Iraq War Theory (Full Version)

All Forums >> [OUR POLITICS] >> Politics



Message

NeoBabylonian -> Iraq War Theory (2/2/2008 2:29:58 PM)

Hi, this is my first thread. I just want to make a general opinion thread where people can simply discuss what they think is happening in the bloody mess that is Iraq - rather than what they want to or wish to happen, just to try and make sense of it all, also share what you think caused the major events of the war and what you realistically think will happen say in the next five to ten years.
So please share your opinions whatever they may be, and you don't have to back everything with newspaper articles as we all know not everything their is true. [;)] 
Sharing your experiences is also great if you ever been there or talked to people who recently came from there.
Anyway, here is what I make out of all the mess in Iraq, appologise it may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I truely believe that is what is causing the everyday genocides there:

Iran is control Maliki's corrupt government, who in turn is supporting militias and their paramilitary death-squads - even our special forces are being used as nothing but death squads and assassins. They even are sending some of their own Qods Black Ops to fight by some coalition claims that some fighters are speaking Persian.

Saudi Arabia is also arming and sending terrorists despite fronting as an allie to the US - I read once they even sent in their troops into Iraq 'to protect a village from the militias'. And Jordan and Syria are leaving their borders with Iraq totally open for any armed terrorists to enter, plus are also arming and sending their terrorists.

And to be honest, the coalition is not innocent of wanting a long term presence in Iraq either - they just have the virtue of not being so blood-thirsty and killing less innocents themselves. I'm sure you've heard of the Super-Embassy the US is building in Baghdad - the biggest embassy in the world, plus their super-bases. Even if they do withdraw, these will remain occupied affording them a long-term presence at the expense of Iraqi soveriegnty.
Oh, and the US is now supports their own terrorists. At first they gave out ID's that specifically mentioned scte and religion (what else could that be there for except to divide), then started supporting the Shia militias against the remaining guerilla factions of Ba'athists - not realising Ba'athism is not a Sunni thing, nor even an Iraqi thing, but a Tikriti thing. Saddam and his government were secularist not Sunni. These got stronger, got their own political wings and parties, one of which got elected, but Iranian influence over that slowly ousted US control. Now they are supporting the Sunni awakening - who are also terrorists, to counter Maliki's government, their militia armies and paramilitary death-squads.

And the most horrific thing is that they are using Iraqi traitors to do their fighting and dirty-work for them. Instead of sending their own soldiers (though they do but very few), they use Iraqi guerillas to fight for them as our blood is so much cheaper that their countrymen's. Those traitors are being used like the ****s and ****es their mothers were, to kill their own brother for the name of what? Islam?

Truth it ALL political, Islam and the pseudo-political crap the armed groups in Iraq are blasting Iraqi brains and guts all over the streets for is nothing but a front - they are fighting for their supporting country's goals. Hasn't anyone forgot the fact Zarqawi, the leader of a major terrorist group in Iraq wasn't even Iraqi but Jordanian?

Basically, it's proxy-war season again people [sm=smiley31.gif] , we are the new Aghanistan with Northern Alliance VS Taliban, or Vietnam with Viet Cong VS South Vietnam troops.

This war has gone on far too long, cost far too many lives and trillions and brought the whole region to the brink of WW3, so I doubt it is just for oil or beating the terrorists or whoever the terrorists are really trying to beat - there is something worthy for everyone to be trying so hard to get a long-term influence over Iraq for.

What I think will happen; well, this fighting and bloodshed will continue, plunging Iraq and the Iraqi people into deeper and deeper social, moral and technological lows until eventually one side (that is not the Iraqi people) can say 'we own Iraq', via proxy influence and controll obviously. They'll bring their own puppet government and Saddam Hussains who'll rule the country for another era. Sorry this sounds really pesimistic, but that is the way it has always been in our history since the great times of Babylonia, Assyria and Sumaria and the other great Mesopotamian civilisations. We never really self-ruled or brought Iraq to it's true full potential ever since - rather exploited by our controllers and invaders, except very short-lived periods like the time of the Monarchy.

Immortal Technique:
"Prepare for the future but make note of the past
Or be condemned to live it again and get blast"



Lion of Babylon -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/4/2008 2:33:43 AM)

Neo, thats a hell of a long post. I'll give you my brief take on Why Bush and his advisors from the dark side decided to invade. In US eyes there were many credible reasons for occupying Iraq such as control over oil and preservation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Also they were hoping that a new democratic Iraq would force Iran to follow suit. Big mistake! Ours is a country at the centre of the Gulf, a region with a quarter of world oil production, and containing more than 60% of the world's known reserves. With 115bn barrels of oil reserves, and perhaps as much again in the 90% of the country not yet explored, Iraq has capacity second only to Saudi Arabia. The US, in contrast, is the world's largest net importer of oil. So oil does play a major role in the US reasons for the invasion. WMD, Saddam, terrorism was just bullshit and provided only the bureaucratic argument behind the occupation. The real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil and provided a buffer against any extremists in Iran and Saudi Arabia thus protecting long term US interests in the region. There is also the theory that by invading Iraq America fights terrorists there, so it's not necessary to fight them in their own country. Bush and his advisors hoped that Iraq would become a quagmire that would bring all the terrorists in the world out of the woodwork. There are a couple of problems with this of course. First, it assumes that the number of terrorists in the world is static, and will not multiply precisely in response to Bush's actions. Second, think about the morality of this for a moment. Bush is basically happy to destroy a whole country simply to create a convenient battleground. The US was also using the invasion to warn other countries in a post 9/11 world: this is what happens if you cross the USA. In short, America is seeking to ward off any threat to its economic/Military domination of the world and they viewed Iraq as their starting point for a much larger agenda; to prepare themselves for the inevitable rise of China and India as future economic superpowers. That’s how I see it in a nutshell.



NeoBabylonian -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/6/2008 12:10:03 PM)

Lol, first sorry about the long post, and thanks for you time reading my rambling [:)]
Second is thanks again for writing your own opinion, it was a very cool read. I just want to say it is very nice to see Iraqis with such intelligent well-informed opinions as opposed as to all the BS mentality of sectarianism and racism that is plaguing out motherland.

I totally agree with your opinion, but I myself also totally agree on the concept of saving the dollar from Euro domination (remember Saddam switched to selling oil in Euros a few mothes before the invasion), keeping it the world currency, and also using our precious homeland as a mere Quagmire and buffer state. Conveniently, another war like you said will also act as a show of force for everyone else.



sadiq2006 -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/6/2008 1:40:23 PM)

neobabylonian

that does not mean to kill the iraqis for the evil american ambitions and its crazy future thoughts and to control the world, like the roman empire. 



Lion of Babylon -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/7/2008 1:40:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeoBabylonian

Lol, first sorry about the long post, and thanks for you time reading my rambling [:)]


Pleasure bro. I enjoyed reading and responding to your post. Keep um coming! 

quote:


I just want to say it is very nice to see Iraqis with such intelligent well-informed opinions as opposed as to all the BS mentality of sectarianism and racism that is plaguing out motherland.


Don't speak too soon. We have some of the BS variety here too.

quote:


I totally agree with your opinion, but I myself also totally agree on the concept of saving the dollar from Euro domination (remember Saddam switched to selling oil in Euros a few mothes before the invasion), keeping it the world currency, and also using our precious homeland as a mere Quagmire and buffer state. Conveniently, another war like you said will also act as a show of force for everyone else.


Great minds think alike!



NeoBabylonian -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/15/2008 6:21:50 PM)

Hahaha thanks bro, very true indeed. :D



Harry -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/16/2008 1:33:14 PM)

شنگدر نسوي, ماكو قريه بليه چلاب



NeoBabylonian -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/17/2008 3:27:40 PM)

Hahaha, thats the truth bro [sm=smiley36.gif] - can't have been said any better. [sm=smiley32.gif] [sm=smiley17.gif] 



forstier -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/18/2008 9:18:37 AM)

Neo;

I'll grant that perception beomes reality, but for Bush's intent to be succesfully expressed as you describe (success meaning achieving what he wanted) attributes far too much intelligenceon on his part.

And I'll confess, anytime in my short history when I have succumbed to conspiracy stories I have effectively become irrelevant to any solution. The only way to change things that works for me is to take my opponent at face value, treat him with the respect I want him to deserve, and then proceed to smash all of his false assumptions, and hidden agendas one by one. It has not been very efficient, at first, but has been very effective. Only when I have presumed good intent incompetently excercised by my opponent have I been able to understand my him sufficiently to deal with him effectively.

I am curious if you can and would help me with something. I want to listen to the words of Iraqi peoples who live in or recently have arrived from Iraq. I want to call, and listen to authentic voices, not journalists. I have done this in the past in English speaking counties in strife, {and where most of the land line telephones were operable}, but am now trying to do the same in Iraq. How do I get telephone numbers to call where I can reach Iraqii peoples?  How do I bridge the language barrier {I speak english {and struggle uncomfortably in russian and french}).

Do you have any insights or knowledge that would help me accomplish.

My tahnks/

Forstier



NeoBabylonian -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/21/2008 12:24:05 PM)

forstier:
That was a very insightfull and thought-provoking arguement I enjoyed reading. I agree, I shouldn't tire myself thinking of the possible and most likely agendas of people as long as I'm no mind reader - rather respect their face-value 'facade' - if it is one, and then hold then smash the hidden agaenda if there is one, by holding them accountable to their false faced or what they are trying to show they are doing.

However, what we're talking about is a government - the most powerfull one in the world today, and their influence and power extends to far further than what a million normal people can hold them responsible for. I'm just interested in what most people think is really happening - and it is important to have an idea of how people's actions are different to what they say and in what ways before we can hold them responsible like you said. [;)]

Me, I'd love to help you in whatever you need in listening to the voices of the people on the firing lines. It seems like a very great honourable task your trying to do - especially how most media nowadays focuses more on the politics of the mess there, or on the humainty stories of the coalition soldiers and their families, while mosting ignoring the civilians' stories who in my opinion are the most to suffer (in numbers and sometimes severity). I know a few Iraqis in the UK who recently arrived, though we aren't very close, and some of my relatives are going to briefly visit soon.
I'd be glad to give you their numbers next time we meet.

As for the language - I'm sure their relatives who they are staying with will know both fluent Iraqi and English, so they'll be happy to translate for you. Alternatively, I wont mind translating what they say myself if you want. [:D] 

Thank you for trying to do such a kind thing to convey the opinions of the Iraqis there.



shoe -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/25/2008 5:08:56 AM)

i just think its sad as hell to see american soldiers and iraqis killing eachother. Niether are the blame. The soldiers are following orders and im sure that if they knew what was really going on, would agree that the entire mess is unnacceptable and US government officials should be brought to justice.



NeoBabylonian -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/25/2008 4:37:47 PM)

Very true, as with most of Hostory, the masses are the insruments of the elite whose agendas are sometimes different from the masses they are supposed to represent.



MarkOfTheBeast -> RE: Iraq War Theory (2/26/2008 1:46:42 PM)

From my point of view, and since religion is playing a major rule in this war, I think that there is some other reasons behind this war, Oil was controlled by the US during the Oil for food program, only US oil companies benefited from that program, so, there should be other reasons for occupying Iraq.
 
Who is the Blood thirsty, probably, the number of 800,000 civilians deaths since the start of the occupation, I will leave you to decide!!!.



zimzim -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/5/2008 1:57:33 AM)

every body thinks oil is the reason but this is why the invasion happen. the us wants 2 use iraq to control the me and now they have reached their target.

New agreement lets US strike any country from inside Iraq
By Basil Adas, Correspondent
Published: June 03, 2008, 13:42
Baghdad: A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.

Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.

Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.

The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests. The military source added, "According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border."

The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases.

He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases.

The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq.

Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria.

Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement.



woody -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/18/2008 6:44:47 PM)

Hi guys. I was sitting at home in Phoenix, Arizona, USA and thought that something should be done about what's happening in Iraq. I'm just one person, but its as Gahndi used to say "What you will do is inconsequencial, yet it is very important that you do it."

I've thought a bit about how to get from where we are now to where we need to go (looking at American and Iraqi interests as one...which is true).

Its a strange situation. I would like to assure you that Americans have nothing but respect for the Iraqi people and, though our burden is financial (where as the Iraqis burden if far worse in terms of lives lost) it costs us both to continue things as they are now. I wish there was a vision embrased by both sides of this issue that would allow a quick and efficient plan that would get the power-brokers and the common people atleast the minimum of what they need.

As far as theory goes, I think at this time that the thing that is holding things up is that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the American government and military as to the realities of the situation. Please allow me to explain.

