Well as the article says, there are quote "hundreds" of shoulder launched SAMs still unaccounted for in Iraq. Seeing as a Chinook is nothing more than a big, slow container with rotating blades, they're one hell of a target for SAMs. I would hazard a guess that this is but the first of many downed US aircraft in Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Nov 2 2003, 12:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Nov 2 2003, 12:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Given that the US still hasn't seemed to have learnt from it's Vietnam experiance, I can only say that this is a forlorn hope indeed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Lets start here... Repeat after me...
This is not Vietnam. This is not Vietnam.
Ok... People like to keep bringing up the fact that more American soldiers have died since the war ended than during the war. Is this really that much of a surprise? The war lasted what... 2 months? The end to major combat operations ( i.e. the end of the war ) was declared on like May 1st. Lets see... May... June... July... August... September... October.... 6! Its been size months. With the latest helicopter crash... The total number of deaths is a little over 130 I believe. This is right around 22 deaths per month. Do not take this wrong... The deaths are tragic. Very, very tragic. I like them ( who could ) just as little as the next guy... But when in a hostile area it should not be surprising to see this.
Then there are people screaming for us to leave Iraq. Are you serious?!? Do you realize how much harm that will do? We should never have left Somalia. Leaving just encourages the terrorists even more. It shows them that if they continue to kill innocents that they will eventually get their way.
Rebuilding Iraq will take time. We knew this before the war. We know this now. We knew before the war that we would lose solders after the former regime fell. We knew that there would still be resistance. But that does not mean we should leave and just stop with what we've done thus far. The majority of Iraq did have an infrastructure... but it was old. It had not been updated or well maintained for years. All this has to be rebuilt.... along with what was destroyed during the war.
Someone mentioned Japan... Japan was not capitalistic prior to the WWII in the same sense as they are now. They were rebuilt in a very meticulous way. The US actually got lucky with rebuilding Iraq. The smartest thing done then was keeping the Japanese Emperor within the public eye. The Japanese public literally worshipped him. His remaining in the public light was the sole reason the Japanese occupation went so well...
If I remember correctly... Germany was a totally different matter. There was actually an armed resistance, guerilla style, after the Third Reich fell. Those who are history buffs can correct me if I am wrong about this.
Iraq is not a Vietnam. It is nothing like Vietnam. It is not a quagmire. There is much good that is going on in Iraq... Yet unfortunately we hear very little about it. Which is sad. No one ever said this would be easy. No one ever said this would be quick. And I will be the first to say that the US is not without blame... But in the end... I believe more good will come of this than without.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Nov 2 2003, 12:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Nov 2 2003, 12:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Someone mentioned Japan... Japan was not capitalistic prior to the WWII in the same sense as they are now. They were rebuilt in a very meticulous way. The US actually got lucky with rebuilding Iraq. The smartest thing done then was keeping the Japanese Emperor within the public eye. The Japanese public literally worshipped him. His remaining in the public light was the sole reason the Japanese occupation went so well...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are not a capitalistic society in the same sense we are now. Iraq does not have a real central person thta could unite Iraq. Anyway, while we are at it, let us discuss the creation of a kurdic state. Leaving the fate of the kurds undecided will only amount to more instability in the region in the long term :/
So lets see. We have a rapidly developing gurrilla war. We have an increasingly hostile populace. The US military is proving quite inadequate at fighting an unconventional war.
Sounds like Vietnam to me. Remember that Vietnam started small scale as well, then progessively got larger. 15 US soldiers dead in one stroke is more than many previous attacks. Who's to say the next attack won't kill 20? Then maybe 30? 50? 100?
By saying the US didn't learn from Vietnam, what I am saying is that the US failed to learn 2 things: One is the extreme difficulty of fighting a gurrilla war and second is that it's a really bad idea to be fighting such a war when much of the populace is against you.
k i havent read all of this thread, (midnight *yawn* and exams r coming up...) but this is scary, considering the fact that i am going to iraq in 2 weeks to visit relatives <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> , well lets jus hope that i dont blow up, and the computers donw there can play NS <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
To all these anti-war <span style='color:white'>You're in here on probabition. Behave accordingly.</span> I would like to present this quote;
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill
Absentic: as a person who studies military history I can safely say that the man who wrote that quote had never seen true war, or if he had, he never understood the sheer pain it brings to a people and society. Recall that the Bolsheviks in Russia killed millions in their quest to obtain freedom. The French revolutionaries of the 19th century killed countless thousands to bring about thier freedom. Even the American revolutionaries killed their fair share of people and brought economic ruin to thousands of their countrymen whilst the war went on. Freedom is not worth any price. Especially warfare.
Btw, I rather object to being called a "gizmo". I do not call pro-war supporters any names, so kindly abstain from placing any such terms upon myself or any other anti-war supporter.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Nov 3 2003, 05:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Nov 3 2003, 05:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> By saying the US didn't learn from Vietnam, what I am saying is that the US failed to learn 2 things: One is the extreme difficulty of fighting a gurrilla war and second is that it's a really bad idea to be fighting such a war when much of the populace is against you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The US (and few other nations) fought a recent guerrilla war in Afghanistan, which was won quite handily (especially considering that the British and Russians fought guerrilla wars there for decades and got beaten badly). The Afghani's got a new Constitution today (which will hopefully be ratified in a couple weeks), which looks quite reasonable and emphasizes civil law. It looks to be pretty popular too, according to the BBC news I listened to this morning, especially due to the fact that women finally get some rights. Getting this new law and quieting the countryside of that land took almost 2 years. People need to lay off the sunnyD and get a bit more patient - the occupation of Germany and Japan took years before they were ready to self-govern again, and it is reasonable to think that it would take a year or more in countries these days as well.
As for the rest of you making all these personal attacks, this thread is one teeny, tiny flame away from being locked. Watch it.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 3 2003, 10:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 3 2003, 10:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The US (and few other nations) fought a recent guerrilla war in Afghanistan, which was won quite handily (especially considering that the British and Russians fought guerrilla wars there for decades and got beaten badly). The Afghani's got a new Constitution today (which will hopefully be ratified in a couple weeks), which looks quite reasonable and emphasizes civil law. It looks to be pretty popular too, according to the BBC news I listened to this morning, especially due to the fact that women finally get some rights. Getting this new law and quieting the countryside of that land took almost 2 years. People need to lay off the sunnyD and get a bit more patient - the occupation of Germany and Japan took years before they were ready to self-govern again, and it is reasonable to think that it would take a year or more in countries these days as well.
As for the rest of you making all these personal attacks, this thread is one teeny, tiny flame away from being locked. Watch it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the war in Afghanistan was fought on much different terms. The U.S. did not invade and then occupy Afghanistan like we have in Iraq. The Afghan war was fought mostly from the air via targetted bombings. We had a limited number of troops stationed there, thus there was never a large occupation to form a target for resistance fighters. On top of that, you had the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan that actually wanted to see the Taliban go, and had a plan for stabilizing the government. There is no counterpart in Iraq.
The difference between our efforts and those of Russia is that Russia actually wanted to occupy Afghanistan. The U.S. had no such intention. Wipe out the Taliban with limited special operations troops, and restore control to the Northern Alliance. Very big difference, and it means you take a completely different strategic approach. Now in Iraq, the U.S. wants to occupy since there is no alternative party to take over. The Iraqis are fighting the U.S. back just like the Taliban fought the Russians in Afghanistan. The problem is that Iraqis are now claiming their lives were better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now that they're "free." Something that can't be good for U.S.-Iraqi relations.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 3 2003, 01:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 3 2003, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The difference between our efforts and those of Russia is that Russia actually wanted to occupy Afghanistan. The U.S. had no such intention. Wipe out the Taliban with limited special operations troops, and restore control to the Northern Alliance. Very big difference, and it means you take a completely different strategic approach. Now in Iraq, the U.S. wants to occupy since there is no alternative party to take over. The Iraqis are fighting the U.S. back just like the Taliban fought the Russians in Afghanistan. The problem is that Iraqis are now claiming their lives were better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now that they're "free." Something that can't be good for U.S.-Iraqi relations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Afghanistan is certainly occupied by us and other nations right now, and their government exists under the protection and good graces of the US government. The same is in Iraq, even if the government does not yet have as much input as in Afghanistan. It took 2 years there, it will likely take the same in Iraq.
The iraqi's as a nation are not fighting back - we are not seeing general strikes, uprisings, and attacks by 99.99999% of the civillian population. Do not confuse a minority with a majority, the minority being foreigners, some former baathists, and some regular iraqi civillians. Saying things like 'the iraqi's are now claiming' is pretty silly - you have not seen polls, you have no idea what the majority of iraqis want. From listening to interviews on NPR ( a very unscientific, and often pretty left-leaning network), the iraqi's themselves don't yet know what they want. Let's try and stick to what we know, and leave the hyperbole out of the debate, k?
ok. so the general feeling is that it will take no less than a year, and possibly as many as 3 years? for a stable Iraq to be rebuilt.
What really needs to happen?
If we can assume then that the majority of the Iraqi population are being compliant with the coalition, and the terrorists/ freedom fighters will stop attacks when the coalition forces leave Iraq(I use the term freedom fighters to imply the people who are attacking Coalition troops <i>purely</i> because they are occupying their homeland, , so dont **** at it please). Then as far as I can see, all that remains to be done is organise some kind of democratic election and let the country return to self government.
Is there any kind of plan or timeframe that has been publically broadcast? or are we just left to assume that all is well and things will be finished when they are finished, however long that may be (a rather dangerous prospect imo while more Iraqis are becoming frrustrateed with the Coalition)?
[[also, please <i>do</i> try not to get this thread closed, as this is currently the only thread on this topic]]
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Nov 3 2003, 07:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Nov 3 2003, 07:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 3 2003, 01:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 3 2003, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The difference between our efforts and those of Russia is that Russia actually wanted to occupy Afghanistan. The U.S. had no such intention. Wipe out the Taliban with limited special operations troops, and restore control to the Northern Alliance. Very big difference, and it means you take a completely different strategic approach. Now in Iraq, the U.S. wants to occupy since there is no alternative party to take over. The Iraqis are fighting the U.S. back just like the Taliban fought the Russians in Afghanistan. The problem is that Iraqis are now claiming their lives were better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now that they're "free." Something that can't be good for U.S.-Iraqi relations. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Afghanistan is certainly occupied by us and other nations right now, and their government exists under the protection and good graces of the US government. The same is in Iraq, even if the government does not yet have as much input as in Afghanistan. It took 2 years there, it will likely take the same in Iraq.
The iraqi's as a nation are not fighting back - we are not seeing general strikes, uprisings, and attacks by 99.99999% of the civillian population. Do not confuse a minority with a majority, the minority being foreigners, some former baathists, and some regular iraqi civillians. Saying things like 'the iraqi's are now claiming' is pretty silly - you have not seen polls, you have no idea what the majority of iraqis want. From listening to interviews on NPR ( a very unscientific, and often pretty left-leaning network), the iraqi's themselves don't yet know what they want. Let's try and stick to what we know, and leave the hyperbole out of the debate, k? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> However few Iraqis actually want coalition forces to stay in Iraq. To me it seems that most of them are saying "Thanks for helping. We can take it from here ourselves." If democratic voting for Get out/Stay in would be held, I bet 'Get out' would win by well over 70%. At this point 'they don't know what's good for them' argument comes in to play, and it's probably right too. New Saddam would be sitting on the throne within two days. The situation is a double-edged sword; leaving the country at this critical point would throw away all the effort. Staying in makes the coalition look like anti-christ hypocrite with "We bring you democracy but we can't let you decide for yourselves" attitude.
Like someone said earlier: j00 r knee deep
(j00 referring to coalition, you nitpicky wankers <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Nov 3 2003, 03:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Nov 3 2003, 03:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> However few Iraqis actually want coalition forces to stay in Iraq. To me it seems that most of them are saying "Thanks for helping. We can take it from here ourselves." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually... That's not true.
The majority of Iraqis are actually afraid that Bush will lose the election. At the same time that they want us to leave, they realize that it would be extremely bad if we were to leave. They want us to stay until the job is done. Then they want us to get out. There was a recent bi-partisan visit to Iraq. Congressman from the right AND the left. They all came back questioning what the media was actually reporting. This is not Vietnam. This is not a quagmire.
If you really want to know who lost Vietnam for us... It was the Press.
The US can fight a guerilla war and win. We have the troops. We have the expertise. But it is a war. At no time should we be surprised when soldiers die during a war ( except if some biological/chemical/nuclear weapon is used. Which probably won't happen. ).
We have not even been in Iraq a year. How can anyone expect a new government to be formed in less than a year? How can you expect this new government not to need support? Don't be absurb. We cannot leave. The harm that this would cause would be felt for the next century at the minimum. Iraq is more than just a war... Its a turning point in history. So much can come from an arab nation in the middle east that is a democracy...
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
edited November 2003
Yay for statistics without measure yay!
Ok. There was a poll taken in Iraq back in August of this year. Polls are typically discarded because the questions and sample data are rarely supplied. Here is a link to the story behind the poll: <a href='http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17697/article_detail.asp' target='_blank'>Summary and Analysis of the First Iraq Poll</a>
Here is a link to the poll with questions and sample data in PDF format: <a href='http://www.taemag.com/docLib/20030905_IraqpollFrequencies.pdf' target='_blank'>Zogby International Survey of Iraq August 2003</a>
I believe there has been another poll taken since that time but I can't find it posted anywhere. As usual, there is "good" news and "bad" news depending on your perspective.
Carry on.
EDIT: In regards to... <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If democratic voting for Get out/Stay in would be held, I bet 'Get out' would win by well over 70%.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...this, take note of question #7. You'll find that 60% said the coalition should stay for at least 1 year.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Afghanistan is certainly occupied by us and other nations right now, and their government exists under the protection and good graces of the US government. The same is in Iraq, even if the government does not yet have as much input as in Afghanistan. It took 2 years there, it will likely take the same in Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our presence in Afghanistan is completely different from our presence in Iraq. Afghanistan has a government and a controlling force in the Northern Alliance. You can say any number of countries exist purely because of our protection and good graces. That does not mean we <b>occupy</b> any of them. Israel, for example, would not have existed had the U.S. not provided for its protection and support. We occupy Iraq... it is our military and our government controlling the country. There is no Iraqi contigency with any semblance of control. Merely a puppet administration being hand-picked by the U.S.. I have to imagine the Iraqi people feel distanced and uninvolved with the process. Perhaps some of them are disillusioned.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The iraqi's as a nation are not fighting back - we are not seeing general strikes, uprisings, and attacks by 99.99999% of the civillian population. Do not confuse a minority with a majority, the minority being foreigners, some former baathists, and some regular iraqi civillians. Saying things like 'the iraqi's are now claiming' is pretty silly - you have not seen polls, you have no idea what the majority of iraqis want. From listening to interviews on NPR ( a very unscientific, and often pretty left-leaning network), the iraqi's themselves don't yet know what they want. Let's try and stick to what we know, and leave the hyperbole out of the debate, k?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not confuse majority with minority. I did not say "all Iraqis are claiming they were better off under Saddam." Perhaps I should have added "some" to make my point more clear. I do not make statements without backing. Here is a reference to a <b>Gallup poll</b> to indicate the validity of my statement:
<i>"A Gallup poll conducted in recent weeks found that most Baghdad residents believed the ouster of Saddam was worth the hardships they've endured since then. However, the survey also found that Baghdad residents were divided on whether the country is worse off or better off than before the U.S. invasion."
"The poll found that 62 percent think ousting Saddam was worth the hardships, including electrical outages, job shortages and civil unrest. Two-thirds, 67 percent, said they think that Iraq will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion. Only 8 percent say they think it will be worse off."
"However, 47 percent said the country is worse off than before the invasion and 33 percent said it is better off."
"The Gallup poll of 1,178 adults was conducted face to face in the respondents' household from Aug. 28 through Sept. 4 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."</i> - <a href='http://www.modbee.com/24hour/front/story/1008327p-7079821c.html' target='_blank'>Bomb meant for U.S. forces kills Iraqi</a>
There you have it. If, for some reason, you don't trust or like that site I linked, <a href='http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=gallup+poll+47+percent+said+the+country+is+worse+off+than' target='_blank'>click here to find some more</a>. 47% percent of the country think they are <b>worse off</b> than before the invasion. Only 33% think they are better off... I'd say the poll clearly shows that the majority feels they ARE worse off. If I were to analyze that poll, I'd say that the Iraqi people are willing to accept the fact that their old leader is now gone, and they have hope for the future. This is a GOOD thing. Given that Iraqis had no say in the matter whatsoever, and are operating under U.S. military presence, one can hardly find fault in those statistics. Even with that hope for the future, it does not change the fact that 47% think they were better off under Saddam! Am I wrong here?
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 3 2003, 01:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 3 2003, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Iraq is more than just a war... Its a turning point in history. So much can come from an arab nation in the middle east that is a democracy... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you hit it on the head right there. The problem I see is that perhaps, just maybe, these people don't <b>want</b> the kind of democracy we have in the U.S.. Shocking, I know, but there are people in the world with their own values and cultures. Cultures that have been around far longer than the U.S. has even existed. Installation of a government system by way of military force doesn't seem to me to be the best way to show them the virtues of a democratic society. Killing innocent civilians accidentally surely can't help matters, either.
At some point in time, we're going to have to realize that our arrogance in pushing "our form of democracy owns joo" is not a valid excuse for war. I certainly wouldn't be happy if China sent her military over to the U.S., destroyed our infrastructure, overthrew our government, installed a police state, then declared that the U.S. must be a communist nation. I might be one of the people willing to resist that effort. Wouldn't you?
Yea, but Bush is not a brutal dictator who tortures people who oppose him(as much as I would love to see Al Gore tortured). What was happening in Iraq demanded change, if we let it go things would have only got worse for the Iraqi people when Saddam died, because his sons were even worse. The Iraqi people are only hurting themselves by hurting us. They need to learn that. Sure they have there own cultures, not once did I hear anyone say were going to take them away. Were taking away the brutal dictatorship, not their culture.
If they have democracy, they can elect people who represent their wishes. They don't HAVE to live like westerners to have a democracy. No one said they can't have their culture or way of life. Relieving them of the oppressive dictator is not depriving them of their culture.
There is and has been a communist party in the US (IIRC). Just no one wants it bad enough to vote them in (with the republicans and democrats being the main parties).
Just because our media is filled nonstop with coverage of those who are attacking us, does not mean that there is total anti-US sentiment in the region. It's just that those who LIKE the us there are probably being quiet and out of the line of fire. Plus, good news doesn't sell.
Boy, look at what happens to your favorite topics when you're gone for a day after having bought Max Payne 2...
As an admins note, I'd like to ask you all to wave absentic, who'll never, ever, post in this forum again, goodbye. Bye, absentic!
Now, for my todays (brief) contribution. Much of the last pages discussion is based on a statement put up by Mons: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US (and few other nations) fought a recent guerrilla war in Afghanistan, which was won quite handily (especially considering that the British and Russians fought guerrilla wars there for decades and got beaten badly).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> After this, everyone went on assuming that this war was won. What led you to that idea?
