Soldiers

Originally posted by obviousman
Hypothetical? Hardly Sadam for years has shown he has no problem violating a treaty. I think by removing you don't have to worry about the Middle East invading parts of the world outside the Middle East. You would have civil war for a few years till someone similar to him takes over and we have to oust him. The only thing we can do is to start a powerfull government. It couldn't be a democracy it would have to be powerfull. It would have to also be fair though. If the Iraqi people had a hint at actually knowing how to rule themselves then maybe peace would have a chance. The reason it would have to be powerful is that it would have to be strong enough to turn down all opposition because their would be lots of attacks. This is very hard to do though because we would have to be absolutely sure we could trust the government we set up. But definitely getting Sadam out was a good idea.

So let's just do a proper job of colonizing those Iraqis this time, shall we? Well, what model shall we follow? When the British tried to do the same thing in 1917-20? Or perhaps more recent attempts to colonize Afghanistan? Or perhaps we could install a Shah like we did in Iran. What a pathetically hopeless endeavor, especially when Saddam hadn't serously threatened any neighbor in the previous decade and was highly unlikely to in th e next one.
 
Thank you all for joining this discussion on the best post-war methods. All we can do is talk though, we'll never know for sure. Your right I'm not for any colonization. The question should be how can we put the least amount of power in the safest number of peoples hands. It wasn't safe for Sadam or Al-Quada to have all the power. Just like I oppose Arafat having any power either. The thing I can't figure out is how to distribute the power quickly. One thing I just thought of right now is why is it the US job? I know we started the war and all, but couldn't the UN jump in and help? I think it would seem less like colonization if the UN makes the plan.
 
Hey Oman, enjoying the discussion
Originaly Posted by ObvousmanThe reason it would have to be powerful is that it would have to be strong enough to turn down all opposition because their would be lots of attacks. This is very hard to do though because we would have to be absolutely sure we could trust the government we set up.
I need to point out that this was done in the 50s' for the Shah of Iran. By '79 we had the Aytolloh Kahmeini and the Iran Hostages, a problem that lingers today. I think you may be right that Iraq needs something other than Republican democracy, but I would not willingly poor money into another ME fascist regime.
Originaly Posted by RMW
I don't understand why our government refuses to concede economic control? Do you? Does anyone?
. :hail: :bow2: $$$ :bow2::hail:
We're are a capitalistic culture. Is there another reason?
Originaly Posted by NT
If we did pull out of Iraq now, we may as well shut down the borders and embrace an isolationist stance & let the world do as it will
We have a few more options than that man, though I agree that we need to provide some kind of solution in Iraq.
Originaly posted by Eric
War should be choosen after exhausting all diplomacy, but once commenced it needs to be followed till its objectives are met.
That's why I find GWBs' stating the objective of democratizing the ME while simultaneously reserving the right to use the pre-emptive attack doctrine a little disturbing. I'm not ready to go to war with the entire middle east, are you? I look at the Pal/Isreal situation and think to myself there has to be a better way.
 
I was against the war, and really I still am, but I realize that at this point, it would not be in our best interest to pull out. That would give all the countries that didn't support us even more incentive to trash us. I have other opinions, but they've been brought up in this thread already, I don't feel like repeating them.

But, Djeto:

I'm not ready to go to war with the entire middle east, are you?

Not to be stereotypical here, but by fighting a "war on terrorism", you're basically going to war with the middle east. Hate to say it, but it's pretty true.
 
Originally posted by obviousman
Thank you all for joining this discussion on the best post-war methods. All we can do is talk though, we'll never know for sure. Your right I'm not for any colonization. The question should be how can we put the least amount of power in the safest number of peoples hands. It wasn't safe for Sadam or Al-Quada to have all the power. Just like I oppose Arafat having any power either. The thing I can't figure out is how to distribute the power quickly. One thing I just thought of right now is why is it the US job? I know we started the war and all, but couldn't the UN jump in and help? I think it would seem less like colonization if the UN makes the plan.

I fully agree on giving the UN as large a role as possible as soon as possible. But look at it from Bush's perspective: what if if the UN decided not to give all the oil contracts on very lucrative terms to American companies because this wasn't what most Iraqis wanted? Then suddenly all that work for nothing.

Face it, whoever is running the show in Bagdhand, at best winning Iraqi hearts and minds will take billions and billions of OUR taxdollars, and installing real democracy will take years if not decades and cost many more American lives. Now that we've invaded and now that Iraq is OUR responsibility I'm in favor of doing this - I just wish that people had been honest about this very obvious fact in meaningful public debate before the invasion was unleashed. If they were we probably wouldn't be there now.
 
Originally posted by Dan

Not to be stereotypical here, but by fighting a "war on terrorism", you're basically going to war with the middle east.
There's a big diference between talking nasty and marching around the streets of Damascus. Our global war on terrorism is largely a law enforcement effort.
 