The Americans are looking at this from a unilaterial point of view, asking the question "What do we wish Iraq to become?" Unfortunately, this has been tried before in the Middle East and the result was the situation we currently have in Iran. Its almost like if a foreign power tries to influence things in the middle east, how it works out is a reaction to it, or in other words the more you try to pull it in one direction, it eventually goes in the other direction by the same amount.

The question I think the American's should be asking is "What will be the government in Iraq 20 years after we leave?" or rather "What will be the stable solution that will be adopted in Iraq?" This would require a humility on the part of America that has not been seen since its magnanamous action with Japan and Germany at the end of WW II, yet the benifits of what was done there are still felt today with Japan and Germany being strong, stable countries with friendly relations with the world.

With this in mind, I beleive that even if a solution would include sharia (not that I am saying it will in Iraq) or some form of governance that is not 100% democratic (ie. power sharring with the Madhi militia, foreign elements, the Islamic clergy and Ayatollahs) that it matters WHAT WILL WORK, not what people want.

A comprehensive visions that encompasses negotiation and practical peace-making I think is critical in acheiving what is desired in the short term. By comprehensive, I don't mean what the Americans want, the Iranians want, even what groups of Iraqis want, but what all of them want. With this in mind, if all the power-brokers can approach the situation from the point of view of "I'm not going to get what I want, but I can leave the table with part of what I need" then I think we have an environment in which a stable solution could be found.

The alternative is a situation where the Americans would stay for many years, inject trillions of dollars, building their idea of the perfect country, leave and then 10 years later it being torn completely appart and another Saddam becoming leader again.

However, if there is a comprehensive vision, a plan, one where all the power-brokers are brought together (perhaps even Al Quaida forming a political wing, like the IRA's shin fein) based not on democratic election, but based on their ability to either assist or hinder the over-all effort, and an agreement reached on the vision of all involved, then things like truces and peaceful zones can be called, allowing contractors to get in there and get the Iraqi civilians access to electricity, steady water and other infrastructure.

If such agreements and a unity of vision could be arrived at, then who knows how fast and how stable Iraq could be restored.

Iraq is a political nightmare for Americans right now. Iraqis are doging bullets and living in nightmarish conditions. It makes sense for there to be an understanding of this on both sides, and for both sides to say "Yeah, I could **** and moan about this that and the other thing, but REALLY, both sides want this issue put to bed, in a way that gets us all what we want in the short term AND will be stable over the long term."

I don't understand how so many intelligent, well-meaning people can screw this whole thing up as bad as its going. How hard is it for the Americans to bow slightly to the Madhi militia, even promising them future political consessions, and buy for themselves enough time and peace to get some power plants, sewer plants and other infrastructure so they can get some of the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi citizenry. How hard is it for the captains of the Madhi militia to understand that if they just stop attacking civillian contractors that are trying to get the Iraqi people what they want, that they'll be heros. Just war away from certain places and Iraq will bloom.



Vito -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/19/2008 4:36:45 AM)

Woody. This whole war, invasion, occupation of IraqNam has all gone wrong because it was pondered by morons, inspired morons, led by morons, and relied on a gullible public who were stupid or brainwashed and ignorant enough not to question the neocon grasp on the great American nations balls. Time for us to just admit our failings and bow out before we have no dignity left. The Iraqis have paid enough already for our arrogance and stupidity. BTW I’m new here so be nice. [:D]



woody -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/19/2008 9:29:53 PM)

Vito, I hear your concerns and to be honest, I many times wonder how it was that the Americans could be so very wrong about their original motivations for war. However, both the Iraqis and the Americans are proud, proud people, and because of this, I think it is important to nod at the underlying truths that you said, yet not to denegrate them for their mistakes. Such i think would perpetuate the difficulties that our lot at this time.

The Americans are intelligent. So are the Iraqis, both the leaders and the citizenry. That is why I don't consider it naive to hope for the best here.

This whole thing is a vast laboratory for us as human beings to discover if we have the group intelligence and the WISDOM with which to find a mutually acceptable compromise that will leave Iraq free and independant, America vindicated in some way, Iran feeling like it did its part to do what is right, and for the whole world to extend the hand of fellowship and friendship to Iraq and say "Join us friend. We are troubled to hear of the hardships you have had to endure, but now it is over and you delivered."

