Is IRAQ going to be another Isreal?

[Arc]

I have a feeling that as long as Iraq is populated by freedom loving people there will be an endless stream of terror attacks. Much the way Isreal is terrorised non stop by bascially the same people.

What will happen to Iraq? Will we have to stay there permantly to keep these attacks to a minimum or will we just leave and let terrorists try to coup d’état the government again?


How long will America take these casualties?

Also what is your opinion of the positive progress that is being made in Iraq? Is America fullfiling it's promise of a better life for Iraqies?

[OrdinaryGuy]

Iraq has always been a liberal muslim state and there always has been a tolerance for other religions.. think freedom and democracy have a good chance...

I think troops should be taken out as quickly as possible and replaced with a UN force which would be more recognized by the Iraqi people..

[Foxer]

US goes to UN asking to invade Iraq
UN says no
US invades anyway
After invasion US has guts to ask UN for help
UN says fine
US says "No no no - only under US conditions/control"
UN says "Piss off"

I think Iraq will be a lot better when the US pulls it's head in and decides if they are or are not a part of the United Nations. The UN can then take over properly and with proper international support, give it back to the people who will then turn it into another Isreal war

[Xanith]

More like:

* US asks the UN to back its own resolutions.
* France, Germany, and Russia having been bought off by cheap oil, defense contracts, and drilling rights blocks the invasion.
* 50 countries decide to back invasion despite being blocked by the bought off countries of France, Russia, and Germany.
* After the invasion the US once again tries to get the UN involved.
* France, Germany, and Russia say no no no only if we can get our lucrative oil deals and defense contracts back again.
* US says sorry you didn’t want to help remove Saddam and because we put our men and woman on the line we are the ones who will decide your role.
* UN says That’s ok we are a worthless debate society and cant do anything right and have no real power anyway.

The UN has made itself irrelevant by not backing its own resolutions and has shown it can easily be corrupted by economic and political interests. Its failures in Bosnia, Rwanda, and now Iraq have proven just how useless the UN is when it comes to doing what is right.

X

[DeadEyes]

If the UN is so useless why is America asking them for help to clean up the mess they find themselves in?

[Xanith]

Originally posted by DeadEyes
If the UN is so useless why is America asking them for help to clean up the mess they find themselves in?

To give the UN another chance to try and be of some use? I for one think the US should go it alone and rebuilt Iraq but the President of the US has this silly notion of everyone working together.

X

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'd rather not foot the whole bill. We asked for help because we need bodies to confuse the situation, and money because our bills are getting too high, even for this economy.

Russia, France, and Germany have every right to want their lucrative deals, Haliburton has certainly gotten one.

Would Iraq be such a liberal islamic state if the Shiite majority came to power? If we were to leave, would it be radical Islam that would win, or would Saddam's baathist party simply kill off the oposition and resume control, again?

[Xanith]

Hmmm I thought you said we were there for the oil? Why would we need anyone else when you said we are there to take the Iraqi oil?

And as far as Haliburton goes everyone gives their friends the deals....its been going on since the US has been formed and will be going on long into its future. Not saying its right just saying it’s not unusual or surprising. At least its a US company anyway, unlike Clinton who gave away senstive technology to the Chinese in payment for getting elected.

X

[Shaggy Hiker]

It was assumed that Iraqi oil production would be able to pay for reconstruction. This turned out not to be the case. The technology wasn't "modern, but unused", it was 70's stuff that was falling to dust. Iraqi oil production won't even come close to expected targets by next year, and turns out to be something like WMD. Oooops, it just wasn't there.

Of course, the oil exists, but we can't exploit it any time soon. It will take years rather than months to bring that industry up to where the pre-war planners thought it already was, and even that effort is being slowed by continual sabotage to existing wells and pipelines.

Political patronage has always existed, and will always exist. Somebody on this forum suggested that profit couldn't have been the motive for the war because we will spend more than we could possible recover. That's true, but the pocket spending the money is not the pocket reaping the profit, so those that are profiting have nothing to lose.

I am not suggesting that Haliburton pushed the war for the sake of their profits. Slime follows the republican administrations, but not that particular slime.

