'7' Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 I believe there are about 150,000 troops stationed there, America has been there for about 7 months and are losing several soldiers a day because of the Iraqi resistance movement. Recently there have been some serious attacks including the shooting down of a Chinook helicopter, attacks on the Red Cross and at the hotel of Paul Wolfowitz (iraqi's report he was 1 room away) so what should happen now? Do they gradually withdraw troops and hand off more power to the iraqi's over the next year? Is it still possible to get other nations to help America clean this up? is saddam leading the resistance movement, is he still in iraq? has he already been caught with Bush waiting for the right time to drop the bombshell (could happen ) when does the body count get high enough for the American people to say "we've had enough" support has been steadily falling for months, prompting the Bush regime to berate the media and make up some "good news" campaign that has been greeted.....suspiciously (how many times do we have to see the same school house open?) This reminds me of the Soviet style propaganda films that showed our soldiers playing soccer with Afghan children and making Chicken Kabobs with the mujahideen that would shoot at them once the sun set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 (edited) The United States is stuck in Iraq.. not stuck in that it's unwinnable, but they're going to be there for a very long time. Far too late to pull out now, that's not even in our interests to do so. Whoever gained power would be whoever was strongest, and that kind of thing cannot be good for the United States. I can't see Saddam Hussein coming back, but even that would be a best-case scenario for the U.S., because they wouldn't let him rebuild his infrastructure.. anyway, point is, we're there until we can establish an Iraqi government that is friendly to us. Iraq isn't about to become a democracy either, so let's put that myth to bed too. The U.S. won't allow them self-rule because it's unlikely self-rule would mean being nice to America..the majority of people prefer secure tyranny to insecure "democracy." I imagine we'll get some sort of amalgamated government with elements of each in it. Not great, but it's a start, especially in a place where history and nature conspire against democracy. The war on terror is not a war about manpower. It's not about winning of hearts and minds either, because it really shouldn't be that hard to win hearts and minds of normal Iraqis: keep them safe, and help them rebuild. But 'terrorist' (and I enjoy our current regime calling any attack against the US a 'terrorist' attack.. thanks for the fear-mongering) attacks won't stop until you are able to somehow get rid of everyone in Iraq who doesn't believe in the rule of law.. I don't see that happening any time soon. Edited November 6, 2003 by Triumph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted November 6, 2003 Author Share Posted November 6, 2003 and how much will all of this cost, $, lives, how much longer until the American people reach a breaking point? And what if it's before the puppet govt. can be established. We might be pressured to leave without finishing the job, but the Mission Accomplished banner will still be there so most will believe we did, for a while at least and what about Afghanistan? Is there a complete media blackout there? Whatever news leaks out doesn't sound so good. Karzai is said to control Kabul and nothing else. I hear about the Taliban taking back land, feuding warlords... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetsGoDevils Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 And what if it's before the puppet govt. can be established. Yeah, those puppet govts we installed in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Italy, and Panama sure are working for us. Stay the Course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted November 6, 2003 Author Share Posted November 6, 2003 in those countries, america didn't face a resistance movement that was being assisted and financed by neighboring countries. To compare Iraq War 2 with WW2 is just silly. The closest comparison, and the one you avoid mentioning is Vietnam. When you have Syria & Iran (possibly the Saudi's too) providing weapons, manpower, and $$$, you have the potential for a quagmire that can last a long long time. This is fast becoming an unpopular war, Vietnam is still fresh in too many people's memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Can't compare any of those six to Iraq. The Muslim world has been perhaps the least receptive to democracy and Western ideals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetsGoDevils Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 in those countries, america didn't face a resistance movement that was being assisted and financed by neighboring countries. To compare Iraq War 2 with WW2 is just silly. The closest comparison, and the one you avoid mentioning is Vietnam. When you have Syria & Iran (possibly the Saudi's too) providing weapons, manpower, and $$$, you have the potential for a quagmire that can last a long long time. This is fast becoming an unpopular war, Vietnam is still fresh in too many people's memories. To compare Iraq to Vietnam is silly. Anytime a U.S. soldier steps foot on another land, people go screaming Vietnam. Vietnam is over. So, when the U.S. death count breaks what?...200+ , the U.S. should immediately withdraw from a conflict? That is what an insurgent wants, considering our recent history since Vietnam (Exception: Gulf War). We ran from Beruit after the Marine building got leveled in 1983. Grenada didn't last long enough for people to cry Vietnam. Panama, another too short conflict for enough soldiers to die to cry Vietnam. Got a bloody nose in Somalia, we left. Bosnia, we do air drops and then finally put a soldier on the ground...rumblings of Vietnam again, but not enough soldiers died. So, in the end, to defeat America, just kill enough troops so "John and Jane Doe" sitting in front of their TV can feel, "Oh my God, lets get them home where it's safe." You can't close the borders with Iran and Syria; fact. We can't seal our own borders; fact. We can assist and defend a fledgling government until it can with merit become part of the world body. In the end, I think the Iraqi government will end up looking something like Turkey's. Stay the Course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 