That mistakes have been made in the past, I am well aware, and do agree that many things by many nations and many leaders appear to be contrary to common sense. However we are where we are, there is a reason why our leader say things the way they do, a reason why the common man doesn't do much to solve them, and for our future to be assured, we need to all be searching for solutions. For us commoners, there are many, many small things we could be doing. I'm glad to be here on this web site hoepfully interacting with my Iraqi brothers (I consider all my brother...this is what made America strong and respected around the world quite a few years ago).

When I see the response to the natural disaster in Myanmar I realize there is much to be hopeful about. I see the love talked about both in the Bible and the holy Koran being evidenced in group decisions around the world. There is no reason why the Iraq situation cannot be approached with equal enlightenment and love and cleverness and solutions found.

I am doing my part. Living in America, I wanted to reach out to the Iraqis and say "Beleive it or not, we are brothers." America may be the occupier in Iraq, but KNOW that the Americans every day ponder the fates of the Iraqis and hope that your centeres and infrastructure can be rebuilt and a successful government solution be found not for you, but with you.

I personally want to apologize to all Iraqis. I am just one American, and there is not much I can do to help, but I am sorry for what burdens you are bearing. Sometimes I almost feel guilty to have electricty, a nice secure home, minimal crime and wonderful food and recreation here in Arizona. I want my Iraqi brothers and sisters to have this as well. I'd give you part of it if I could. However, I realized that what I could give is to reach out and though the American military has tried to gain the "hearts and the minds" of the Iraqis, I realize there is hope for the average American to reach out and speak with the average Iraqi and for us to build bridges of familiarity and commonality between us.

It was always thought that China's and America's destinies would be seperate, but today they are intertwined and on great terms with one another. There is much hope and joy here that between these superpowers there is friendship and mutual effort in the areas of business and culture. I think such a bond is possible with Iraq and America, even at some point Iran (I hope).

We just have to make it happen.

I had an idea (that goes to topic of theory). I was reading about how Hamas or someone actually shut down the local government because they had tried to shut down their telecommunications system. I realized that Hamas had come to depend on their telecommunications system, and I wondered why.

I wonder if it would be possible for there to be a telecommunications system, like teleconfencing (video and audio linking people together in a conference environment) between the Madhi militia elements and the American forces and the electorate of Iraq, such that if peaceful means to an end were possible that the various factions could meet in an environment of safety and get to know each other. It is difficult to hurt a friend, and (if any of my muslim friends are any indication) there is much friendship between those that associate with each other, talk with each other and work out mutually acceptible goals.

Also, such intercommunications could be transmitted on Iraqi TV so that Madhi leaders, Islamic clerics, and the elected officials of Iraq, hell even the American majors and colonels could get on the TV and share their ideas of a comprehensive vision of what needs to happen in Iraq. That there are extremists, this I know, yet if a lot of the centrists could get on Iraq TV stations and have debates with the public looking on, kind of like the elections, but a democracy of ideas that the various leaders could adopt or talk with other leaders with, I think there is some hope in this.

I think everything that could be solved with bullets has already been solved that way in Iraq. It seems that the official solution in Iraq is not solution and they fight in a form of gladitorial bloodsport just to pass the time. A solution would require some form of public dialog, a galvanizing of the Madhi captains into more political and popular areas, a cooperation of the various Sunni and Shia clerics out there who can look past their factional box and realize that they are the ones who defend the high and holy ideals of the Koran and the hopes and dreams contained their in.



woody -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/21/2008 8:02:07 PM)

Question to all you guys:

How do you make sure that an infrastructure project doesn't get bombed?

Over here in the USA, we wonder why construction projects aren't left alone. The fighting in the streets and stuff we can understand; there are many Iraqis that are defending their nation, but there are certain things like the rebuilding of infrastructure, the reopening of oil fields and refineries that I just don't understand how its in the Iraqi interest to attack them when they are being worked on.

Can someone give me an insight into the psychology or group think of the Madhi commanders and other combatants that would explain to me how this apparently counterproductive thing happens?



dritalin -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/22/2008 10:33:43 PM)

that's just the point. It's not in Iraqi interest to bomb infrastructure. That's why they do it. The people doing to bombing are either Al-Qaeda, who want chaos and gov't collapse, so they can take over. That or it's Iranian backed militias who are doing Iran bidding in preventing a stable Iraq that would threaten Irans regional interests.



woody -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/22/2008 11:18:32 PM)

Any way of buying them off?