[Foxer]

Originally posted by Gary Campbell
US goes to UN asking to invade Iraq
UN says no
US invades anyway
After invasion US has guts to ask UN for help
UN says fine
US says "No no no - only under US conditions/control"
UN says "Piss off"

Its the last bit that makes me laugh.

After invasion US has guts to ask UN for help
UN says fine
US says "No no no - only under US conditions/control

The US has complete contempt for the UN. Thats their option and I'm sure many countries feel the same way. Just don't go crawling back and setting conditions after the mess has been made. That's the height of arrogance.

[PeteD]

Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
Iraq has always been a liberal muslim state and there always has been a tolerance for other religions..

LOL

[Nightwalker83]

US goes to UN asking to invade Iraq
UN says no
US invades anyway
After invasion US has guts to ask UN for help
UN says fine
US says "No no no - only under US conditions/control"
UN says "Piss off"

It's like if the US are the police who are going to police the police.

[Arc]

Originally posted by Nightwalker83
It's like if the US are the police who are going to police the police.

No one NEEDS to police the U.S. We aren't a bunch of insane psychos trying to oppress everyone who isn’t our religion and kill everyone who says anything about it. If your country is taken over by the U.S., what's the worst you could say? "Oh no, now I'm free and live in the worlds greatest form of Government."

[Nightwalker83]

Originally posted by Arc
No one NEEDS to police the U.S. We aren't a bunch of insane psychos trying to oppress everyone who isn’t our religion and kill everyone who says anything about it. If your country is taken over by the U.S., what's the worst you could say? "Oh no, now I'm free and live in the worlds greatest form of Government."

No no I meant why did the UN just let the Us get away with what they did? If no one steps in a puts a stop to this madness then everyone would just do what they feel like without considering consequences.

[TheGuru]

Originally posted by Nightwalker83
No no I meant why did the UN just let the Us get away with what they did? If no one steps in a puts a stop to this madness then everyone would just do what they feel like without considering consequences.

The UN is a councel for international politics. Don't think for a second that they control anyone. The USA isn't the only nation to sidestep the UN. Just about every country in the world has.

[TheGuru]

Originally posted by Nightwalker83
No no I meant why did the UN just let the Us get away with what they did? If no one steps in a puts a stop to this madness then everyone would just do what they feel like without considering consequences.

Also don't forget its the USA that keeps the doors open at the UN.

[yrwyddfa]

Also don't forget its the USA that keeps the doors open at the UN.

An interesting idea. Shame it's untrue.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
An interesting idea. Shame it's untrue.

I think he just means that the UN HQ is in the states, so obviously, if they forced the HQ to shutdown then the entire UN worldwide would just close down and not be able to function.

... er ...

[Xanith]

Originally posted by TheGuru
The UN is a councel for international politics. Don't think for a second that they control anyone. The USA isn't the only nation to sidestep the UN. Just about every country in the world has.

Very true.....France sends troops into Africa without UN approval but then complains when the US/UK sends troops to Iraq. Its all politics and based on their own interests. Unfortunately people only seem to care about when the US does something. It’s all about being fearful and reigning in the last remaining superpower on the planet rather then deciding what is right and should be done.

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
I think he just means that the UN HQ is in the states, so obviously, if they forced the HQ to shutdown then the entire UN worldwide would just close down and not be able to function.

... er ...

Even with the doors open the UN cannot function well. Sure its nice for debates and maybe sending in some humanitarian aid now and then but for solving the real world problems the UN has proven time and time again just how ineffective it is.

X

[DeadEyes]

Originally posted by Xanith
Very true.....France sends troops into Africa without UN approval but then complains when the US/UK sends troops to Iraq. Its all politics and based on their own interests. Unfortunately people only seem to care about when the US does something. It’s all about being fearful and reigning in the last remaining superpower on the planet rather then deciding what is right and should be done.

X

When France sent it's troops into Africa it was as a peacekeeping force to an old colony in the middle of a civil war, not an invasion force. It also managed to get both sides to call a ceasefire.
But yes all politics is about serving your own interests from a local level to a national one.

[Wally Pipp]

and (not sure) it was on request ...

[yrwyddfa]

. It’s all about being fearful and reigning in the last remaining superpower on the planet rather then deciding what is right and should be done.

A rather arrogant stance, methinks. But correct, nevertheless. I think that the world are fearful of a nation that is the last remaining superpower; but I think that fear is based on the (potential?) abuse of such power not on some arbitrary 'moral' foreign policy that plays to the sentiments of the voters rather than the common good of the world at large.

[Foxer]

Given that there are no traces of weapons of mass destruction found post Iraq war, does that mean Iraq didn't have the capability a the time of the invasion?

If there are no traces, then what premise did Bush use to invade Iraq? None?

If Bush had no real premise to invade Iraq, why did he? There must be a motivating factor we weren't told about.

Coalition troops are dying nearly every day in that country and I for one can't work out why.

[yrwyddfa]

If Bush had no real premise to invade Iraq, why did he? There must be a motivating factor we weren't told about.

Well, to invade you only need the motivating 'intelligence' at the time; that which said he had weapons of mass destruction.

I suspect the intelligence, and goveremental institutions of collaboration on this matter; they have clealy bungled it! Or have they been found out?

Regardless, the world is better without Saddam; but regime change is illegal - which is why no government will ever own up to it.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Arc
No one NEEDS to police the U.S. We aren't a bunch of insane psychos trying to oppress everyone who isn’t our religion and kill everyone who says anything about it. If your country is taken over by the U.S., what's the worst you could say? "Oh no, now I'm free and live in the worlds greatest form of Government."

Nope, you ain't a bunch of insane psychos. You are an organized group of intelligent minds using the latest technologies at your disposal who are constantly thinking up ways to extend your domination onto others

I personally don't think Iraq is better off now than it was before Saddam's era. At least during Saddam's reign if the average Iraqi kept his mouth shut about Saddam, he could get a job, get a living. Now if he opens his mouth against the present rulers i.e. the coalition forces, he will get a 400-pound bomb on his house from an F-15/16 (so much for democracy!). Forget about jobs and money, the average Iraqi is probably hidden in his home, worried if a suicide bomber will make his locality the next target. Going by the reports in the media it's after the US invasion that the situation in Iraq has completely deteriorated.

.

[yrwyddfa]

I personally don't think Iraq is better off now than it was before Saddam's era. At least during Saddam's reign if the average Iraqi kept his mouth shut about Saddam, he could get a job, get a living. Now if he opens his mouth against the present rulers i.e. the coalition forces, he will get a 400-pound bomb on his house from an F-15/16 (so much for democracy!). Forget about jobs and money, the average Iraqi is probably hidden in his home, worried if a suicide bomber will make his locality the next target. Going by the reports in the media it's after the US invasion that the situation in Iraq has completely deteriorated.

Yes, but one does assume that this is a rather temporary situtation; and one which the coalition forces are working hard to rectify.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Gary Campbell
Given that there are no traces of weapons of mass destruction found post Iraq war, does that mean Iraq didn't have the capability a the time of the invasion?

If there are no traces, then what premise did Bush use to invade Iraq? None?

If Bush had no real premise to invade Iraq, why did he? There must be a motivating factor we weren't told about.

Coalition troops are dying nearly every day in that country and I for one can't work out why.

The "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq given by Powell in the UN itself was shaky, which was exposed by the UN inspectors. The pretext which Bush and Blair used to invade Iraq is actually not the WMDs but the so-called failure to comply with various UN resolutions. Of course it's just that, a pretext.

Although it's not immediately clear exactly what motive the US had for invading Iraq, political and military dominance could be a major factor. It could be an attempt by the US government to penetrate the oil-rich middle-east countries and thereby begin the exercise of bringing under the US control all the oil supplies. Surely the motive was other than get rid of the WMDs, which is why neither Bush nor Blair nor Powell nor anyone else for that matter who backed the war is confronting the WMDs issue. From Bush to any member of this forum, if you bring up the issue of the failure of the US troops to detect even one WMD, you will immediately be lectured about democracy, compliance with UN resolutions and dictatorship, issues which couldn't have pushed the US to war with Iraq.

It happened in Afghanistan, it happened in Iraq and it will soon happen in North Korea and Iran. I would bet on Iran because North Korea has got missiles that can reach the US cities, something the US government should be keen to avoid. The recent drift between the US and the EU over the IAEA report on Iran's nuclear programme indicate that the US cannot ever accept anyone else's judgement if it conflicts with its own.

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Yes, but one does assume that this is a rather temporary situtation; and one which the coalition forces are working hard to rectify.

Not to forget it's the coalition forces which put Iraq in this anarchy, and there still is no clear way out. Although hard to digest for a few, the truth still remains that democracy may not be the best government, for various reasons. It's more likely that once the coalition pulls out, Saddam will be back, or another dictator might emerge, both of which will put Iraq in a considerably worse situation than it was in before the war.

I doubt if anyone has a formula for installing a government in a place like Iraq, except by force. And I doubt even still if the coalition can think rationally about the whole mess. Therefore I cannot accept it's a temporary situation and although the troops may be working hard to rectify the errors, I don't think the policy-makers have yet even realized what the errors have been, let alone know how to fix them.

I think it's time to really rethink the habit of telling others how they should behave. Maybe US and the UK should keep their noses in their own affairs.

.

[yrwyddfa]

Not to forget it's the coalition forces which put Iraq in this anarchy, and there still is no clear way out. Although hard to digest for a few, the truth still remains that democracy may not be the best government, for various reasons. It's more likely that once the coalition pulls out, Saddam will be back, or another dictator might emerge, both of which will put Iraq in a considerably worse situation than it was in before the war.

The only analogy I can give relating to this matter was the installation of a new government after Hitler's collapse. This indeed hurt the German nation a lot, especially with American, Russian and British troops sharing the spoils and segregating the East, and West.

However, given time (around a decade) Germany prospered into a global economic (peaceful, secular) power; which I presume to be the aim of the coalition in Iraq today - although no politician that I've heard has talked this way.

But you are right to infer (I am surprised you haven't made the point directly) that the coalition clearly did not plan to deal with the insurgence of Iraqi (and other nations) terrorists.

It is fortunate that the European 'allies' helping the US in Iraq have all had first hand experience of many years of terrorist actions on their own soil (Spain - eta, Britain IRA etc etc)) so we can assume that the expertise is in Iraq to deal with the problem shold the Americans need (or presume to lower themselves to ask) for the advice required to bring the situation under control. It was, in Britain's case at least, the devolution of power that brought terrorists to a table rather than a battlefield; a situation that will take many many years.

These are unfortunate circumstances; one which primarily Blair, and Bush have landed our nation states in - not to mention Iraq. Regardless of the 'pretexts', regardless of the causes, regardless of the reasons, the coalition now has a moral responsibility to stay around until this mess is sorted out; we after all, say the pro-war lobby were there to improve the country for normal Iraqi people.

How are they going to do it? I, and I suspect they, have no idea. But I would ask the US to reduce their number of troops, and increase the number of Arab, and European troops there. This alone would help matters significantly.

What I do know is that the coalition will now pay for a poorly conceived war and a poorly conceived peace with more blood of it's countrymen, and it's countrywomen.

[yrwyddfa]

No one NEEDS to police the U.S.

Err - Yes they do.

[Foxer]

Although it's not immediately clear exactly what motive the US had for invading Iraq, political and military dominance could be a major factor. It could be an attempt by the US government to penetrate the oil-rich middle-east countries and thereby begin the exercise of bringing under the US control all the oil supplies.

For once, I believe Bush wants to pull out of Iraq and hand the whole mess over to some interim/permanent government-come-new-dictatorship. It would certainly stop the body bag count if nothing else. If that is true, then one must discard the "grab for oil" arguement.

So why did Bush invade?
- discard humanitarian reasons (there are far greater crisis out there)
- discard breaking UN resolutions (again, I'm sure there are bigger fish to fry)
- discard personal grudges. A coaliton of the globes greatest nations don't go to war over a grudge.
- no WMD
- no military/economic threat to US
- not the largest source of terrorism
- no long term assets to be gained (oil) if US pulls out
- no financial gain

The only factor remaining is a visible muscle-flexing exercise at a soft and "socially acceptable" target (you know what I mean - no flames please).

