Thread: Once Iraq is stabilized...

I dont think so, the antiwar crew will throw something at them. Whats gonna worse is I can see all these countries who were opposed to the war will send funding/ soldiers in the next years and think they have a claim to the oil.

Originally Posted by bigss75

I dont think so, the antiwar crew will throw something at them. Whats gonna worse is I can see all these countries who were opposed to the war will send funding/ soldiers in the next years and think they have a claim to the oil.

Yea, i could see that happening, kind of like what happened in Afghanistan. But I think we are far too established in Iraq for other countries just to scoot in and take whatever they want

shots fired

Money doesn't make me respect a war started on false pretenses and the death of tens of thousands of civilians. Fuck money.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Money doesn't make me respect a war started on false pretenses and the death of tens of thousands of civilians. Fuck money.

and fuck doublebase.........

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Money doesn't make me respect a war started on false pretenses and the death of tens of thousands of civilians. Fuck money.

But stopping genocide and introducing democracy to a country that was oppressed by a tyrannical dictator does

Originally Posted by bigss75

But stopping genocide and introducing democracy to a country that was oppressed by a tyrannical dictator does

Libs will never understand this.

Originally Posted by topolo

Libs will never understand this.

http://rinkworks.com/crazylibs/

Originally Posted by bigss75

But stopping genocide and introducing democracy to a country that was oppressed by a tyrannical dictator does

That wasn't the excuse for invading, SON. You can't just make up reasons along the way. When people die for a lie, nothing can justify that. I don't care if you make 1/2% on your oil stock because 100k civilians were killed or horribly mangled.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

That wasn't the excuse for invading, SON. You can't just make up reasons along the way. When people die for a lie, nothing can justify that. I don't care if you make 1/2% on your oil stock because 100k civilians were killed or horribly mangled.

But they were Iraqi civilians.

Originally Posted by bigss75

But stopping genocide and introducing democracy to a country that was oppressed by a tyrannical dictator does

First of all, Saddam was not in the midst of committing genocide, even if he killed people in the past. Second, even if he were, all we did was replace his killings with our own and then some.

Don't pretend like America cares if a country is ruled by a dictator. That is a ruse. We have installed and offered material assistance to dictators in foreign countries and allow them to reign free so long as we can profit from it.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

First of all, Saddam was not in the midst of committing genocide, even. Second, even if he were, all we did was replace his killings with our own and then some.

Don't pretend like America cares if a country is ruled by a dictator. That is a ruse. We have installed and offered material assistance to dictators in foreign countries and allow them to reign free so long as we can profit from it.

Cow, there's no IF...its fact. If you need me to link it for you I will. The charge is over 20,000 people (men, women and children) almost all kurdish.

The killing now is sporadic sectarian chaos...its not any better, but at least its not systematic genocide.

And no, we don't care about dictators...we support them if the listen to us, but then again we don't support dictators that implement genocide...at least if the genocide is the public eye.

Originally Posted by fUnc17

and the oil is pumping at full capacity/effeciency into the US markets, making alot of americans money, do you think everyone will shut up about the war, and just pocket the money (even those who are anti-war) ?

i think once this does happen and propels our economy into the next decade and beyond, no one is going to be complaining, and Bush will be seen as a hero.

Its a BIG if....and the other benefit we might have from the invasion of Iraq is it can be used as a staging ground for a conflict with Iran. It would greatly benefit the US military with logisitics, intel, and refueling stops.

Originally Posted by fUnc17

and the oil is pumping at full capacity/effeciency into the US markets, making alot of americans money, do you think everyone will shut up about the war, and just pocket the money (even those who are anti-war) ?

i think once this does happen and propels our economy into the next decade and beyond, no one is going to be complaining, and Bush will be seen as a hero.

1. the oil output from Iraq is FAR BELOW what is was in the recent past.
This has been a problem for the U.S. economy and government.

The Nuri Al-Maliki government is in a coalition with Muqtada Al-Sadr. Therefore: they will not be friends with Israel.

You can't support the Americans in Iraq and Israel at the same time.

Al-Maliki will also be alligned with Iran and he will be AGAINST the U.S.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

Cow, there's no IF...its fact. If you need me to link it for you I will. The charge is over 20,000 people (men, women and children) almost all kurdish.

The killing now is sporadic sectarian chaos...its not any better, but at least its not systematic genocide.

And no, we don't care about dictators...we support them if the listen to us, but then again we don't support dictators that implement genocide...at least if the genocide is the public eye.

I'm aware of that, but that was over 15 years ago, if I'm not mistaken, before Bush Sr. invaded Iraq the first time and imposed sanctions on them. My point is that probably far more people died as a result of our intervention than would have without it.