Something like Turkey's, only doing everything with our 'blessing'. When an Iraqi government acts against the will of the United States, that is when they will be free. The Vietnam comparison is unmerited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted November 6, 2003 Share Posted November 6, 2003 (edited) and what about Afghanistan? Is there a complete media blackout there? Whatever news leaks out doesn't sound so good. Karzai is said to control Kabul and nothing else. I hear about the Taliban taking back land, feuding warlords... They just unveiled a draft of their new constitution a few days ago. Story: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...constitution_11 As for Iraq, I find it interesting that we've lost as many (or more) lives after the so-called war "ended" than during it. Edited November 6, 2003 by RowdyFan42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted November 6, 2003 Author Share Posted November 6, 2003 lol, the constitution delcared Afghanistan as an Islamic Republic really!?!?! news to me but when will the constitution & Karzai be recognized outside the city limits of Kabul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saints Nijmegen Posted January 29, 2004 Share Posted January 29, 2004 To compare a war is always stuppid, like making war is stuppid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrillhouse Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 No offense to any Arabs out there, but its just silly how some of these people lack reason. Isn't reason what seperates us from the animals, that and opposable thumbs? No matter how long we are there, Iraq will never have a stable peaceful government. the people in that area have been constantly fighting for 1000's of years, with the exception of a short time around 620AD. Nothing is gonna change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 What? Europe had been fighting ever since the Roman Empire fell, from World War 2 on back. Is that saying that Europe is a warlike region with no hope of having stable peaceful governments? No. What stops war is democracy. Once you have the majority of the people making the decisions, you have a majority of people who aren't going to put themselves or their sons and daughters out into the battlefield for wars which they have no real stake in. Or so you hope. Democracy has not worked in the Middle East. I'm not sure it can yet; education levels may be too low. It's also unclear what they have to offer the world other than oil, which is another problem. In order to put yourself into the world economy, you have to provide lots of cheap labor and let American and European corporations use that labor. I'm not sure it's economically feasible for most of those Middle Eastern countries to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdf Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Tri, education has nothing to do with it - how educated were the colonists? just an example, not a criticism. The problems over there are a)they have always been "ruled" by a "king/prince/emperor/dictator" or what ever, the concept of choosing a leader is entirely foreign to them, B) the greed and power corrupt those at the top, to the point that they resort to ruthless acts of savagery to maintain the status quo, and c) we (the western world) really can't understand the power of the muslim religion over it's followers, and how certain charismatic religious leaders can twist the teachings of a basically peaceful religion and convince their followers that violence, bloodshed, and even their own lives are all to be given for the advancement of the religious leader. In reality, it's probably not much different than the days of the crusades or the spanish inquisitions, however, we (the western world) have become so far removed from that over the past several hundred years, that we no longer understand the power that organized religion can have over the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 All excellent points, though I'd contend the ones about the colonists.. the colonists may not have been generally educated, but some of the Founding Fathers were some of the brightest and most eloquent people to ever walk the earth. Since the poor didn't vote for a long time, it didn't matter how well educated they were. Obviously for democracy to work, you have to set it up so that it is secular.. that's going to be very difficult to do. I think you're right, if they elected one of these cleric guys into a high position, they'd never vote him out even if he was incompetent. The more I think about it, the more I think that it's going to take more than a year to hold real elections. And the U.S. is going to have to rig it somehow that people friendly to them are elected. It could get very messy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdf Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 good point on the poor not voting at first tri, i'd forgotten that the only people allowed to vote were the male W.A.S.P.'s back then - it was years before the poor, women and minorities also began to vote. The middle east is very difficult. They place their religious beliefs and leaders in such high regard, something we really don't do in the west, and I don't think western culture will ever understand that, we question everything, especially beliefs and authority, and therefore, we'll always have difficulty understanding middle eastern culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 Not to mention that Muslim religion forbids icons of any kind and you're not allowed to depict Mohammed's face. If there really isn't an emphasis on material things, the democracy might not work either.. But yeah, religion is so tied up with cultural identity, and things like cultural identity are so important.. it will be interesting to see how it works out. I really hated this idea when I first heard it, but I think there's something to be said about geography affecting the way people think. The Middle East and Russia haven't really taken to democracy, and both are the kind of places where strength seems to be prized above all else.. in the end you need someone who you think will keep you safe.. I dunno. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted February 24, 2004 Share Posted February 24, 2004 .. in the end you need someone who you think will keep you safe.. The US. Don't f*ck with us and you are okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts