Is The War In Iraq Another Viet Nam?

minsk · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jun 27 2005, 03:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Minsk)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And given the state of recruitment for your armed forces, can the US look to sustain the necessary force in Iraq? The enlistments and re-enlistments relative to the departures do not look horribly good.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If you are trying to imply that the US will be forced into a draft.... don't.

<a href='http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050610/pl_afp/usmilitaryiraq_050610195520' target='_blank'>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050610/pl_af...aq_050610195520</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Pentagon noted, however, that the marines, the navy and the air force all met or exceeded their recruitment goals for May.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I love how the media only puts in negative headlines as far as the US government goes.

The army is having trouble getting recruits... meanwhile the other 3/4's of the military are doing just fine.

What a crisis.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
If I wanted to start speculation about a draft, or any other equally moronic ideas, I would have said so. Turning control of the operation over to the UN would be a morely likely resolution before numbers slipped too low.

Even your military admits that getting and keeping people is harder, though I was previously too lazy to look up the raw data. They are expending more resources on recruitment, and stop-loss is turned on for a reason. It will be very interesting to see what the counts do over the next few years. My concern would be that the pool of possible candidates is refilling at the same rate, but they are draining it faster.

So the issue of whether the US can sustain the Iraq deployment at the current levels is still open, though the short-term answer is "yes" (duh).

I suppose the interesting question is what the Marines are doing differently in their recruiting to beat out the Army. Both have similar losses (<a href='http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/deploymentrates.htm' target='_blank'>deployments</a> vs <a href='http://icasualties.org' target='_blank'>casualties</a>), so I suspect the Marine "cool" factor is helping.

Cxwf · June 2005

It also helps that the total size of the Marines is far smaller than the Army, so their recruiting goals are similarly smaller. A much smaller number of recruits can keep the Marines perfectly happy.

This conversation has gone rather off topic with the whole Germany thing, and I will refrain from commenting on that in order to try to focus on the original topic. It's very important to note that most terrorist attacks in Iraq are no longer being carried out against US soldiers. There are still some, but very few. Most terrorist attacks in Iraq are now being carried out against the Iraqi populace.

That right there is hugely important for us, in PR terms. During the Invasion, as much as we tried to control collateral damage, the US did kill a few Iraqi citizens from time to time, and that gave political ammo to the terrorist recruiters. They could point out to the Iraqis that the horrible US invasion forces were killing innocent civilians, and use that to get more recruits to fight against us.

Now the situation is reversed--we aren't killing any Iraqi civilians any more, but the terrorists are killing large numbers of them. Now the Iraqi <i>government</i> can use that as a recruiting tactic, pointing out how the horrible insurgents are killing innocent civilians, and use that to turn more people against the insurgents and in favor of the new government. With each passing day, it becomes clearer to the Iraqi people that the new Iraqi government is on their side, and the Insurgents are not on their side. Without the support of the civilians for protection and camouflage, the Insurgency is doomed to failure.

Legat · June 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This conversation has gone rather off topic with the whole Germany thing, and I will refrain from commenting on that in order to try to focus on the original topic. It's very important to note that most terrorist attacks in Iraq are no longer being carried out against US soldiers. There are still some, but very few. Most terrorist attacks in Iraq are now being carried out against the Iraqi populace.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is the whole point in the rearmament of Iraq. Firstly, it relieves the US from the responsibilities of a belligerent occupant and at the same time takes the troops out of the line of fire.

The Iraqi security forces are now the most opportune target alongside with the civil bystanders in their close proximity. Also, nobody ever mentiones the losses among the vast amount of private security organisation that were hired to secure vital intallations and VIPs ...

The US forces are secured in their bases and leave no opportunity to strike, unless they start an offensive operation, where they are the ones to strike.

The attritional effect of guerrilia warfare does not affect the US forces this way.
Also, like I mentioned earlier, you cannot talk about Iraqi losses anymore.
The losses are mainly Shi'ites and Kurds because of their cooperation with the US.

As you can read <a href='http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/46411.pdf' target='_blank'>here</a>, the majority of the iraqi forces are memebers of the obove mentioned ethnic groups.
Both groups were oppressed by the Sunnite minority beforehand.
You can safely assume that this does create severe tensions which manifest in the civil war we currently experience.

Marine0I · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 29 2005, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This conversation has gone rather off topic with the whole Germany thing, and I will refrain from commenting on that in order to try to focus on the original topic. It's very important to note that most terrorist attacks in Iraq are no longer being carried out against US soldiers. There are still some, but very few. Most terrorist attacks in Iraq are now being carried out against the Iraqi populace.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is the whole point in the rearmament of Iraq. Firstly, it relieves the US from the responsibilities of a belligerent occupant and at the same time takes the troops out of the line of fire.

The Iraqi security forces are now the most opportune target alongside with the civil bystanders in their close proximity. Also, nobody ever mentiones the losses among the vast amount of private security organisation that were hired to secure vital intallations and VIPs ...

The US forces are secured in their bases and leave no opportunity to strike, unless they start an offensive operation, where they are the ones to strike.

The attritional effect of guerrilia warfare does not affect the US forces this way.
Also, like I mentioned earlier, you cannot talk about Iraqi losses anymore.
The losses are mainly Shi'ites and Kurds because of their cooperation with the US.

As you can read <a href='http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/46411.pdf' target='_blank'>here</a>, the majority of the iraqi forces are memebers of the obove mentioned ethnic groups.
Both groups were oppressed by the Sunnite minority beforehand.
You can safely assume that this does create severe tensions which manifest in the civil war we currently experience. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Guess you agree then Legat. Iraq is no Vietnam. Shi'ites and Kurds make up over 70% of the population, so the US is fighting alongside the majority of the Iraqi population to defeat a primarily sunni and foreign lead insurgency. The US is scaling back its military role and letting the majority of Iraqi's fight for their freedom. My knowledge of Vietnam is a little sketchy, but I dont see any parallel there.

