? None. While I don't like U.S. soldiers being killed, that is as much a part of their job as it is for fire fighters or police officers. Realistically, deploying them in the Middle East protects vast numbers of Americans in the U.S. In my opinion, it is always better to fight them abroad rather than at home. How is it unwinnable? Right now, the only problem area is Baghdad and the surrounding area. The Kurdish north is doing better than ever. Southern Iraq is prospering as well. If the U.S. were to leave, that progress would be for naught, as some new dictator (most likely backed by Iran) would take control. Let's face it, the Middle East always has been and always will be one of the biggest shitholes on the face of this Earth. No matter what anyone does, there will always be war and chaos eminating from places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. That being said, it makes sense to at least contain the fighting in that area.

Mar 19, 2007

i disagree.

i wouldn't call what's going on in southern iraq as prosperity. perhaps we have different perspectives on what the word means.

fraser24gt:

Let's face it, the Middle East always has been and always will be one of the biggest shitholes on the face of this Earth. No matter what anyone does, there will always be war and chaos eminating from places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. That being said, it makes sense to at least contain the fighting in that area.

wow. this is just ignorant. this quote captures how little you know about the world around you and the world before your time. you only have to go back 40 or so years to see a prosperous iraq. one with a culture of tolerance and civil society. i'm not going to even start about the times before that. similar things could be said about lebanon, syria, iran, jordan and other countries within the region that you so eloquently brand as "shitholes". the "shitholes" that you talk about have spawned generations of different civilizations that have contributed their part to everything from art to sciences and have influenced the cultures far beyond the regions borders.

fraser24gt:

it makes sense to at least contain the fighting in that area.

no. all you are doing is trying to find a tighter lid for the pressure cooker. what you need to do is to defuse the source of the pressure/heat. you won't be able to do that with bombs and soldiers.

matty200:

Its not a sunk cost. The point is that if we leave now with the way things are, the world will know that we can't get shit done, and we pussied out and left. Obviously things aren't going well, and Im antiwar, but we cant leave now. The money we spend to crush them will be worth it, if we leave now we will face the consequences for a long time.

define "crush them". i'm serious.

"crush", does this mean kill, capture, contain, indoctrinate or another word? and who are the "them" that will/should be crushed? are these "insurgents", alqaeda, anyone who resists us occupation, non-iraqis in iraq (excluding americans & co), or another group?

this may help me make sense of what you are typing.

Mar 19, 2007

Whatever you believe, the end game has to be us staying there and winning. That means exercising control of the Oil resources and installing a puppet government. I don't care how long it takes or how many Iraqis die. They could triple the force if Congress wasn't controlled by Democrats.

I respect your opinion Reliquo, but you're just plain wrong if you think we should withdraw.

Mar 18, 2007

I guess I was using prosperity as a relative term. The fact that they have commerce now more than ever before speaks volumes, to me at least.

Look, I'm not going back to Europe's Dark Ages when the Moors invented algebra and all that, I'm talking about fairly recent history. I will admit that pre-Saddam Iraq is not really on my radar, but how much did they contribute to the world then? What makes Lebanon, Syria or Iran great either? Middle Eastern culture consists of warlords fighting one another for power, which is no different than what is going on today (i.e. Shiites vs. Sunnis). Such fighting has gone on for centuries and will continue forever, I think. Really, for them, its not even about the oil. They just want to have control over more cities than the next warlord.

How do you suggest we defuse the source of such pressure/heat? Islamic Fundamentalists HATE Western civilization, and Christians more than that, and Jews more than that. Take Israel for instance; while neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are completely innocent, that is a situation that will never be resolved, by bombs or diplomacy. But does that mean that Israel shouldnt put soldiers into Gaza? Look at the diplomacy aspect of it: Clinton brought together Rabin and Arafat, and what did it accomplish? They are no better now than they were then. If they are, its only because Arafat is gone.

This is why I refer to the Middle East as a shithole. Nothing will ever change there. Sure, the Moors did wonders for the world thousands of years ago, but now all that the Mid. East has to offer is oil. Thats it. They are Africa, with oil. The West cares about oil, thus we care about the Mid. East.

As far as "crushing them," to me it means killing people that wish to kill you, and doing whatever it takes to provide security to those that are innocent. The factional leaders, clerics, and warlords are the ones creating the problems, but you can't get rid of them so its about containment. For their minions...smoke em. Strafe em down with an A-10 Warthog for all I care. Whatever it takes to ensure that no more troops, who will increasingly become advisors and peace-keepers (even if that is a bit of a mis-nomer), are killed, that's "crushing them".

