Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +212/-207
Posts: 4,097
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2007, 11:16:55 AM » |
|
Sectarian violence has stopped in neighborhoods where ethnic cleansing has had a chance to create a strong majority. It's a grissly, yet inevitable conclusion.
Why not let it happen? Because that would be a categorical US permission for it and translated onto the 'Arab Street' that means orders from Washington made it happen. US already carries enough explosive baggage from Iraq, adding to it doesn't seem like a good plan. Troops aren't stopping it. Ignoring Al Malaki doesn't stop it. Pretending like it's not there won't stop it. Basically, our current strategies toward it aren't stopping sectarian violence... but in neighborhoods where it's been allowed to expand, sectarian violence polarizes both sides and effectively ends. Again, it's not pretty... but it works. The only other option is to KEEP US troops in the middle, a solution neither the US or Iraq will tolerate. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Gojira
|
|
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2007, 11:35:18 AM » |
|
My greatest fear. There is no way America will be able to pursue economic interests in the region ever again if said thing happens. Your greatest fear? What about 1979? Iran has already gone down this road and the world didn't end. And Iran has a hundred times more reason for implacable hatred of the USA than Iraq does. Iraq is building that up right now, but still has a long way to go. Four years of US occupation is small potatoes compared with 30 years of US-installed Shah Palavi running a police state. Whoever said that the world was going to end? I said that economic interests in the ME were going to end. The Iran Contra Affair was a direct retaliation in keeping us from setting up a puppet government to extract as much petrodollars from the country as we can, much like Saudi Arabia. Jimmy Carter was soft in the affairs of America's elite and didn't care to go through with any action that until now, entices Bush and makes everybody nervous. I don't know how long the Saudi's would keep the Wahabists uprising from gaining any ground but I do know that the destabilization of Iraq won't help. Leaving Iraq open to another fundamentalist regime is bad news for the rest of American interests in the ME which currently only happens in two places: Saudi Arabia and the place were every fundy Islamists gun is pointing towards, Israel. It won't be long for the Wahabists to rise up and we have to retract our weapons contracts with Saudi Arabia before that nation falls apart too. It will be like some sort of domino effect in which the dollar's hold on the MEern economy disappears and we start seeing oil measured in petroeuro's or worse...petroyuan. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2007, 11:58:26 AM » |
|
My greatest fear. There is no way America will be able to pursue economic interests in the region ever again if said thing happens. Your greatest fear? What about 1979? Iran has already gone down this road and the world didn't end. And Iran has a hundred times more reason for implacable hatred of the USA than Iraq does. Iraq is building that up right now, but still has a long way to go. Four years of US occupation is small potatoes compared with 30 years of US-installed Shah Palavi running a police state. Whoever said that the world was going to end? I said that economic interests in the ME were going to end. The Iran Contra Affair was a direct retaliation in keeping us from setting up a puppet government to extract as much petrodollars from the country as we can, much like Saudi Arabia. Jimmy Carter was soft in the affairs of America's elite and didn't care to go through with any action that until now, entices Bush and makes everybody nervous. I don't know how long the Saudi's would keep the Wahabists uprising from gaining any ground but I do know that the destabilization of Iraq won't help. Leaving Iraq open to another fundamentalist regime is bad news for the rest of American interests in the ME which currently only happens in two places: Saudi Arabia and the place were every fundy Islamists gun is pointing towards, Israel. It won't be long for the Wahabists to rise up and we have to retract our weapons contracts with Saudi Arabia before that nation falls apart too. It will be like some sort of domino effect in which the dollar's hold on the MEern economy disappears and we start seeing oil measured in petroeuro's or worse...petroyuan. Sorry, I thought the topic was about Iraq - not the US need for dominance in the Middle East. Petrodollars or Petroeuros? That is generally only of concern to plutocrats and US dominance fanatics (and Euro-chest-thumpers). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 07, 2007, 12:02:08 PM » |
|
Troops aren't stopping it. Ignoring Al Malaki doesn't stop it. Pretending like it's not there won't stop it.
Basically, our current strategies toward it aren't stopping sectarian violence... but in neighborhoods where it's been allowed to expand, sectarian violence polarizes both sides and effectively ends.
Again, it's not pretty... but it works.
The only other option is to KEEP US troops in the middle, a solution neither the US or Iraq will tolerate.
No, US forces have not prevented such sectarian violence from happening. But no one is accusing the USA of making that sectarian violence happen. US forces are trying (unsuccessfully) to stop the sectarian violence. This is credible. Your policy would be for the USA to endorse ethnic clensing. And to the 'Arab Street' US endorsement the policy means the US is the architect of the policy - and that would be a really bad decision for the USA. When one is deep in a hole, first rule is 'stop digging'. Your policy entails more digging. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gojira
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2007, 12:11:47 PM » |
|
My greatest fear. There is no way America will be able to pursue economic interests in the region ever again if said thing happens. Your greatest fear? What about 1979? Iran has already gone down this road and the world didn't end. And Iran has a hundred times more reason for implacable hatred of the USA than Iraq does. Iraq is building that up right now, but still has a long way to go. Four years of US occupation is small potatoes compared with 30 years of US-installed Shah Palavi running a police state. Whoever said that the world was going to end? I said that economic interests in the ME were going to end. The Iran Contra Affair was a direct retaliation in keeping us from setting up a puppet government to extract as much petrodollars from the country as we can, much like Saudi Arabia. Jimmy Carter was soft in the affairs of America's elite and didn't care to go through with any action that until now, entices Bush and makes everybody nervous. I don't know how long the Saudi's would keep the Wahabists uprising from gaining any ground but I do know that the destabilization of Iraq won't help. Leaving Iraq open to another fundamentalist regime is bad news for the rest of American interests in the ME which currently only happens in two places: Saudi Arabia and the place were every fundy Islamists gun is pointing towards, Israel. It won't be long for the Wahabists to rise up and we have to retract our weapons contracts with Saudi Arabia before that nation falls apart too. It will be like some sort of domino effect in which the dollar's hold on the MEern economy disappears and we start seeing oil measured in petroeuro's or worse...petroyuan. Sorry, I thought the topic was about Iraq - not the US need for dominance in the Middle East. Petrodollars or Petroeuros? That is generally only of concern to plutocrats and US dominance fanatics (and Euro-chest-thumpers). Well, if you read my posts my reluctance for leaving is because of my belief in preserving American interests in the ME. As for being a US dominance fanatic, I guess that's something I need to think about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,837
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2007, 12:32:38 PM » |
|
Provided that the USA didn't invade Iraq in order to ensure US control of Iraqi oil over the long term (i.e. force Iraq to sell oil denominated in US dollars)... in which case the USA will never actually leave Iraq and any talk to the contrary is just a fools' game.....
.....But of course, I've not been able to abandon the original point that the USA doesn't give a flying ____ about Iraq or Iraqi democracy - only oil and geostrategic positioning.....
The proverbial "Elephant in the Room" NOT ONE single Presidential candidate acknowledges...I guess they figure the American people are too stupid to figure it out. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2007, 12:38:06 PM » |
|
Well, if you read my posts my reluctance for leaving is because of my belief in preserving American interests in the ME. Preserving American interests in the ME can best be achieved by stopping the destruction of American interests in the ME. GWBush has done more to permanently destroy US influence in the ME than anything else anyone can name. More of the same is thus not a viable policy option - if you favor US interests in the ME. One cannot be said to have an 'interest' if it only exists at the point of a gun. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dormouse
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2007, 12:39:18 PM » |
|
Provided that the USA didn't invade Iraq in order to ensure US control of Iraqi oil over the long term (i.e. force Iraq to sell oil denominated in US dollars)... in which case the USA will never actually leave Iraq and any talk to the contrary is just a fools' game.....
.....But of course, I've not been able to abandon the original point that the USA doesn't give a flying ____ about Iraq or Iraqi democracy - only oil and geostrategic positioning.....
The proverbial "Elephant in the Room" NOT ONE single Presidential candidate acknowledges...I guess they figure the American people are too stupid to figure it out. More like guarenteed career-death to even mention it. The US media and polical elites will make sure of it. Btw, Patton, do you post at any other political discussion forums? Your username appears to be quite familiar to me for some reason. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 07, 2007, 12:41:25 PM by Dormouse »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +212/-207
Posts: 4,097
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2007, 12:42:47 PM » |
|
Troops aren't stopping it. Ignoring Al Malaki doesn't stop it. Pretending like it's not there won't stop it.
Basically, our current strategies toward it aren't stopping sectarian violence... but in neighborhoods where it's been allowed to expand, sectarian violence polarizes both sides and effectively ends.
Again, it's not pretty... but it works.
The only other option is to KEEP US troops in the middle, a solution neither the US or Iraq will tolerate. No, US forces have not prevented such sectarian violence from happening. But no one is accusing the USA of making that sectarian violence happen. US forces are trying (unsuccessfully) to stop the sectarian violence. This is credible. US didn't create this violence? That's a delusional conclusion. Once Hussein was deposed, so went the relative control he had over the warring regions. This is a point of history, not interpretation. Your policy would be for the USA to endorse ethnic clensing. And to the 'Arab Street' US endorsement the policy means the US is the architect of the policy - and that would be a really bad decision for the USA. When one is deep in a hole, first rule is 'stop digging'. Your policy entails more digging. Letting it happen is NOT endorsing the idea. It's the conclusion you reach when faced with an inevitability. Better to let it happen on YOUR terms then it sneak up and endanger your control over a region. Also, if the troops are on the border, preventing Iranian, Saudi Arabian and Turkish interference it whould be interpreted as Iraq establishing control of it's OWN government and not us forcing one on them. It's going to happen whether we leave or stay. Why perpetuate it by ignoring it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Gojira
|
|
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2007, 01:55:56 PM » |
|
Well, if you read my posts my reluctance for leaving is because of my belief in preserving American interests in the ME. Preserving American interests in the ME can best be achieved by stopping the destruction of American interests in the ME. GWBush has done more to permanently destroy US influence in the ME than anything else anyone can name. More of the same is thus not a viable policy option - if you favor US interests in the ME. One cannot be said to have an 'interest' if it only exists at the point of a gun. Well, I agree with all this except that decision has already been made. This thread was about what to do about it now... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,837
|
|
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2007, 03:26:25 PM » |
|
Provided that the USA didn't invade Iraq in order to ensure US control of Iraqi oil over the long term (i.e. force Iraq to sell oil denominated in US dollars)... in which case the USA will never actually leave Iraq and any talk to the contrary is just a fools' game.....
.....But of course, I've not been able to abandon the original point that the USA doesn't give a flying ____ about Iraq or Iraqi democracy - only oil and geostrategic positioning.....
The proverbial "Elephant in the Room" NOT ONE single Presidential candidate acknowledges...I guess they figure the American people are too stupid to figure it out. More like guarenteed career-death to even mention it. The US media and polical elites will make sure of it. Btw, Patton, do you post at any other political discussion forums? Your username appears to be quite familiar to me for some reason. No. Ole "Blood and Guts" is pretty popular in military circles, I'm sure it is fairly common around the net. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
Fredledingue
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +30/-31
Posts: 868
|
|
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2007, 03:26:44 PM » |
|
Since things are improving now, I would say "stay the course". Keep the 30,000 extra troops there another 6 months or even a year.
Efforts must now be made to fight curruption or simply bad fund management for aid and reconstruction.
Incentives to start or restart a private business are excellent things. There should more initiatives like that. Economy and education quickly become more important than basic safety and military deployement.
But there should be no let up in street safety and no time break between the fight against militants and the fight against corruption.
6 months ago I was still saying that if Iraqis realy want to kill each others, let them do it and save american soldeir lives. Today, I see that they are capable of enjoying peace, give up the obscur fanaticism of al-Qaida wannabee groups and return to their home without fear or vengeance.
So IMO, the present situation is the best, considering the narrow range of other options.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Dr. Zoidberg is jewish (and an important AIPAC donator!)  |
|
|
Major Zee Lee
Forum cat lover
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +64/-169
Posts: 566
Kooks not allowed in (Secret meeting is next door)
|
|
« Reply #27 on: November 08, 2007, 02:20:10 AM » |
|
Since things are improving now, I would say "stay the course". Keep the 30,000 extra troops there another 6 months or even a year.
Efforts must now be made to fight curruption or simply bad fund management for aid and reconstruction.
Incentives to start or restart a private business are excellent things. There should more initiatives like that. Economy and education quickly become more important than basic safety and military deployement.
But there should be no let up in street safety and no time break between the fight against militants and the fight against corruption.
6 months ago I was still saying that if Iraqis realy want to kill each others, let them do it and save american soldeir lives. Today, I see that they are capable of enjoying peace, give up the obscur fanaticism of al-Qaida wannabee groups and return to their home without fear or vengeance.
So IMO, the present situation is the best, considering the narrow range of other options.
I am sorry to burst your buble, Fred, but nothing has improved in Iraq. The effort to thighten control in Bagdhad was made at the expense of losing it elsewhere. But then, al-Qaeda is in Baqubah, not in Bagdhad. So the Surge has basically made Bagdhad a no-entry zone at the expense of leaving the rest of the country wide open and free to ride. In Spanish we call that undressing a saint to dress another. The point is thta US forces in Iraq are really, really insufficent to hold an effective ground control. You don't win a war by not owing nor controlling anything else but the ground where your soldiers step on. And you know why you don't win a war this way? Because that's EXACTLY how France lost in Indochina and the USA lost in Vietnam. US soldiers go to street A, bad guys leave it (after setting some IEDs, of course), US soldiers (if lucky) leave street A in one piece and bad guys get back to business as usual in street A. And in the case of Baqubah, it is like US soldiers get into Baqubah, are grinded to raw meat and leave the hell out of there before al-Qaeda hits them more. As reinforcements are in Bagdhad, gloriosuly achieving a "succesful" Surge. That's exactly the size of the "ground control" the USA currently have in a country they supposedly invaded and conquered. Now, if you were a Iraqi, who would worry you more? American who come in and go away, or the armed bastids who are here, quit for a while and then come back?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Do not take life too seriously; nobody lives to tell.
|
|
|
Terry Mathis
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +57/-92
Posts: 1,239
Goulburn NSW Australia Dual Australian/U.S.
|
|
« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2007, 03:23:32 AM » |
|
.
I am sorry Major, I have to agree with Fred on this one. The commander of US forces has drawn down the surge troops (about 30,000) and says that 2008 will be gaining the trust of the people, winning the peace and repairing infrastructure (power, water, schools etc.) while insuring the government has a chance to put sect differences aside, deploy their own unbiased police force and work toward a unified Iraq before the troops come home. He said recently that you could almost touch all that now, but just a little more independence is needed.
Regards
Terry
.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Its not what they say that bothers me, its what they say that just aint so that does ! - Will Rogers So that we may end the oppression wrought by our own hands.
- Shulman |
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2007, 04:11:52 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