The current government is making many concessions to ensure that the Sunni's are not politically excluded from the countries future. Iraq will never go the way of Iran, despite the Shi'ite majority, because the US will remain and ensure that doesnt happen. I discount dire predictions of all out iraqi civil war as fear mongering, because one side of the "war" cannot mount any conventional threat, instead they resort to insurgent/terrorist like tactics. Without the support of the majority of the population, that kind of warfare is brutal but ultimately useless.

If this is the case, and Iraqi's are turning against the insurgents, then I cant see why a democratic Iraq 10 years down the track is so far fetched. If THAT is the case, then I will feel kinda proud at the end that I supported this.

Grendel · July 2005

Just...lol.

Spelling is relevant. Anyone who speaks English as a native language, yet demonstrates that he can't be bothered with spelling is just indicating that they have no interest in details.

And it's all in the details.

I'm also highly amused by the concept that Germany or Japan needed nuking and firebombing by America to be prosperous. I can't <b>wait</b> until Nemesis gets his teeth into that line of BS.

Rest of post has been removed by author.

Legat · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Spelling is relevant. Anyone who speaks English as a native language, yet demonstrates that he can't be bothered with spelling is just indicating that they have no interest in details.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Just in case you mean me, I'm not a native english speaker. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm also highly amused by the concept that Germany or Japan needed nuking and firebombing by America to be prosperous. I can't wait until Nemesis gets his teeth into that line of BS.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

guess I've already dealt with this crap.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Guess you agree then Legat. Iraq is no Vietnam. Shi'ites and Kurds make up over 70% of the population, so the US is fighting alongside the majority of the Iraqi population to defeat a primarily sunni and foreign lead insurgency. The US is scaling back its military role and letting the majority of Iraqi's fight for their freedom. My knowledge of Vietnam is a little sketchy, but I dont see any parallel there.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

What a nice interpretation of my words...

First of, lets establish that I have not put up the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. The topic starter was one that initially supported the war efford, just for the record ...

So, now let's have a look at what made Vietnam such a desaster for the US and for the occupied country:

-US misjudged the enemy strengh and resolve: Check!
-US drawn into a longterm civil war conflict: Check!
-Civil war divides the war parties and the population: Check!
-despite military superiority, US are unable to root out the enemy: Check!
-costs and live toll among US exploding: Check!
-many civil casualties : Check!
-massive loss of credibility in the world: Check!
-bad publicity because of incidential warcrimes: Check!
-US troops defenseless against guerrillia tactics: Check!
-War support in the US population falters: Check!
-Demonstrations of the "bring our boys home" kind: ....Well, lets wait and see.

The US are not scaling back their military role. They are taken out of the direct line of fire, only exposing themselves when they fulfill assingment

The police duties are performed by the new Iraqi forces, which now take most of the beating.
If you have read the link I provided you should understand the problem. Sunnites are largely underrepresented, because of the risk of sabotage or espionage.

Out of the same reason, this line:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The current government is making many concessions to ensure that the Sunni's are not politically excluded from the countries future. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Is a fallacy.
I think you do not understand that these people do not have the same concept of "democracy" as we might have. Democracy does not mean anything for them exept a legitimate way to exert power over the other groups. Its not a question about "left" or "right", "liberal" or "conservative" democrat or republican....

It is a question of "us" or "them". That is the reason why in 10 years from now on, this country will neither be at peace, nor a democracy exept on the paper.
If you want to see what can become out of Iraq at the very best, take a look at Turkey ...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Iraq will never go the way of Iran, despite the Shi'ite majority, because the US will remain and ensure that doesnt happen.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, that is exactly the point of this thread.

--Edit: unnessesary comment removed--

Gliss · July 2005

The difference is that my great grandfather won't die this time

Cxwf · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jul 13 2005, 03:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> -US misjudged the enemy strengh and resolve: Check!

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Probably True.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-US drawn into a longterm civil war conflict: Check!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It hasn't been "long term" yet. Its only been 2 years. Vietnam continued for what, 20 years?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-Civil war divides the war parties and the population: Check!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
In Vietnam, the population ranged from completely against us in some areas to undecided and split in other areas. In Iraq, there are large portions of the populace that actually <i>support</i> us, and there is very little popular support for the opposition now that they are turning most of their terror attacks against Iraqi citizens rather than the US.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-despite military superiority, US are unable to root out the enemy: Check!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Again, it hasn't been very long yet. In Vietnam, the US was unable to root out the enemy after decades of fighting. Here, we're actually doing a fair job of rooting them out after TWO years. Granted, we haven't won yet, but we're making progress.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-costs and live toll among US exploding: Check!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Not really. The costs and life toll are <i>continuing</i>, but thats a far cry from exploding. They're actually crawling along at a pretty slow rate compared to Vietnam. US Casualties in Iraq are very low these days.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-many civil casualties : Check!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
While there are civilian casualties, its worth noting that the majority of them are not being caused by our forces. Thats a notable difference from Vietnam.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-massive loss of credibility in the world: Check!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
We have publicly lost credibility only with those who already privately gave us no credibility before the war. Those who supported us before Iraq continue to think we are accomplishing things now that we are in Iraq. So there has been no actual loss of credibility due to Iraq.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-bad publicity because of incidential warcrimes: Check!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Bad publicity, certainly. But not necessarily because it was <i>deserved</i>--more because the US media disagrees with the administration's Iraq policy, and is eager to do anything possible to sabotage it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-US troops defenseless against guerrillia tactics: Check!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Uncheck. We have developed quite significant defenses against these guerilla tactics. The reason so many of these terror attacks are now focused on civilians is that the terrorists are finding it extremely difficult to pull off successful attacks on troops these days.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-War support in the US population falters: Check!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Again, not really. Support for staying in Iraq now is quite high. Nearly half the nation still thinks it was worth while invading to begin with, and many more don't think the initial invasion was justified but still believe its worthwhile to stay now that we're there. Any faltering in support is nothing more than an illusory perception.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-Demonstrations of the "bring our boys home" kind: ....Well, lets wait and see.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
In other words--not happening. So, there is really very little similarity between Iraq and Vietnam.

BulletHead · July 2005

We need MORE people over there with MORE equipment... too few men + too few supplies = get pwned hard

StormLiong · July 2005

There was one news report on TV that highlighted how hard the US & British Forces have to fight.

In Saddam's times he guarded his borders tightly (I think like 6000 guards??). Currently the borders are only guarded 1/6 of that. So each time insurgents are neutralized inside Iraq, more arrive. I got to try to find that news report.

What I am figuring out is isn't the obvious strategy is to put tighter controls on the borders?

Legat · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It hasn't been "long term" yet. Its only been 2 years. Vietnam continued for what, 20 years?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh yes? Guess what, it is not over yet. Quite the contrary.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again, it hasn't been very long yet. In Vietnam, the US was unable to root out the enemy after decades of fighting. Here, we're actually doing a fair job of rooting them out after TWO years. Granted, we haven't won yet, but we're making progress.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The troops were also quite successful in Vietnam. Granted, the losses were higher, but every descisive battle was won despite the picture one might have had at the time. The war was never really lost other than politically. It was lost in the US, not in the jungle.
Iraq will be lost the same way eventually.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>While there are civilian casualties, its worth noting that the majority of them are not being caused by our forces. Thats a notable difference from Vietnam.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Nope. It wasn't any different in Vietnam. Do you think the US went from village to village to kill innocents back then? No? You are right. People got killed accidentially in the crossfire or because they were mistaken for vietcong symphatisants. The major bulk however, was killed by the rebels to punish colaboration with the US. Like in Iraq.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We have publicly lost credibility only with those who already privately gave us no credibility before the war. Those who supported us before Iraq continue to think we are accomplishing things now that we are in Iraq. So there has been no actual loss of credibility due to Iraq.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh you think so? Are you aware that, before the WMD charade and the constructed war reasons, those who "privately gave you no credibility" were willing and ready to support you in Afghanistan and fight Al Quaeda? Right after 9/11, the Nato members would have been in for anything. It really took some great deal of "statesmanship" to p*ss them off.
And in case you don't understand, those who still remain in Iraq do this because they expect something in return ...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Bad publicity, certainly. But not necessarily because it was deserved--more because the US media disagrees with the administration's Iraq policy, and is eager to do anything possible to sabotage it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

duh... beforehand, the media ate any crap the administration handed them over and presented them as "facts". Great jounalism by the way...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Uncheck. We have developed quite significant defenses against these guerilla tactics. The reason so many of these terror attacks are now focused on civilians is that the terrorists are finding it extremely difficult to pull off successful attacks on troops these days.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes. These defenses are called hiding in a bunker or armed checkpoint, shoot anything that aproaches (like italian secret service agents escorting a hostage...) and let them kill each other. Now that shows how firmly the US troops have established their control over the country.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again, not really. Support for staying in Iraq now is quite high. Nearly half the nation still thinks it was worth while invading to begin with, and many more don't think the initial invasion was justified but still believe its worthwhile to stay now that we're there. Any faltering in support is nothing more than an illusory perception.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html' target='_blank'>really?</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'>In other words--not happening. So, there is really very little similarity between Iraq and Vietnam.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yeah yeah yeah... like you said, its only 2 years now ... look at the graphs shown on the link obove. Now extrapolate ....

Cxwf · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jul 16 2005, 01:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The war was never really lost other than politically. It was lost in the US, not in the jungle.
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Agreed.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Iraq will be lost the same way eventually.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Disagreed. Iraq COULD be lost the same way, if people like you continue to fight against the war here in the US. But if we actually make some effort to present a united front on the war on terror, we can win this with no problem. (I'm randomly assuming you are a US citizen here, in the absence of reliable information.) So, which would <i>you</i> rather have happen? Would you like us to fight amongst our selves and lose another war by politcally dooming our military for non-military reasons? Or would you like us to actually WIN this thing?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again, not really. Support for staying in Iraq now is quite high. Nearly half the nation still thinks it was worth while invading to begin with, and many more don't think the initial invasion was justified but still believe its worthwhile to stay now that we're there. Any faltering in support is nothing more than an illusory perception.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060700296.html' target='_blank'>really?</a></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

<a href='http://www.hnn.us/articles/12778.html' target='_blank'>Yes, Really.</a>

Selected quotes:
Despite the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction, the war's bloody aftermath hasn't elicited much of an outcry, either. In the face of mounting casualties, 58 percent of those questioned in a July Wall Street Journal/NBC poll said American troops should stay in Iraq "as long as necessary to complete the process, even if it takes as long as five years."

Another poll in July, this one for the Washington Post and ABC, found three in four respondents expected significantly more American deaths, yet seven in ten still believed U.S. forces should remain in Iraq "until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties."

Even a Newsweek poll taken in the aftermath of last week's U.N. bombing found that 60 percent of respondents support maintaining current force levels in Iraq for more than a year, with twice as many favoring staying ten years or more as supporting immediate withdrawal.

Legat · July 2005

Interesting article. Very informative indeed.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Despite the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction, the war's bloody aftermath hasn't elicited much of an outcry, either. In the face of mounting casualties, 58 percent of those questioned in a July Wall Street Journal/NBC poll said American troops should stay in Iraq "as long as necessary to complete the process, even if it takes as long as five years."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The public has long been less fearful of casualties than America's political and military elites assume--and, for that matter, less fearful than the elites themselves. According to polls taken by the American Institute for Public Opinion (aipo), the level of support for World War II never slipped below 75 percent, even though more than 200,000</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Compare the numbers to see how low the support for Iraq is compared to WW2, considering that the casualties are but a fraction of those back then. Also keep in mind that both wars had preceeded a massive attack agains the US and ignited the nations will to do war.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Even Vietnam, where the myth of a risk-averse public was born, proves nothing of the kind. <b>There, too, the public's sensitivity to casualties depended on its faith in the eventual success of the mission</b>. And, prior to the Tet Offensive in 1968, that faith remained substantially intact.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Bush's vulnerability comes from the growing number of Americans who see events going the wrong way on the ground. In the most recent CBS News poll, only <b>45 percent see "the United States in control of events taking place in Iraq"--a figure that has declined from 71 percent in April.</b> Similarly, <b>53 percent of respondents to the latest pipa survey think the "process of rebuilding Iraq is going 'not very well' or 'not at all well.'"</b> These findings do spell trouble for the president.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Figure the rest out for yourself.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Disagreed. Iraq COULD be lost the same way, if people like you continue to fight against the war here in the US. But if we actually make some effort to present a united front on the war on terror, we can win this with no problem. (I'm randomly assuming you are a US citizen here, in the absence of reliable information.) So, which would you rather have happen? Would you like us to fight amongst our selves and lose another war by politcally dooming our military for non-military reasons? Or would you like us to actually WIN this thing?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Your assumption is wrong, I am not a US citizen, albeight I have occasional contact to the US due to my job and some friendship relations.
I also would be quite interested in what else you assume when you speak of "people like me"...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, which would you rather have happen? Would you like us to fight amongst our selves and lose another war by politcally dooming our military for non-military reasons? Or would you like us to actually WIN this thing?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I would very much appreciate if you won this thing. I would greatly hope so in regard to a stable middle east and my stock values which are altogether dependent on a market that depends on oil.
However, you cannot win this thing. Else way, you will only make it worse. The middle east has gone from bad to worse altogether during the last 50 years of foreing intervention. Do you honestly think a war can change this development to the better?
How often did the British or the US promote a favored leader and later on lost the country to a revolution or estrangement with the former ally? What makes you think it will be any different this time?

Do you realize that, to put it simple, Iraq has been completely <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a45n40b01.htm' target='_blank'>FUBR</a> ?

That only displays the catastrophic economical situatuation resulting from the wars and the embargo.
To make things worse, this country is now a militaristic hellhole where three large and radicalised groups fight each other. Currently, the Shi'ites and Kurds against the Sunnites. But soon enough this fragile alliance will break, be assured.

Kurds are secessionists that want to unify with their brethren in south Turkey, whose government will know how to prevent this ....
The US will at some point have to decide who is more important to them. The Iraqi Kurds or the Turkish government. Guess who they will choose ...
Bang. Next Ex Ally.

The Sunnites hate the US like hell as they feel betrayed. Not exactly unjustified. Might I remember you to the sad episode of US foreing politics that resulted in Saddams empowerment and the establishment of a minority dominated (sunnite) Regime in Iraq? And why did the US put Saddam in charge? Yes, because they wanted to prevent the iraqi Shi'tes to establish control and unite with the iranian Shi'ites. Great job. THAT surely did work ... over the cost of an estimated one million casualties during the Iran/Iraq war. Really. Good work there guys!

That leads me to the Shi'ites, which hate you because you abandoned them after you pulled out at Desert Storm, after you lead them to revolt against Saddam... who subsequently sloughtered thousands of them to reestablish control.
They won't tell you to the face, but they don't trust the US farther than they can throw one of their tanks. And you honestly expect them to aid you against theit Iranian brothers in faith? How naive are you?

Oh, did I mention that the Kurds don't like you for the same reason? And for others, like looking away when the turkish army rolls over Kurdistan each year during the infamous spring-time pushes against kurdish "terrorists".
Not a good preferece to rely on radical kurdish militias who refuse to disband and join the regular Iraqi armed forces ...

The US administration always tells us about evil terrorists and poor civilians.
The favorite story is about those poor policemen that want to help rebuilding their nation and get killed when waiting in line to get a job as a righteous lawman. Nobody talks about <a href='http://ww1.sundayherald.com/43458' target='_blank'>this</a>

That is the man you put in charge. He is in no way better or worse that the other guys and sooner or later he will bite your hand like them all.
Everybody mourns the victims of a bomb raid but nobody looses a word when they find a grave with bodies showing sings of torture and execution.

like <a href='http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1700981,00.html' target='_blank'>here </a> or <a href='http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1701988,00.html' target='_blank'>here</a>

Don't you realize? it is a civil war, nothing less. The police is Shi'ite dominated and they have a bone to pick with their fomer oppressors. They take the beating back, be sure about that.

They are killing each other off and you hope you can stop that circulus vitiosus after you cultivated it for two decades?
Don't realize that those people don't see democracy as anything other than a legitimate way to oppress their competitors for power over Iraq? Do you really think that you will ever be able to leave this country for good? You can't even bail out of Saudi Arabia as it was planned after 9/11 because the Regime would collapse to another Iran.

How many Nations do you want to occupy in the near future to keep this charade up? The US are already reaching the limits of their capacities, which is quite obvious when you see the soft approach to NK and Iran after anouncing their intention to gain nuclear capabilites. Face it, it can only become worse whatever you do.

NGE · July 2005

Legat, while I have since dropped the whole Germany debates (which, if this was another topic, I would prove you wrong), I must say everything posted above has very little bearing other than 100% speculative garbage.

Basically, your entire argument breaks down into "Something will happen... something very bad will happen... just wait!"

That's not an argument to convince anyone. It plays on your fears and lack of trust with the United States, you expect us to screw it up somehow. No logic, no valid critisms. Tell me, how can the US screw up the nation building process when they do as little as possible to irrate the population, send in billions on supplies and soliders, and you just brush it off as "Somehow they are gonna screw up, be assured."

What in the world kind of logic is that man?

When you make statements such as these,

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes. These defenses are called hiding in a bunker or armed checkpoint, shoot anything that aproaches (like italian secret service agents escorting a hostage...) and let them kill each other. Now that shows how firmly the US troops have established their control over the country.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You honestly expect someone to take that argument seriously? How would you know how the military is fighting? Or how the majority of insurgency attacks occur? Furthermore, the US isn't trying to establish control over the country, rather, they are trying to give it back to an Iraqi government...

Antrel · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We need MORE people over there with MORE equipment... too few men + too few supplies = get pwned hard </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As vague as he may sound, he actually has a decent grasp. I criticized it when we did it and still stand by today that it was a huge mistake disbanding the entire Iraqi National Army. We had very little international support as far as manpower goes, and our politicians and CO's didn't feel like filtering through the time and resources to relocate active regiments and call upon reserve units. As a result, we invaded and are attempting to occupy Iraq with a small, surgical force. Had we kept and trained at least the lower ranks of Iraq's former military, we could've helped solve the problem with Syria's border. Sadly, we did not and now are dealing with a massive insurgency of genocidal terrorism. We ARE training a new security force in bulk to manage these things in the future, but to me it seems a little too late. We'll be fighting this insurgency for years to come. America's humanitarian legacy will be riding on Iraq for 10 years to come. If we fail in the long run, any remnance of the Beacon of Freedom we once held claim to will be lost.

Legat · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Legat, while I have since dropped the whole Germany debates (which, if this was another topic, I would prove you wrong), I must say everything posted above has very little bearing other than 100% speculative garbage.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Since I suggested you to open another topic on the Germany issue feel free to do so.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Basically, your entire argument breaks down into "Something will happen... something very bad will happen... just wait!"</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No. My argument is based around an ever repeating pattern of failed foreing policies resulting in an ever increasing range of "evil states" with hostile and radical regimes.

Besides, in case you don't realize, these "bad things" are already happening ... each and every day in Iraq. Just at the moment I heard news of a wave of violent attacts causing hundreds of casualties and a treat, supposedly by Al Quaida, to attack Baghdad openly ...

To cut it short: It is my firm believe that in a few years from now on the resolve of the US population will decisively falter and the administration will at some point be forced to retreat from Iraq in order to regain public support.

While Cxwf tried to disprove this with his article, the same article clearly indicates that this is absolutely possible. Already at this point the approval of the war has fallen to a number measured around 50%. Also, the public opinion regarding the successfulness of the mission has fallen under 50% from initially 75%.
As the article states, the believe in successful accomplishment is crucial to maintain the public resolve and the willingness to put the troops at risk for a cause.
Since the security situation is all but improving, this will continiusly deteriorate the public support for the Iraq campaing and will eventually lead to a retreat.

So, you see, I do base my assumption on hard numbers, while your only prove is "we never gonna back down".
Go on... prove me wrong. I am really looking forward to how you will prove that the US will definately not retreat from Iraq? It happened before, it will happen again.

When that happens, there are three possible scenarios that come to my mind spontaneously.

A:) Total chaos and civil war. The tree large sects will fight for supremacy and Iraq falls into a modern dark age like Afghanistan did for example.

B:) The US delegate power to one of the fractions and support them with enough military power to subdue the opposing fractions and powers. This Iraqi government will be democratic. On paper. The actual situation will be similar to Saddams regime, maybe not so violent and openly oppressive, but still far from being a paradise.
My best guess is that someone like <a href='http://ww1.sundayherald.com/43458' target='_blank'>Allawi</a> is going to be this new leader, as he has been a faithful supporter of US policies so far. (like Saddam once was ...) Did you read this report? Note that neither the US not the British officially denied these claims.

Also read this particular paragraph:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As well as his own security staff, Allawi is accompanied at all times by a close protection unit of soldiers drawn from US special forces. Having am bushed the UN plan to appoint a technocratic interim prime minister last month, Allawi, a former hitman for the Saddam regime, has shown signs of flexing his power under the interim constitution to its limits and breaking out of US control.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is the horse you want to bet your money on? You think this one will be loyal to the US? You think this one is in any regard better that Saddam? You argue about my logic?
People like him are all over the place, you really don't have so many options to choose from, and you certainly don't want to bring a fundamentalist mullah to power, do you?

C:) The country becomes devided in 3 regional territories occupied by the several sects. This is what the Kurds do have in mind. The Shiites however want to keep the Nation united. And under control.
The Sunnites will not go peacefully with this either, becuase their native territories are basically worthless desert.

For the sake of completeness:

scenario D:
The sects actually start truely making effords to work together and build a fragile but working democtratic society like in Lebanon. This is actually possible, but not under the current conditions imho.
If ever, it will take much time to heal wounds and currently, these wounds are cut wider every day instead.
Especially since basically the balance of power has been reversed compared to the pre war situation. This is like the UN would force Israel to cede power over their own territory to palestine ... Right. they would not play along.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You honestly expect someone to take that argument seriously? How would you know how the military is fighting? Or how the majority of insurgency attacks occur? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Because it is like it is. The US are focusing on holding key installations and strategic points and assaults against supposed insurgent strongholds. Go a few miles out of Bagdad and you are on Warlord territory. The situation is similar in Afghanistan btw.

The major bulk of the peace-keeping is ceded to Iraqi authorities, which basically means, that they are the easiest target of opportunity compared to the US partols and checkpoints in armored vehicles.
Besides, did you know that the Coalition and private entities are contracting an unknown number of private security personnel to secure installations, personel and property?
Iraq is a <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3747421.stm' target='_blank'>mercenary paradise</a>, because the coalition is not able to uphold security otherwhise.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Furthermore, the US isn't trying to establish control over the country, rather, they are trying to give it back to an Iraqi government...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Control is the point in occupation. Whether you intent to give it back or not is of no consequence. When you are not able to uphold a certain level of public security, you will not appease the occupied territory. Contrary to what the war optimists proclaimed, the elections and the installment of the new government have obviously not inproved the situation.