For example, is there any way of getting them into the political process so they start using words instead of bullets.

To be perfectly honest, if the USA was convinced that it could leave a stable Iraq tomorrow, they'd be out of there the day after. A lot of these factions beleive that if they keep up the pressure that it will expidite the departure of the Americans. Unfortunately, it kind of keeps them there.

The USA has ZERO imperial drive. They don't want to run Iraq. They just want Iraq stable and not a problem so we can guy oil off you guys. The reason why the Americans are there are to participate with the people involved to forge a stable government that won't invade its neighbours and strong enough to resist being taken over by its neighbours. When this happens the Americans will be OUT OF THERE.

It costs 300 million dollars a day for the US to be there. We'd rather be spending it on ourselves. Its a fiscal nightmare for us in the states.

If they could just bribe or negotiate or put into positions of local power some of these decision-makers (makers of decision because they weild military power in various spots) or do something, then maybe some of these infrastructure things have a chance.

Its just so darned counter-intuative. It just makes so much sense to engage in different areas and leave other areas alone. i can just image how frustrating this is to the American commanders and the Iraqi citizenry. However, it does help the Americans to not look totally like the bad guys when there are others there shooting the place up.

Anyways....



Lion of Babylon -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/24/2008 3:16:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: woody

The USA has ZERO imperial drive. They don't want to run Iraq. They just want Iraq stable and not a problem so we can guy oil off you guys. The reason why the Americans are there are to participate with the people involved to forge a stable government that won't invade its neighbours and strong enough to resist being taken over by its neighbours. When this happens the Americans will be OUT OF THERE.


Please tell me you don't believe this rhetoric. You guys walked into Baghdad unopposed. Do you think this was because Iraq was strong enough to invade its neighbors. Give me a break. As for you guys wanting to "buy" oil from us, well now you own our oil so its mission accomplished.

quote:


It costs 300 million dollars a day for the US to be there. We'd rather be spending it on ourselves. Its a fiscal nightmare for us in the states.


Its only money my friend. Now look at the number of Iraqi lives lost since the invasion and tell me which would you rather have, a fiscal nightmare or a human one?

quote:


If they could just bribe or negotiate or put into positions of local power some of these decision-makers (makers of decision because they weild military power in various spots) or do something, then maybe some of these infrastructure things have a chance.


Thats the solution. Find weak people with guns who will accept bribes from you and everything will be just fine and dandy for us. 

quote:


Its just so darned counter-intuative. It just makes so much sense to engage in different areas and leave other areas alone. i can just image how frustrating this is to the American commanders and the Iraqi citizenry. However, it does help the Americans to not look totally like the bad guys when there are others there shooting the place up.


Well said. Thats our main concern as Iraqis. For the Americans to look their best.



woody -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/24/2008 11:24:15 AM)

quote:

Please tell me you don't believe this rhetoric. You guys walked into Baghdad unopposed. Do you think this was because Iraq was strong enough to invade its neighbors. Give me a break. As for you guys wanting to "buy" oil from us, well now you own our oil so its mission accomplished.


Lion, the American people have no stomach for a protracted encounter in Iraq. Its just not in our nature.

I'll tell you what is going to happen. The peace-niks are going to do exactly what they did during Viet-Nam, and the political winds are going to change. When this happens, Bush (or whoever is in office at the time), is going to ask congress for some more $$$ and they are going to tell him that its too unpopular to finance anymore.

When this happens, the Americans are going to drop everything in midstride and evac, just like they did in Viet Nam.

For the first few days, there will be partying in the streets that the Infadel has left and everybody will be brothers and it will be just like when the American first came in.

Then it'll get nasty.


quote:


Its only money my friend. Now look at the number of Iraqi lives lost since the invasion and tell me which would you rather have, a fiscal nightmare or a human one?


I know you guys have it way, way rougher than we do. I'm just saying that at $1,500/year for each American family, it'll be the financial issue that breaks the camel's back on the occupation.

quote:


Thats the solution. Find weak people with guns who will accept bribes from you and everything will be just fine and dandy for us.