Bush needed to show that he is still tough on terrorism and needed a target. Iraq was convenient so there you go. Iraq is infinately a softer target than N Korea, Iran, Syria - politically and militarilly.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
Nope, you ain't a bunch of insane psychos. You are an organized group of intelligent minds using the latest technologies at your disposal who are constantly thinking up ways to extend your domination onto others

I personally don't think Iraq is better off now than it was before Saddam's era. At least during Saddam's reign if the average Iraqi kept his mouth shut about Saddam, he could get a job, get a living. Now if he opens his mouth against the present rulers i.e. the coalition forces, he will get a 400-pound bomb on his house from an F-15/16 (so much for democracy!). Forget about jobs and money, the average Iraqi is probably hidden in his home, worried if a suicide bomber will make his locality the next target. Going by the reports in the media it's after the US invasion that the situation in Iraq has completely deteriorated.

.

Nice to see your diluted view of the world hasn't changed.

X

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by Xanith
Very true.....France sends troops into Africa without UN approval but then complains when the US/UK sends troops to Iraq.

What a disgraceful post! You are a dangerous individual Xanith, as is anyone who posts often, and bases their opinions on interpretation rather than fact. Shame on you

[run_GMoney]

World domination and term limits don't jive.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Gaffer
What a disgraceful post! You are a dangerous individual Xanith, as is anyone who posts often, and bases their opinions on interpretation rather than fact. Shame on you

Danger is my middle name

And maybe you are beginning to understand my frustration at how people who post here make similar posts about the US. Maybe now you will look at things from the other side before making some of your posts and understand that maybe some of the things that you post are equally “disgraceful” given the facts that you choose to ignore.

X

[Gaffer]

Originally posted by Xanith
Danger is my middle name

And maybe you are beginning to understand my frustration at how people who post here make similar posts about the US. Maybe now you will look at things from the other side before making some of your posts and understand that maybe some of the things that you post are equally “disgraceful” given the facts that you choose to ignore.

X

Pure spin now. You did not post that completely untrue statement about the French in order to teach this forum about the fustration you feel - a pretty lame excuse - you posted it because you believed it. Do you really expect us to buy such poor example of an excuse?

I haven't posted here or viewed this forum for months and months, mostly because I agree with you - much of the anti-American and anti-UN libel from both sides are media-frenzy nonsense, and if not, completely unprovable.

As I said, presumptious. Inaccurate. Imprecise. Dangerous.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by Gary Campbell

Bush needed to show that he is still tough on terrorism and needed a target. Iraq was convenient so there you go. Iraq is infinately a softer target than N Korea, Iran, Syria - politically and militarilly.

Iran, Pakistan, and Syria are stragically screwed now that the US is in Afghanastan and Iraq. Mabe that was the whole point. Destroy them without firing a shot at them.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Gaffer
Pure spin now. You did not post that completely untrue statement about the French in order to teach this forum about the fustration you feel - a pretty lame excuse - you posted it because you believed it. Do you really expect us to buy such poor example of an excuse?

I haven't posted here or viewed this forum for months and months, mostly because I agree with you - much of the anti-American and anti-UN libel from both sides are media-frenzy nonsense, and if not, completely unprovable.

As I said, presumptious. Inaccurate. Imprecise. Dangerous.

First of all I want to point out that France sent 1400 troops to the African Congo in June of this year without UN approval. I want you to tell me how you label this as inaccurate or imprecise when it is indeed a fact? You seem to be the one making the assumptions in this case by thinking I meant this to be something sinister. The only thing I said was “Very true.....France sends troops into Africa without UN approval but then complains when the US/UK sends troops to Iraq.”

Seems to me you are the one that is being presumptuous, inaccurate, and imprecise. Ill keep the dangerous tag however because I like to think that knowledge is power and that does make me dangerous

X

[Shaggy Hiker]

I've always enjoyed MasterBlaster's posts in here. I doubt anybody else can hear the music he's dancing to, but it definitely is unique.