Cxwf · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jul 17 2005, 05:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, which would <i>you</i> rather have happen? Would you like us to fight amongst our selves and lose another war by politcally dooming our military for non-military reasons? Or would you like us to actually WIN this thing?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I would very much appreciate if you won this thing. I would greatly hope so in regard to a stable middle east and my stock values which are altogether dependent on a market that depends on oil.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Thank you. Thats mostly all I was going for in this debate.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However, you cannot win this thing. Else way, you will only make it worse. The middle east has gone from bad to worse altogether during the last 50 years of foreing intervention. Do you honestly think a war can change this development to the better?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'm not saying it will be easy--its obviously not. But its possible. And we're certainly not going to make everything better by withdrawing our troops and leaving the place to anarchy. So we really don't have much choice but to stay and fight it out.

Legat · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>QUOTE (Legat @ Jul 17 2005, 05:23 AM)
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So, which would you rather have happen? Would you like us to fight amongst our selves and lose another war by politcally dooming our military for non-military reasons? Or would you like us to actually WIN this thing?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I would very much appreciate if you won this thing. I would greatly hope so in regard to a stable middle east and my stock values which are altogether dependent on a market that depends on oil.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Thank you. Thats mostly all I was going for in this debate.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Your welcome. Now I tell you where I was going for. The US policies for securing strategic ressources in the Middle East is flawed if not outright fatal.
The policies created conflicts, wars, genocide, radical regimes and a form of terrorism and guerrillia warfare that in his viciousness and brutality is unequaled in history.
It has created a fear and animosity among the muslim society against western society that has not been that greavious since the days of the crusades.
It has created unimaginable suffering among the people of various counties, that to this day suffer from economical damadge, political isolation, dud ammonitions, lost relatives and last but not least from the sideffects of depleted uranium, which even affects your own troops which are only in the vicinity for a limited time.
It has created reactionary counterforces that deny all western achievements and prevent technological and sociological development.

And it is getting worse with every new US president to get involved.
Mrs Rice said a few years ago to justify the engagement in Iraq, that international terrorism has increased during the past 25 years dramatically. That is correct. Guess why.

I ask you again. Do you honestly expect more bloodshed to improve the situation? With every won battle, victory moves farther away, as every won battle means more dead sons and dead brothers, more dead children and wifes and fathers and mothers, and they all want revenge.

Before someone jumps up and accuse me of speculation again, I must say that I really would like to avoind chewing this through again cause I did so far too often. I certaily will if you wish, albeight this is possibly again going OT.

So I propose a simple question to you:

Why does a nation like Saudi Arabia for example, which is the largest exporteur of the possibly single most important resssource on earth, suffer of national debt and economic stagnation? Why does this nation, in order to pay its debts, lower their peoples per capita income from $25,000 in 1980 to $8,000 in 2003 from oil revenues instead of simply raising the prizes?

Can you answer this? Can you answer why these nations fail to develope alternative economies to ensure their peoples future in the post oil eara to come? There are Arabic emirates that were quite succesful in doing this, like Dubai. Dubai had not much oil to begin with, so what is the difference? I tell you, it was left alone.

--------

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm not saying it will be easy--its obviously not. But its possible. And we're certainly not going to make everything better by withdrawing our troops and leaving the place to anarchy. So we really don't have much choice but to stay and fight it out.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Right at the moment, you keep on cultivating this potential for anarchy due to the one sided support for the Shi'ites. Of course there's not much of a choice, as every Sunnite is a potential traitor, so entrusting them with sensitive information or vital positions is a calculated risk... It does not matter however, the outcome is eventually that you cultivate a civil conflict that definately will rage on for decades to come. Military intervention and surpression of this conflict will merely prolong the inevitable.

Not to mention that intervention policies are always playing out in favor for one party and thus create in injustice by nature. This leads to the formation of new radical elements among the defeated party that will not remain at peace for long.

Just wait what will happen when the UN finally leaves the Balkans some day ... the majority of the serbian population deems Karadzic a hero of their people and want him back...

Besides, you will not have much of a choice as to leave the country. Your own article with which you wanted to disprove my point clearly shows evidence that the population is not convinced of a successful accomlishment of the campaign anymore.
This is after only 2 years of assingment. Just wait another 2 and you will see.
The US adminiatrations to come will not bail out so easily because this would mean an international embarassment, to say it politely. So it will drag along some time.
The fight will become more and more messy. The news will be all over the place looking for blood. While the government will uphold the nessesity to continue, the population will start to protest. As soon as the public reactions shifts definately against the conflict, the recruitment numbers will go down significantly.
The administration will start to use desperate measures to ensure descisive victories, which will cause more protest. It is a vicious cycle with only one possible outcome.

That of course is, like I said, based on accounting the current situation. If there is significant success in the rebuilding process and the peoples standard of living is improved noticeable, a sucess would be possible.
But that will not happen under the current conditions. Your own companies, which have been granted lucrative contracts before the war even started, have suspended their operation for the most part due to the catastrophic security situation.

If you are interested, an article about the <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a47n48d01.htm' target='_blank'>Iraqi Oil industry </a> and the hardships it has suffered and still suffers.
It is not the most recent source but it is very informative. Quite a steep read though.

If you want a reference to understand the priciples of the crisis, I recommend doing some research on the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_years_war' target='_blank'>30 Years War</a>, which is possibly the first modern satelite conflict in history.

If you need a reference to my claims that foreing intervention more often than not cause harm to a society, take <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda/History' target='_blank'>Rwanda</a> as an example, where foreing interference caused a largely peaceful coexistance end up in genocide and civil war a century later. All because of one-sided favoursim towards a specific part of the population.

Please, before someone steps up and viciously argues that this bears no resemblence to the current situation and has nothing in common... think twice about it please and do some backround research. Not in Wikipedia... I just posted them out of convienient reasons and quick availability.

Understand that, while surely not identical in every aspect, those examples do bear signifficant insight in the development of conflict. The mechanisms of radicalisation and war are and remain the same since the ancient ages.