Mar 18, 2007

Also, I agree w/ Seanc. Democrats are the antithesis of oiling the gears. They could not have mucked up this war any more if they tried. Not that people like Rumsfeld don't shoulder some of the blame, but he's gone and the Dems are still mucking everything up. Dems involved = FUBAR.

Mar 19, 2007

Can't believe people think that Iraq was some kind of paradise before we invaded.

Mar 19, 2007

i didn't say that it was a paradise, nor are all the problems in the middle east of us creation. that is not my point at all. my point is that you seem to think that life throughout the middle east consists entirely of the kind of mayham and chaoes that iraq has been reduced to post us invasion. this is not the case. people around the middle east live in societies much similar to those in other asian countries or, indeed, european and american countries of similar wealth, i.e. they study, work, play, socialise, read, appreciate culture, and generally get on with life, etc... you seem to have an image of the middle east as a barren colourless land with feuding tribes. furthermore, i gather from your argument that the rationale is that since the middle east is not exactly midtown nyc, or mayfair london, then it is ok to bomb the life out of it.

oh, and the "commerce" that you speak of is only significant relative to the conditions when iraq was under economic sanctions! you seem to value commerce, yet have a disdain for the middle east's trading roots. if there is anything in common between modern american values and those of the middle east it is an appreciation of the importance of trade and making a buck.

the comparison of the israelies and palastinians with the us and iraq is false on so many levels. not least of which is that the us has no business being in iraq apart from the intention to continue global dominance, indeed if seanc's post is any indication it is much like the warlords fraser24gt mentions in his post. to compare that with israelies and palastinnians who both claim a right to the same territories is insulting to both.

i accept your right to take a different position to mine. i still disagree with you.

Mar 19, 2007

Relinquo, I'm afraid you're wrong. See, it's like the Super Bowl, except with bombs. You're the best and you know it and you go in -- raahr, kaboom, raaaahr, pewpewpew -- dominate everything and everyone in your vision, crush the savages, blow up their pitiful bronze age hovels, mutilate them until their blood runs in the street like FDC Red #4, make origami out of their tibias because you are just that good, and then the last fourteen of them left alive all kneel and beg and sob in the streets and you kick them in the face and go back home proud in the knowledge that the rest of the world will now quiver in fear at the idea of doing anything but exactly what you want. Then there's a parade.

And what you don't understand, Relinquo, is that it's a matter of degrees. We need more, and we're not getting it. Until we get more -- more muscle, more bullets, more bombs, all of it, everything we've got, until we unleash the full-on juggernaut of American pride and absolute destruction, until we've glassed the desert and bombed the Iraqi people from the Bronze Age back into the Stone Age, we're not fulfilling our real responsibility to prove that we're the absolute best there is. And then what will Iran say? Not to mention everybody else?

So, you see: it's not that hard as long as you don't have domestic meddlers getting in the way. The key is to be fearless, try hard, be the best, and have all the soldiers and ammo we can get. Anything less is unAmerican, my friend.

Mar 19, 2007

sarcasm-o-metere overload.

Mar 18, 2007

Well, this thread could easily go on forever just like the original poster mused that the war in Iraq will. This is the kind of subject on which we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Mar 19, 2007

It's just a simple difference of opinion between people who want America to win, and people who want America to lose more than the insurgents themselves.

Apr 6, 2007

The approach to war was flawed to begin with. Generals asked for 400,000 troops from Bush. Guess what Bush did to those generals? Gave them 400,000? NO, HE FIRED THEM!!!!! And gave their replacements 150,000. That's the reason Iraq's a mess. Because Bush is an ignorant fool that doesn't listen to experts.

"We are lawyers! We sue people! Occasionally, we get aggressive and garnish wages, but WE DO NOT ABDUCT!" -Boston Legal-

Apr 12, 2007
holymonkey:

The approach to war was flawed to begin with. Generals asked for 400,000 troops from Bush. Guess what Bush did to those generals? Gave them 400,000? NO, HE FIRED THEM!!!!! And gave their replacements 150,000. That's the reason Iraq's a mess. Because Bush is an ignorant fool that doesn't listen to experts.

Amen. Insurgents or not, we still have the best fucking military in the world...If Bush had listened to the experts we would've finished this war a long time ago...and we wouldn't be needing a troop surge now...

Mar 19, 2007

As stated and explained before, war is a lot more comlpex than numbers.

1m elite troops and enough equipment to give Rumsfeld & Cheney the biggest hard-ons in their lives wouldn't have fixed the situation.

Mar 19, 2007

We'r not talking about 1m European troops here, we'r talking about the World's finest, most skilled killing machines.

Mar 18, 2007

Hahaha, classic.

Mar 19, 2007
Mar 19, 2007
May 2, 2007
Mar 19, 2007