The sh*t is hitting the fan in Iraq

by **cavalierlwt** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 6:52 pm

I can really see us pulling out and leaving them to a civil war after all. It's seems like we are reaching a turning point here.

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:05 pm

The vast majority of fighters in Iraq are foriegn fighters. They are coming into Iraq for one reason; to fight American soldiers, not to 'liberate' Iraq.

This means, for Iraq to move in the right direction, the US needs to pull out as the main force and the UN moves in. Do I like the UN? No. But they have a much better chance of allowing Iraq to move forward. It is as simple as that.

by **Jeffro** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:08 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
The vast majority of fighters in Iraq are foriegn fighters. They are coming into Iraq for one reason; to fight American soldiers, not to 'liberate' Iraq.

This means, for Iraq to move in the right direction, the US needs to pull out as the main force and the UN moves in. Do I like the UN? No. But they have a much better chance of allowing Iraq to move forward. It is as simple as that.

If bush gets elected, however, I do not think we would be moving out any time soon...

by **cavalierlwt** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:11 pm

I like the idea of the UN moving in, but it's not going to happen. The UN won't take part in this because it's too dangerous. I'm just not sure that it's possible (for anyone) to peacefully cause Iraq to transition into a Democracy. Maybe, between culture and geography, it's not possible for the Iraqi people to form a single democracy.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:17 pm

Getting the UN in there would be the the second worst possible thing to do. The worst would be just pulling out but the UN ranks a real close second.

Wait. The Marine Corp, and those Army slackers

, are REAL good at what they do. And a lot of the reporting you are seeing is from questionable new sources.

Yesterday on Yahoo News thruout the day the amount of dead was hopping all over as reporters were giving out bad info left and right. It went something like this.

20 marines dead, 80 Iraqi's, 18 Marines dead 100 Iraqi's, 16 Marines dead 113 Iraqi's. The last I saw we had only lost 12 Marines ( I do mourn them and honor their sacrifice) and over 130 Iraqi's

Hmmm seems the longer the fighting is going on the lower our casualties become and the enemies correspondingly increase.

And we cannot just pull up stakes and leave. A man should finish what he starts and so should a country. The far reaching consequences of cutting and running would be devastating. Wether anyone likes it or not we are commited and irregardless of your initial position on this war we must see it thru.

by **cavalierlwt** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:23 pm

I totally believe in our ability to 'beat' them in a fight. I just question the Iraqi's desire for democracy. I hate to bring up Vietnam, but it strikes me that the average Iraqi seems about as interested in fighting for democracy about as much as the average South Vietnamese did. I just don't get a sense that the average person in Iraq is really with us on this concept. Maybe that's due to years of oppression under Saddam, but I can't imagine letting our troops keep getting killed on a daily basis while we wait for the effects of Saddam to 'wear off'.

by **shockwave203** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:29 pm

US pulling out? no way in hell.

Why would Bush pull out now, when he finally got what he was after in the first place?

Bush has declared a state of National Emergency in Iraq. Precious oil, the precious oil...

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/oil_corporations_iraq_immunity.html

In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations.

In the short term, through the Development Fund and the Export-Import Bank programs, the Iraqi people's oil will finance U.S. corporate entrees into Iraq. In the long term, Executive Order 13303 protects anything those corporations do to seize control of Iraq's oil, from the point of production to the gas pump -- and places oil companies above the rule of law.

by **Murgatroyd** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:37 pm

Well, as Ingus said, information is sketchy, and will undoubtedly vary from source to source, depending on that source's political affiliations.

My take on the subject is this. Somewhere around 95% of the Iraqis want do to what you and I do. Get up in the morning, have a cup of coffee, read the paper, go to school/work, come home, play video games/watch TV.

They just got out of living under a particularly brutal dictatorship, and I imagine that their desire for peace is greater than ours.

Comparing this to Vietnam is like apples and oranges. First of all, in Vietnam, we were fighting against a professional army which got supplies, arms, intelligence, basically anything it needed from the Soviet Union. In this case, these insurgents are armed with outdated weapons, no armored vehicles, and probably very little accurate intelligence. I mean, look at them, they resort to killing civilians.

Getting back to my original point. I feel as if there is a strong desire for peace in Iraq from the Iraqis themselves. I believe that our government is doing their best to convey the fact that we're not some colonial occupational force, but rather that we'd really like to transfer power as quickly as possible to an Iraqi authority, and will support that authority militarily, monitarily and diplomatically until it is self-sustaining.

The type of government will begin as a democracy, yes, but that means that they get to make the rules. What these separatists want is this:

1.) Make America look bad, and to kill Americans
2.) Kill Americans
3.) Kill more Americans
4.) Kill lots of Americans
5.) Kill as many Americans as possible
6.) Install a wahabist islamic fundamentalist government in Iraq

Honestly, I think they could care less about how the government turns out in Iraq as much as they want to see Americans suffer. It's a sad opinion, yes, but I believe it.

We are dealing with an enemy that believes that we are sub-human, and undeserving of anything in this world.
Scary? Yep.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 7:55 pm

Pretty much dead on there Murg.

I would extend that 95% to pretty everyone everywhere. Its when good men do nothing that the whack jobs get into power.

This sect wants to set-up a nation under their rule simliar to Iran (hmmm wonder who is backing them?) The Kurds and the Sunni aren't particularly keen on the idea so we do have help over there.

Remember its an election year. Most of us are pretty much agreed the media has a liberal lean to it so the reporting is going to focus on the bad.

by **cavalierlwt** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:02 pm

The Shiites are the majority though, 60+ percent I believe. Iraq really should be 3 countries, Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish.

by **Rand0m** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:53 pm

Brother will be there before this year's over. A friend of the family just got back home from being there twice already, seen some pics, wow! It's all bull shit to me, I don't like thinking about this subject because it gets me mad. I could go on and on for reasons why we shouldn't and should be there, and why America is the best and the worst at times, but I won't.

by **TestMonkey#8** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 9:58 pm

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
I totally believe in our ability to 'beat' them in a fight. I just question the Iraqi's desire for democracy. I hate to bring up Vietnam, but it strikes me that the average Iraqi seems about as interested in fighting for democracy about as much as the average South Vietnamese did. I just don't get a sense that the average person in Iraq is really with us on this concept. Maybe that's due to years of oppression under Saddam, but I can't imagine letting our troops keep getting killed on a daily basis while we wait for the effects of Saddam to 'wear off'.

In my opinion the Iraqis are suffering from a form of Stockholms(sp?) syndrome. Thats the thing where hostages start to identify with their captors. They were under such an oppresive regime for decades that as soon as some other violent minority voice erupts, and puts enough force behind their words, they start to buy into it out of fear. We cut and ran on them back in 91 and all the people that started to rebel against Saddam were slaaughtered when we pulled out. Dont think that the average everyday peace loving Iraqi doesnt remember that. If they think we are going to leave them in the lurch again, then it benifits a person to outwardly support this insergency.
Thats why we have to see it through this time. We failed them in 91, if we cut and run now we will be sentencing the average Iraqi to a regime as bad or worse than saddams. Not to mention the destructive blow to US credibility in the region.

The sh*t is hitting the fan in Iraq

The sh*t is hitting the fan in Iraq

Who is online