I'm aware this is speculation on my part, but why the Hell would you kill 40K people and injure/make homeless countless others just because you think someone might conceivably possibly on the off chance of some other shit happening do the same thing?... especially when they are under watch from the international community and the UN.

I also have a feeling, and again this is speculation, that we aren't going to allow Iraq to have as much of a democracy as we pretend. Why? Because if we did, then they would vote in people who would create Muslim legislation. That's what they want, but not what we want.

I think in the 50 years it will take to stabilize Iraq, Oil will be twice removed as the preferred energy source.

I also don't think we will spend much more time there, 2 years tops and then we slowly pull out, pretending it never happened.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

...And no, we don't care about dictators...we support them if the listen to us, but then again we don't support dictators that implement genocide...at least if the genocide is the public eye.

Good point b/c it's true. The problem with our handling of the Iraqi genocide is that it occurred during the Reagan/Bush administrations and they tokenly objected to it while simultaneously arming/financing Hussein. In fact upon news of one of the devastating attacks, Pres. Bush almost interrupted his golf game.

Almost.

Justifying the invasion on the grounds of preventing genocide is stale. It happened 20 years ago.

To me, it is not a question of, "do the ends justify the means?" b/c they do not: American interests have been damaged by this invasion including (but not limited to) a foreign policy driven by reckless, gut-driven public relations strategies and not doctrine. The sales strategy of the Bush admin. to invade Iraq was based on deceptions (alum. tubes for nukes, Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda (they are mortal enemies), WMDs (kick out the inspectors and go in on a hunch that they exist)),...Iraq--a gathering threat??? Not really. The US's reputation, financial soundness, and military capabilities have all been harmed greatly.

To me, it's a question of whether the US's mass murder of 100,000 or so Iraqis to liberate them from Hussein's mass murders of 20 years ago is morally justified or rationally comprehendable. It is neither.

Introducing a democracy to the middle east is such nonsensical justification. Palestine had democratic elections and Hamas was put in power. Please. Democracies reflect the will of the people...if the people's world view is predicated on it's religious perspective, as it has been for centuries in the MidEast, it's no surprise that imposed democracies don't mean shit.

Originally Posted by Decker

...the US's mass murder of 100,000 or so Iraqis...

Just where do you come up with these figures?

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Just where do you come up with these figures?

Mainstream estimates run anywhere from a little over 40K to 100K.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Mainstream estimates run anywhere from a little over 40K to 100K.

Yea, but define "Mainstream"? That's just about a vague as saying "Our man in washington". Hell, for all we know your "man" could be a Heroin Junky in an alleyway somewhere in the heart of D.C.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Just where do you come up with these figures?

Hey Wit. I just grabbed a bottle of Dewars for the weekend. I think I'm going to move up a class in quality. I've had it w/ Dewars--the smokey,peaty flavor is too mild. It figures, I go for a change after I buy the bottle.

Here's my link for the casualties:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

100,000 is dramatic. But then again so is 44,000--the US estimated number.

Originally Posted by Decker

Hey Wit. I just grabbed a bottle of Dewars for the weekend. I think I'm going to move up a class in quality. I've had it w/ Dewars--the smokey,peaty flavor is too mild. It figures, I go for a change after I buy the bottle.

Here's my link for the casualties:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

100,000 is dramatic. But then again so is 44,000--the US estimated number.

18 yr-old Glenfiddich. That's my bottle. I've got a 12 yr-old bottle on stand-by.

Thanks for the link. Reading through it there are estimates and numbers all over the spectrum. I guess you can hang your hat on whatever figure best represents your bias.

My position is that terrorist (suicide/car bombers and the like) are responsible for the vast majority of civillian casualties. But then, the opposition will argue that terrorists wouldn't be killing anyone had the U.S. not invaded.

It's interesting to see how World Opinion falls so quickly into the terrorist's plot. Historically, they would target U.S. troops in the hopes that the leadership would eventually grow weary and withdrawl. This has largely been an unsuccessful strategy.

Now, Terrorists are focusing their attacks on civillian populations and the world media is all over it. Except, rather than blame the terrorists for these horrific acts of blatant murder, the court of world opinion blames the Bush administration and the United States as a whole leaving the terrorists unacountable for their actions.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Yea, but define "Mainstream"? That's just about a vague as saying "Our man in washington". Hell, for all we know your "man" could be a Heroin Junky in an alleyway somewhere in the heart of D.C.

Governemnt and popular media sources like television stations, the Washington Post, The BBC, etc.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

18 yr-old Glenfiddich. That's my bottle. I've got a 12 yr-old bottle on stand-by.

Thanks for the link. Reading through it there are estimates and numbers all over the spectrum. I guess you can hang your hat on whatever figure best represents your bias.