What a pathetically hopeless endeavor, especially when Saddam hadn't serously threatened any neighbor in the previous decade and was highly unlikely to in th e next one.

You're right, Clemens. Saddam was a jolly good fellow and simply misunderstood.
 
The gulf war never really ended. A cease-fire was declared under terms that the governments of Iraq and the United States agreed to. The terms of that cease-fire agreement were broken repeatedly by Hussein's regime. This in itself was enough reason
to resume the war.

Yet there was more.

Attrocious human rights violations, the attempted assassination of a former president, threats of biological attack from Hussein himself and then information from intelligence sources (and not just our own) that Iraq was developing what appeared to be
a nuclear weapons program. Then there were abdicators, men
who claimed they had worked building nuclear weapons for
Hussein.

And there was the timing.

The Sep. 11 attack had just occured and we were finding out just how bad our security was. Intelligence agencies had been
supicious of some of the attackers before the attacks occured,
yet nothing was done. Too many errors were made and we all
saw the results.

If we had moved too slowly against an nuclear threat, the results
would be at least ten times as devastating. So we chose not
to let something so serious slip past us and we acted.

And why not?

We had more than enough reason without the nukes.

So now we're there. We've taken out the regime and we've been
rebuilding and while the media reports on a lot of negatives,
there are a lot of great things going on. If you look at how
much has been rebuilt so far and at the progress we've
made in establishing a government, well, I think you
have to admit that Iraq looks a lot better than most countries
do after a war. Certainly it looks better than Germany did.

The deaths of our men are sad and we will miss those who pass away. But these are brave men who knew the risks when they
enlisted. They're doing what they signed up to do.

We cannot pull out now. We tried that route once, in what
was known as the "first gulf war." It was a disaster and it
lead to the situation we are now in.

This is the time to stay and to do things right.
Yes, it'll cost us some money. Yes, it will cost a few lives,
but if we are successful, it will save more.

The talk of colonization is silly. We're not taking resources
out,we're putting them in and helping rebuild. If Germany
and France are United States colonies, well, then so is
Iraq, but I think you'll agree they are not.

Sorry for making this post so long.

-X.P.
 
Originally posted by NightTrain
You're right, Clemens. Saddam was a jolly good fellow and simply misunderstood.

And so say all of Assad, Prince Abdullah, Ariel Sharon, General Musharaf, and President-for-life Mubarak, I'm sure.

Just why, out of all the unpleasant rulers in the world today, was he made the target of regime change, and why wasn't this done at the time he was actually committing his most henious crimes? Because we acted not on principle, but on fabricated threats.

No one is saying Saddam was a nice guy or that Iraqis didn't deserve better than him. This is simply the most facile argument thrown out by those who think we have a civilizing mission to Iraq and other places that happen to be stragecially and economically important. The problem, as we're finding out, is that given the illegitimacy - both real and imagined - of our position, the destruction we've caused so far, and the cultural insensitivity of those we've sent over to civilize Iraq, we're not able to give Iraq anything better so far in the eyes of many. Mabye with enough money poured into the Iraqi economy this will change, but I'm not optimistic.
 
Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
The gulf war never really ended. A cease-fire was declared under terms that the governments of Iraq and the United States agreed to. The terms of that cease-fire agreement were broken repeatedly by Hussein's regime. This in itself was enough reason
to resume the war.

Yet there was more.

Attrocious human rights violations, the attempted assassination of a former president, threats of biological attack from Hussein himself and then information from intelligence sources (and not just our own) that Iraq was developing what appeared to be
a nuclear weapons program. Then there were abdicators, men
who claimed they had worked building nuclear weapons for
Hussein.

And there was the timing.

The Sep. 11 attack had just occured and we were finding out just how bad our security was. Intelligence agencies had been
supicious of some of the attackers before the attacks occured,
yet nothing was done. Too many errors were made and we all
saw the results.

If we had moved too slowly against an nuclear threat, the results
would be at least ten times as devastating. So we chose not
to let something so serious slip past us and we acted.

And why not?

We had more than enough reason without the nukes.

So now we're there. We've taken out the regime and we've been
rebuilding and while the media reports on a lot of negatives,
there are a lot of great things going on. If you look at how
much has been rebuilt so far and at the progress we've
made in establishing a government, well, I think you
have to admit that Iraq looks a lot better than most countries
do after a war. Certainly it looks better than Germany did.


Germans didn't kill over 100 Americans after major combat opperations ended. In fact, contrary to the Rumsfeld and Rice's revisionist histories, even the planned guerrilla activities of 'wolfpack' groups (mostly teenage boys from the Hitler Youth) didn't add up to anything. But no, in Iraq, Americans are dying daily and there's no sign this will stop soon. Would Americans be dying, and killing Iraqis, daily if we hadn't invaded? What are the possible chances Saddam-sponsered terrorism would have led to around 500 US deaths this year and perhaps as many - possibly more - next year? What are the chances Bagdhad's murder and crime rates would be anywhere near as high as they are now?

I'm not saying for a moment that we're not doing some things to improve Iraqi infrastructure; and $20bn in civil funding for next year is serious money where Bush's mouth is. It just might improve Iraq on the whole, and 2004 might just be a better year for Iraq. But I'm not very hopeful, especially considering the lack of willingness we display when it comes to putting power and oil in Iraq out of our hands.
 
Originally posted by SLClemens
Germans didn't kill over 100 Americans after major combat opperations ended.

I'm not quite sure how that answers my point. Iraq still looks a lot prettier than Germany did at the end of the war. The
rebuilding efforts have been much more successful.

As for your comparison:
World War II took a lot longer than this, my friend, and more people died. Yet what would have happened if they hadn't? We
didn't roll over and give up then, we won't do that now.

As for major combat operations ending - Bush was hasty in his
declaration. It seems like now they're not. That doesn't mean
we're losing. Nor does it mean we should.

Yes, Americans are dying daily. Would they die daily if we hadn't
invaded? Perhaps. Perhaps not. They know what they're fighting
for. You don't enlist to be a soldier to stand around and this is
the life those who are dying have chosen. Terrorism is an
interesting thing. It starts small, but where it is not stamped out,
it increases. Look at Israel. Look at most of the middle-east. Look
especially at the growing problems in France.

You've got to look at the long-range. Your view is incredibly short-
sighted. You worry that we're spending money now. You worry
that we have soldiers dying now, you're angry that we don't
have an end to the war now and that the money we've put
into things isn't rebuilding enough things NOW.

But we're trying to come up with situations for the long term.
That often means wading through some rough times for
the short term.
 
Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
I'm not quite sure how that answers my point. Iraq still looks a lot prettier than Germany did at the end of the war. The
rebuilding efforts have been much more successful.

As for your comparison:
World War II took a lot longer than this, my friend, and more people died. Yet what would have happened if they hadn't? We
didn't roll over and give up then, we won't do that now.

As for major combat operations ending - Bush was hasty in his
declaration. It seems like now they're not. That doesn't mean
we're losing. Nor does it mean we should.

Yes, Americans are dying daily. Would they die daily if we hadn't
invaded? Perhaps. Perhaps not. They know what they're fighting
for. You don't enlist to be a soldier to stand around and this is
the life those who are dying have chosen. Terrorism is an
interesting thing. It starts small, but where it is not stamped out,
it increases. Look at Israel. Look at most of the middle-east. Look
especially at the growing problems in France.

You've got to look at the long-range. Your view is incredibly short-
sighted. You worry that we're spending money now. You worry
that we have soldiers dying now, you're angry that we don't
have an end to the war now and that the money we've put
into things isn't rebuilding enough things NOW.

But we're trying to come up with situations for the long term.
That often means wading through some rough times for
the short term.

If Bush & Co. have a long-range plan for Iraq I'd certainly like to hear more of it!

I wonder, if Bush had come out one year ago ago and said that an invasion of Iraq will mean a commitment of over 100,000 troops for several years, and hundreds of post-invasion fatalities, if he would have received the support he did.

You could be right that in the long term things will eventually improve. But without first making it clear to us the extent of the commitment, and the lives and dollars involved, and gaining a very clear public mandate for this, Bush risks leaving much of the nation feeling deceived - this is no doubt why now less than half of Americans, according to recent polling, consider the war to have been worthwhile.

Instead, more and more Americans are coming to see this as an exercise in wishful thinking, which is exactly what I think it was.
 
Bush did indeed say the war could take several years and that it would cost soldiers' lives. You'll have to forgive him for not having the exact figures on hand. He hasn't quite mastered crystal-ball reading yet.

The democrats at that point began demanding to know exactly
when the war would end. He didn't have an answer. How could he? Well, eventually he gave them what they wanted and declared major operations over. Their reactions have been...well...predictable.

He made the commitment clear from the beginning.
Unfortunately, he gave in to demands he should not
have. That was his mistake.
 
Now that we are in Iraq we have to build it successfully. However the Bush administration should really save this operation by letting some UN troops in and some UN administration. That would also have the effect of re-uniting the civilized world, which, at this point, is rather divided.
 
Thanks, NightTrain.

And while I'm thanking people:
American Liberal, I have to say, it's a pleasure to read your posts. We'll probably disagree on a lot in the future, but you really do seem to try to look at things fairly and that's a rare things on both sides of the political spectrum. So thanks :)
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top