I can give you a historical counterpart for figures like Saddam anytime and in any period. It always happens the same way.
Take Gaius Julius Ceasar and his war to subdue the Gauls. His strategic and tactical methods were very similar to modern day tactics of technological superior forces.
I recommend reading "Bellum Gallicum" the cronicles of the Gaulic wars written by Cesar himself. There are some good translations available. (The interesting part is, that it is not glorifying in any way, but a matter-of-fact report for the Roman Senate)

Cesar did make use of various helpful allys from all parts of the world, inlcuding german mercenaries and some of the Gaulic tribes that hoped to gain an advantage over their rivals. Yes, he outplayed the Gauls against each other to weaken them.

Did you know that Vercingetorix, the one that united the tribes and, as the first and only one ever to defeat Cesar, was formerly one of those allies? Do you see a similarity?
And you know what the difference is between Cesar and Mr Bush? Cesar was able to use enough force nessesary to do the job and killed millions of Gauls of all ages, burned Villages and sloughtered non combatants. He could do what as nessesary to break the resistance. This war, compared to the population development of that time, was a greater loss on life that both World Wars combined!

Mr Bush cannot do this. That is why the US will lose this fight eventually. It is not a question wheter or not but when the fire breaks out. Then, be assured, we are really in troube and the stock values will be the least to worry about.

Cxwf · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ summed up)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're doomed.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Thank you for that insightful comment. I don't suppose you have a suggestion for what we should do next, besides simply telling us we're doomed?

Legat · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Jul 18 2005, 09:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ summed up)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're doomed.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Thank you for that insightful comment. I don't suppose you have a suggestion for what we should do next, besides simply telling us we're doomed?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Very productive answer. I would have expected more from you.

To answer you question I do propose mine again:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why does a nation like Saudi Arabia for example, which is the largest exporteur of the possibly single most important resssource on earth, suffer of national debt and economic stagnation? Why does this nation, in order to pay its debts, lower their peoples per capita income from $25,000 in 1980 to $8,000 in 2003 from oil revenues instead of simply raising the prizes?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Find the answer to this question and you have found the root of the the middle eastern crisis. And I mean the whole crisis, not just Iraq. What The US are tried and still are trying to do in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Iran or Syria or whereever else, is to fight the symptoms, not the sickness.

And like curing cancer, at some point the cure does more harm than good. That point has been crossed imho.

You want a hard, solid solution? look at Israel these days and you see a good start. It hurts, but it helps. Not at once of course but eventually ...

Cxwf · July 2005

Considering how different our points of view have been on the whole issue so far, I'd be very surprised if we came to the same conclusion on those 2 questions (why Saudia Arabia is still poor, and what we can learn by looking at Israel). Are you sure you want me to guess your answer by looking at those questions?

Legat · July 2005

---Edit---

Doublepost, sorry!

Legat · July 2005

Israel is going to leave the occupied territory and clearing the settlemets even by use of force. Right at the moment I see Israeli security forces dissolving a demonstration of Israeli hardliners. Understand what I mean?

And I would be very interested in your guess as of why Saudi Arabia is still poor, while the term "still" is not quite fitting imho.

Cxwf · July 2005

"Leave the occupied territory"? According to the Palestinians, every square inch of Israel is "occupied territory", in case you'd forgotten. The exact boundaries of Israel have changed dozens of times since its creation, so all they are doing now is reverting from the current border to an earlier, slightly smaller border.

What possible parallel does that have with the Iraq situation?

Legat · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> "Leave the occupied territory"? According to the Palestinians, every square inch of Israel is "occupied territory", in case you'd forgotten. .</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You must distinguished between rhetoric and realistic politics. The arabs do very well understand that Israel is there to stay.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The exact boundaries of Israel have changed dozens of times since its creation, so all they are doing now is reverting from the current border to an earlier, slightly smaller border</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The point of interest are the recent decades. Did you know, that during the six days war, the Israelis crossd palestine which caused the palestinian people to leave their homes and hide out of fear to be cought in the crossfire?
The Israelis then simply declared the territory as abandoned and annexed it ...

That was and is illegal by international laws. Hence the differences between the UN and Israel. The settlement policy was a further efford to claim the land in the long run.
This is the root of the Intifada and this has started the circulus vitiosus in this particular case. Also, the palestine conflict has served as justification for fundametalist warmongers to take action against civil targets.

Also, the refugee question is another spark on the powderkeg. The refuge camps are a never ending source of desperate and hopeless volunteers for suicide attacks.

Cxwf · July 2005

I'm not here to argue over whether Israel <i>should</i> be pulling out or not--start another thread over that if you like. The question here is what relevance does that have to the US situation in Iraq? Are you suggesting that we simply withdraw all our forces immediately, and come what may in Iraq? You can't honestly believe THAT would stop terror attacks against the US, nor would it be terribly good for the Iraqi political wellbeing. For all your predictions of doom and gloom, you have yet to propose a viable alternative plan of action.

Legat · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm not here to argue over whether Israel should be pulling out or not--start another thread over that if you like. The question here is what relevance does that have to the US situation in Iraq?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Neither do I, it's done to death. The relevance is, that a situation in Israel is the very best thing you can achieve with the current course of action. One superior Group under US support will be constantly harrassed by brutal bomb attacks and return the violence accordingly. This will go on for decades. That's what you want?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>For all your predictions of doom and gloom, you have yet to propose a viable alternative plan of action.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

First of, you simplify my statement and avoid to answer my thesis.
I did deliver explanations for two simple facts:

A: the Gulf region has become increasingly unstable since the seventies and I presented foreign ( in particular US but not exclusively) interference as the reason for this development. I also find it quite plausible that this development is the reason for phenomena like modern islamic fundamentalism, radidcalisation and anti-americanism (and anti-western sentiments in general).

B: I did deliver strong evidence ( backed up by your own sources ...) for the possible (inevitable in my personal opinion) failure of the Iraq campaign and explained which fatal results might come out of this.
I also stated Iraq as a direct example for failed foreign politics, and the catastrophic outcome is all too clearly visible when looking at the economical and security situation of the country.