As some of you might know, Germany took command of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan immediately after the war and only recently handed it over. Until then, every kind of (occupational) military action in Afghanistan was under direct German command, and even the highest German military commanders stationed in Kabul admitted that their influence did not extend the capital by more than fifty miles at any point. Look at a map of Afghanistan, and you'll soon realize this doesn't exactely cover the whole of the country. Now that the command ended, the German Bundestag (our parliament) was presented with a summary of the current situation. In it, it is stated that "parts of Afghanistan are de facto under Taliban control again." The democratic constitution passed lately is a nice piece of work, but outside Kabul, it's barely more than paper. Afghanistan has <i>not</i> been won.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Nov 3 2003, 04:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Nov 3 2003, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Boy, look at what happens to your favorite topics when you're gone for a day after having bought Max Payne 2...
As an admins note, I'd like to ask you all to wave absentic, who'll never, ever, post in this forum again, goodbye. Bye, absentic!
Now, for my todays (brief) contribution. Much of the last pages discussion is based on a statement put up by Mons: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US (and few other nations) fought a recent guerrilla war in Afghanistan, which was won quite handily (especially considering that the British and Russians fought guerrilla wars there for decades and got beaten badly).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> After this, everyone went on assuming that this war was won. What led you to that idea?
As some of you might know, Germany took command of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan immediately after the war and only recently handed it over. Until then, every kind of (occupational) military action in Afghanistan was under direct German command, and even the highest German military commanders stationed in Kabul admitted that their influence did not extend the capital by more than fifty miles at any point. Look at a map of Afghanistan, and you'll soon realize this doesn't exactely cover the whole of the country. Now that the command ended, the German Bundestag (our parliament) was presented with a summary of the current situation. In it, it is stated that "parts of Afghanistan are de facto under Taliban control again." The democratic constitution passed lately is a nice piece of work, but outside Kabul, it's barely more than paper. Afghanistan has <i>not</i> been won. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is what worries me about Iraq too, from a military pespective that is, (I am sick debating the moral implications of it) the major fighting is going on in Baghdad, Karbala, and Tikrit. These three cities are fairly large, and from some recent discoveries there are huge caches of weapons hidden around them, and if we remember during the initial conflict how many of Saddam's forces simply seemed to flee. So if all the seemingly defectors simply went underground then at this moment there is still a huge military force, with a perfectly sound infrastructure due to lack of air attacks, and apperantly an aresenol of weapons literarly surrounding the US troops.
Now as bad as that is in itself, Nem pointed to the fact that the old goverments influence is still a great presence in Iraq and all it would take is a few Baath party members to set up a pseduo control center (possibly in one of these three cities) and they could actually restart the war with the US troops as immobile tired targets with low morale. Makes one uneasy thinking about it.
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Nov 3 2003, 02:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 3 2003, 02:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yea, but Bush is not a brutal dictator who tortures people who oppose him(as much as I would love to see Al Gore tortured). What was happening in Iraq demanded change, if we let it go things would have only got worse for the Iraqi people when Saddam died, because his sons were even worse. The Iraqi people are only hurting themselves by hurting us. They need to learn that. Sure they have there own cultures, not once did I hear anyone say were going to take them away. Were taking away the brutal dictatorship, not their culture. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well I have no choice but to point out U.S. foreign policy in Iraq during the 1980s when Saddam was at his worst. Saddam began using chemical weapons against Iranians during their 8-year war. This was 1983. What did the first George Bush and Ronald Reagan do in response to this? Why nothing short of <b>removing</b> Iraq from the "nations that support terrorism" list, and sending one Donald Rumsfeld on a personal visit with Saddam to restore diplomatic relations. Things were going really well between the U.S. and Iraq during this period.
So here we have Saddam, this brutal dictator, using chemical weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Rumsfeld somehow feels compelled to fly over there and shake this guy's hand, asking him if he wants to buy some more. Well, I don't know about you, but I find it very difficult to reconcile the stark and hypocritical difference between foreign policy in Iraq then and foreign policy in Iraq now. Saddam didn't use chemical weapons on his own people during the 1990s, he did it when we were allies with him! And why, pray tell, did the U.S. accept this? Because Iraq was fighting Iran, and we very much despised Iran. Killing a million Iranians is good for the U.S., right? Apparently the 70,000 Iraqi Kurds Saddam murdered in 1988 was just one of the prices you pay for achieving your objectives in the Middle East. Who's going to remember them, anyhow?
Yet again the U.S. did nothing to stop this crazy madman when Bush went from Vice President to President in 1988. Murder and mayhem throughout the 1980s was not enough to warrant action. No, it took something much, much worse to start a war. Poor, stupid Saddam had to go and invade Kuwait and threaten control over the oil industry by occupying the largest percentage of proven oil reserves on the planet. Bad, bad, stupid Saddam. If only he had played the game properly by appeasing to U.S. interests... he would have been able to stay in power and continue to murder hundreds of thousands of people. What a shameful and tragic chapter of human history. If only Saddam had played along, Rumsfeld could have kept making visits and offering him the latest and greatest mass-destruction technology. Who knows how many more Arabs he could have exterminated.
So now I expect an entire deluge of "well yeah, we were wrong then but now we're right" replies. Okay, makes sense. The people in U.S. government during the 1980s are long gone and have no influence or power today, right? Right? Do you really want to go there?
I'm going to put my money on this was all a big practical joke pulled on George W. by George Sr. and Rummy, and at his next birthday party Osoma, Saddam, and Kim Jong-ill are all going to pop out of a cake and yell "Suprise! We really had you worried eh Dubya?"
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Nov 3 2003, 05:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Nov 3 2003, 05:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm going to put my money on this was all a big practical joke pulled on George W. by George Sr. and Rummy, and at his next birthday party Osoma, Saddam, and Kim Jong-ill are all going to pop out of a cake and yell "Suprise! We really had you worried eh Dubya?" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.livejournal.com/users/kim_jong_il__' target='_blank'>http://www.livejournal.com/users/kim_jong_il__</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Nov 3 2003, 05:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Nov 3 2003, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In it, it is stated that "parts of Afghanistan are de facto under Taliban control again." The democratic constitution passed lately is a nice piece of work, but outside Kabul, it's barely more than paper. Afghanistan has <i>not</i> been won. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And portions of the Apalachian mountains in the US are under hillbilly control. The fact remains that anything important in Afghanistan (and very little is) is under the control of its government and the occupying forces. When you control all that is important in a country (and barren land is not), you control the country. You don't have a squad of men standing every few feet in order to control a few mounds of dirt.
And you have not been following the news very well if you think the Constitution will hold no sway outside of Kabul. I leave it to you to listen to today's reports, not ones from months ago. Hint - check with the BBC, the reports were from this morning (US time).
As has been said plenty of times before - good news does not sell. News outlets as a whole tend to just move on to other new topics of bad news. You will never see any good news from any of these countries, only a diminishment of bad. There was never any story saying 'german civilians less resentful of America occupiers now that Soviets threaten their country' in 1946, for example. It was just assumed...
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Nov 3 2003, 05:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Nov 3 2003, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As some of you might know, Germany took command of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan immediately after the war and only recently handed it over. Until then, every kind of (occupational) military action in Afghanistan was under direct German command, and even the highest German military commanders stationed in Kabul admitted that their influence did not extend the capital by more than fifty miles at any point. Look at a map of Afghanistan, and you'll soon realize this doesn't exactely cover the whole of the country. Now that the command ended, the German Bundestag (our parliament) was presented with a summary of the current situation. In it, it is stated that "parts of Afghanistan are de facto under Taliban control again." The democratic constitution passed lately is a nice piece of work, but outside Kabul, it's barely more than paper. Afghanistan has <i>not</i> been won. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ahhhh... but it is getting better. Before the new constitution was signed, militias were already starting to hand over their weapons. Although, I won't kid anyone and claim these are all the weapons... Its just the start of a process that takes time. Afghanistan will take far long than Iraq to rebuild. Where Iraq had a 10 - 20 year old infrastructure... Afghanistan has next to nothing ( which you would expect after fighing the Russians for a decade ).