What ever works. I'm just saying that the American commanders will have to find something that works, and it don't have to be pretty. Either that or the Madhi captains need to start thinking creatively. Hopefully both.

quote:


Well said. Thats our main concern as Iraqis. For the Americans to look their best.


I meant that tounge in cheek. I just meant that its a pretty rough town where the Infadels armed to the teeth aren't the badest asses in town.



Lion of Babylon -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/24/2008 1:21:29 PM)

quote:


Lion, the American people have no stomach for a protracted encounter in Iraq. Its just not in our nature.

I'll tell you what is going to happen. The peace-niks are going to do exactly what they did during Viet-Nam, and the political winds are going to change. When this happens, Bush (or whoever is in office at the time), is going to ask congress for some more $$$ and they are going to tell him that its too unpopular to finance anymore.

When this happens, the Americans are going to drop everything in midstride and evac, just like they did in Viet Nam.

For the first few days, there will be partying in the streets that the Infadel has left and everybody will be brothers and it will be just like when the American first came in.

Then it'll get nasty.


I understand your viewpoint but with Iran chomping at the bit the next administration might reduce the troops but will argue that they are still necessary. Don't forget Israel and Saudi also want to keep your troops in country to counteract the Persian threat. Iraq is a whole different kettle of fish from Nam. We have oil and loads of it. Do you really believe your government will leave Iraq at the mercy of Iranian Islamists? Imagine Iran will control the oil in the region and as such hold you guys hostage. In my view its all been worked out. Keeping your troops in Iraq will cost you nothing in comparison to the alternative scenario.   



woody -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/26/2008 1:47:11 PM)

I like how you think Lion.

Questions: how is the stopped from happening, OR how is it mitigated/negotiated. Or their other options that could be decided upon with cooperation/competition of the parties involved?



forstier -> RE: Iraq War Theory (6/26/2008 3:50:27 PM)

Neo;  
  There are very few forums where I feel comfortable saying what I feel in addition to what I think. I am glad to have found iraq4u as it has allowed me to see things more clearly, and differently, and has been a safer place to put what I think in play and see if it generates anything useful. I have found the only way to go from novice to competent player is to get your feet wet.      
Much in the press of late asking whether the current drop in violence can be sustained. Two years ago I completed an important step in my genealogy – I completed one line all the way back to Adam. I expected to experience some measure of pride in doing that, but I found myself somewhat depressed and disillusioned. As I traced back in time through my ancestors it became apparent that one of two possible states of being existed at any one time. My ancestors were either engaged in great battles of epic historic proportions where men engaged in the honorable pursuits of war, or they were engaged in great interfamily conflicts where men {and women} were engaged in cunning, devious, and lethal games. Each state proved to have in common deadly outcomes for those involved. Peace is not a sustainable state given the nature of man.    
  In the news today an Iraqi merchant was asked about the current conditions – he spoke in English and said roughly: “ … we are more at peace today than I can remember ever being, but the forces tearing us apart are still there. If the Iraqi government is unable to stay stronger than the militias, more violence and bloodshed will surely result”.  Wow. Talk about hitting the nail on the head.    
  The price of liberty may be eternal vigilance, but the price of peace requires superior strength.    
  It also requires moral constraint, and competency of leaders. And probably more but the brain is not dredging up any other essential elements.    
  You spoke of how the US Government, while accountable to the citizens of the US in a sort of delayed fashion, broadcast many unintended consequences on the Iraqi peoples in the pursuit of allegedly noble ends. I think I agree. I have lived along the border for many years and have seen good intents from both governments emanating from the seat of power only to end up as nonsense by the time they got to the frontier. Add the cloud of war and alternate universes would probably result.    
  I still go back to what I saw in Quebec. And what I see between Israel and Palestine. Governments can make as many treaties and agreements between the governments as they wish and they are worth jello on a hot stove. Until the peoples involved seek peace and have a common desire of the heart to accept what is necessary for peace to occur, willing to sacrifice time and temporal possessions in favor of peace, all the treaties are worthless.    
  So I do want to know what is on the mind and heart of Iraqi people. The elephant in the room is that the people of the US and Iraq must make peace before government can do anything.    
  Neo, I would like to take up your offer to make phone contacts. How do I get information to and from you?    
  Forstier



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 Unicode

0.594