You were not able to invalidate those two assumptions so far, so instead you want to skip the round and demand me to propose a solution.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Are you suggesting that we simply withdraw all our forces immediately, and come what may in Iraq? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, yes. This is why Israel is a quite good example. If Israel weren't politically and financially backed up by the US, it would have been forced to steps like the ones currently under way long before. Same goes for the Palestines. If the UN would simply have cut their fundings they would not have been able to operate like they did.
History shows, that such conflicts usually "dry up" when nobody feeds the combatant parties anymore. The war will come to a stalement and eventually a state called war-wearyness occurs. Or one side wins.
It may take a while but eventually it comes to an end, regardless of how it plays out.
Interferance of any kind only prolongs the bloodshed.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You can't honestly believe THAT would stop terror attacks against the US,</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Why not? Granted, it will not stop with Iraq. Rather the US would have to cease all direct strategic interference in muslim sphere of influence.
That would include abandoning Saudi Arabia (which would lead to the end of House Saud's reing for sure) and to stop shielding Israel from UN sanctions.

Why should that not put a stop to attacks against the US? Do you think they fight you for fun?
Is it so utterly unthinkable that Al Quaida does have actual strategic objectives other than burning US flags? Granted, the attacks will hardly stop on the spot, as due to the nature of guerillia warfare, the scene is dominated by obscure numbers of splinter fractions overtaking each other in their determination. Hardly ever has a terrorist campaing ended completely when the movements objective was achieved.

But why should Al Quaeda not cease hostilities when their goal is achieved?
I think the problem is, that the US citizens do not understand who their enemy is. You think only within your own boarders and don't look out of the box. You underestimate Bin Laden when you think of him as a fanatic looney. That man does exactly know what he is doing and what is his goal.
How much do you know about Bin Laden? Did you know, that he was one of the inheritors of the largest familiy of Saudi Arabia? That man swam in money, more money we can imagine.
Yet he chose to go to Afghanistan to sleep in dirty holes and fight the Sovjets for 10 years. Now he preaches against corrupt regimes including those of his own family and their supporters.Do you still wonder why an increasing number of muslims, including Saudi citizens, idolize him?
I always gaze in wonder that especially US citizens fail to see the situation as it is.
The Muslim people are on the verge to emancipate themselves and it is just a matter of time and many dead bodies until they get what they want.

I take it you know your own countries History. What would have your ancestors done, if someone would have forced cheep prices on your ressources to maintain their own economic structure?
I tell you:<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party' target='_blank'>the Boston Tea Pary</a> anyone?
Your nations undoubtedly successful and intruiging history is based on a revolution.
Your forefathers fought a largely superior enemy and were clearly defeated in descisive battles, which lead to the development of tactics that were cosidered extremely .... inappropriate .... at that time. Read: Guerrillia warfare.

After the British were driven from US territory, did you stop? No. You fought a sea campaing against the British to ensure free, unsanctioned trade and annexed mexican territory, before there was a brutal civil war that prevented secession of the confederated states.
Your own history was forged by war, why should it be any different in the middle east?
So is it really so difficult to understand what is going on in the Gulf?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>nor would it be terribly good for the Iraqi political welllbeing</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Surely. But right atm, it can't be much worse really, don't you think? Economy and infrastructure are destroyed and people are killing each other. US presence does not prevent this and will not prevent this. It will only prolong this state of anarchy.
Besides, lets not forget that the current state is a direct result of foreing intervention over the last decades. So again, what makes you think it will be any better if we continue pulling their strings?

Cxwf · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jul 19 2005, 09:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If Israel weren't politically and financially backed up by the US, it would have been forced to steps like the ones currently under way long before. Same goes for the Palestines. If the UN would simply have cut their fundings they would not have been able to operate like they did.
History shows, that such conflicts usually "dry up" when nobody feeds the combatant parties anymore. The war will come to a stalement and eventually a state called war-wearyness occurs. <b>Or one side wins.</b>
It may take a while but eventually it comes to an end, regardless of how it plays out.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
That thinking only works when you don't <i>care</i> how it plays out. You are correct that Israel would have been unable to sustain its near-constant state of war without US support. But Israel has never been the agressor. If Israel had been unable to fight, its foes would still have attacked, and Israel would have eventually been destroyed.

You may indeed be correct that withdrawing from the middle east completely, and allowing the destruction of Israel, would be enough to appease the Arabs. Certainly nothing less would be. As long as Israel exists, they won't be satisfied. And we are allied with Israel--so giving up Israel is not a price we are willing to pay for peace. Therefore, your proposed alternative is not viable.

Addendum--we have been militarily supporting Israel for long enough now that it is <i>possible</i> they might be able to stand without our further support. If we stopped giving them weapons, they still have enough weapons left over, and enough technology derived from our support, to make a pretty good stand. I can't claim to know for sure how the conflict in Israel might go, but there's really no reason to risk it. There is no justification for why the US should not be able to choose its own allies, simply because someone in another country disagrees with our choices.

lolfighter · July 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Jul 19 2005, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [...]Addendum--we have been militarily supporting Israel for long enough now that it is <i>possible</i> they might be able to stand without our further support. If we stopped giving them weapons, they still have enough weapons left over, and enough technology derived from our support, to make a pretty good stand. I can't claim to know for sure how the conflict in Israel might go, but there's really no reason to risk it. There is no justification for why the US should not be able to choose its own allies, simply because someone in another country disagrees with our choices.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
They're quite capable of standing on their own two feet. Would YOU invade a country that can just lob a nuke or twenty at you? A country that can wipe your capital, all your major cities and not to mention all your palaces off the map at the push of a button? I don't know about you, but I would value my palaces too much to do that.

Depot · December 2006

Still a controversial war, and worthy of a *bump*. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />

Is The War In Iraq Another Viet Nam?

Comments