My position is that terrorist (suicide/car bombers and the like) are responsible for the vast majority of civillian casualties. But then, the opposition will argue that terrorists wouldn't be killing anyone had the U.S. not invaded.

It's interesting to see how World Opinion falls so quickly into the terrorist's plot. Historically, they would target U.S. troops in the hopes that the leadership would eventually grow weary and withdrawl. This has largely been an unsuccessful strategy.

Now, Terrorists are focusing their attacks on civillian populations and the world media is all over it. Except, rather than blame the terrorists for these horrific acts of blatant murder, the court of world opinion blames the Bush administration and the United States as a whole leaving the terrorists unacountable for their actions.

This mass number of civilian casualties is obviously a by-product of our invasion, direct or indirect. You can't invade a country without being accountable for the unpredictable side effects. That is one of the problems with invading a country and pre-emptive military action in the first place; the backsplash is completely unpredictable.

Do not try and pretend that this is all the terrorist's doings. That's nonsense and a way to justify this war, despite the fact that is was presented to us on false pretenses. The story of why we're there changes depending on what goes wrong with the invasion.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

This mass number of civilian casualties is obviously a by-product of our invasion, direct or indirect. You can't invade a country without being accountable for the unpredictable side effects. That is one of the problems with invading a country and pre-emptive military action in the first place; the backsplash is completely unpredictable.

Do not try and pretend that this is all the terrorist's doings. That's nonsense and a way to justify this war, despite the fact that is was presented to us on false pretenses. The story of why we're there changes depending on what goes wrong with the invasion.

Likewise.... do not try and justify the sensless murders these terrorists comit by blaming it all on the U.S. That's simply ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

18 yr-old Glenfiddich. That's my bottle. I've got a 12 yr-old bottle on stand-by.

Thanks for the link. Reading through it there are estimates and numbers all over the spectrum. I guess you can hang your hat on whatever figure best represents your bias.

My position is that terrorist (suicide/car bombers and the like) are responsible for the vast majority of civillian casualties. But then, the opposition will argue that terrorists wouldn't be killing anyone had the U.S. not invaded.

It's interesting to see how World Opinion falls so quickly into the terrorist's plot. Historically, they would target U.S. troops in the hopes that the leadership would eventually grow weary and withdrawl. This has largely been an unsuccessful strategy.

Now, Terrorists are focusing their attacks on civillian populations and the world media is all over it. Except, rather than blame the terrorists for these horrific acts of blatant murder, the court of world opinion blames the Bush administration and the United States as a whole leaving the terrorists unacountable for their actions.

I will try your scotch of choice. Thanks for the suggestion.

Prior to the US invasion, the Al Qaeda terrorist presence in Iraq was marginal next to invisible. After the invasion, Iraqis were getting sick and tired of US dominance: the selling off of Iraqi infrastructure to foreigners, giving rebuilding contracts to US companies instead of Iraqi ones, and denying the Iraqis a constitution based on the Koran. Plus they just got tired of the killing and demolition of their businesses. They employed terrorist tactics to get back at the US. This attracted Al Qaeda to the area.

Iraq was never the front for Al Qaeda terrorists. That is propaganda.

I hate to say it, but this Iraqi occupation is reminiscent of the problems in the Viet Nam conflict. Dreams of Empire--no matter how benign--sink the dreamer. Just look at the Brits or the Romans.

Changing an entire region's political, religious, and economic realities is a damn near impossible task.

Originally Posted by Decker

I will try your scotch of choice. Thanks for the suggestion.

Prior to the US invasion, the Al Qaeda terrorist presence in Iraq was marginal next to invisible. After the invasion, Iraqis were getting sick and tired of US dominance: the selling off of Iraqi infrastructure to foreigners, giving rebuilding contracts to US companies instead of Iraqi ones, and denying the Iraqis a constitution based on the Koran. Plus they just got tired of the killing and demolition of their businesses. They employed terrorist tactics to get back at the US. This attracted Al Qaeda to the area.

Iraq was never the front for Al Qaeda terrorists. That is propaganda.

I hate to say it, but this Iraqi occupation is reminiscent of the problems in the Viet Nam conflict. Dreams of Empire--no matter how benign--sink the dreamer. Just look at the Brits or the Romans.

Changing an entire region's political, religious, and economic realities is a damn near impossible task.

I concur, and I believe in a different thread this was already covered. Magnesium and Neuron bombs should do the trick.

Originally Posted by Witmaster

Likewise.... do not try and justify the sensless murders these terrorists comit by blaming it all on the U.S. That's simply ludicrous.

Well, the "terrorists" in this case just wanted to protect themselves against unprovoked attacks. We were the ones who attacked a nation who did nothing to us, remember?