We have not even been in Iraq a year. There is a deadline of December 15th for a preliminary constitution to be drawn up. Within the next year in Iraq, as long as we remain there, things will get better. As Iraq is rebuilt and the US determination to rebuild Iraq stays strong... Things will definately get better.
Iraq is not going to be forced into any particular type of democracy. They will decide on that themselves. The US is there to ensure that it can start. Of course the US administration in Iraq will hold sway over certain things... But for the most part, the Iraqis themselves will determine what form of democracy their government will take. Although many can, and do, claim and profess that the Iraqi Governing Council is a puppet government... That is far from the truth. It is representative of Iraq as a whole. The US made sure that it was a representative group. It is not uncommon for this council to outright disagree with US actions within Iraq or to criticize decisions; however, they know how necessary US involvment is to rebuild Iraq.
Although people still disgree about invading Iraq... That time has passed and now we should all be looking forward to the best path to rebuilding Iraq. Leaving Iraq should not... or rather IS NOT an option. Handing the rebuilding effort over to a government that cannot handle it at this point is also not an option.
The US is working hard to enable the fledling Iraqi government to protect itself and its citizens. The US is training thousands of police officers and also a new military ( now former officers and military personell are being brought back ). It should be no surprise that Iraqis think things are worse off now than they were before the war. A war happened between then and now. Things are not rebuilt over night. It takes months and years to rebuild many things... And then its one thing at a time. You take baby steps... Not giant leaps.
This won't be easy, but our military can handle it. The things that will have the worst effect on rebuilding Iraq are these Democratic President wanna-bees and the Press. I've posted it once before, but I'll post it again ( <a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110004251' target='_blank'>http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/r...y/?id=110004251</a> ). The greatest threat to success in Iraq lies not in Iraq but here in the US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A US Army Black Hawk helicopter crashed yesterday into a river bank near Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit, killing six US soldiers.
Another American was killed and nine wounded in attacks in the northern city of Mosul, raising concerns that the anti-US resistance was spreading north.
Everyone on the Black Hawk died. "Six soldiers were on board and all of them were killed," said Major Jossyln Aberle, a spokeswoman for the 4th Infantry Division based in Tikrit. All were from the 101st Airborne Division, she said.
It was not immediately clear whether the helicopter was brought down by hostile fire or a mechanical failure, Major Aberle said. But an officer who asked not to be identified said it might have been hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
What effect do people think these attacks are having? As it is overwhelmingly Americans being targetted, how to our American forumites feel about their countrymen dying? In light of more and more US deaths after the "official" end of major combat, has anyone changed their mind about the US involvement in Iraq? When do people expect the attacks to cease?
And perhaps a question aimed mainly at forumites who are undertaking, or who have undertaken, military service: how can the US army best combat these attacks? Can the US army hope to effectively prevent these attacks?
Comments
Lets start here... Repeat after me...
This is not Vietnam. This is not Vietnam.
Ok... People like to keep bringing up the fact that more American soldiers have died since the war ended than during the war. Is this really that much of a surprise? The war lasted what... 2 months? The end to major combat operations ( i.e. the end of the war ) was declared on like May 1st. Lets see... May... June... July... August... September... October.... 6! Its been size months. With the latest helicopter crash... The total number of deaths is a little over 130 I believe. This is right around 22 deaths per month. Do not take this wrong... The deaths are tragic. Very, very tragic. I like them ( who could ) just as little as the next guy... But when in a hostile area it should not be surprising to see this.
Then there are people screaming for us to leave Iraq. Are you serious?!? Do you realize how much harm that will do? We should never have left Somalia. Leaving just encourages the terrorists even more. It shows them that if they continue to kill innocents that they will eventually get their way.
Rebuilding Iraq will take time. We knew this before the war. We know this now. We knew before the war that we would lose solders after the former regime fell. We knew that there would still be resistance. But that does not mean we should leave and just stop with what we've done thus far. The majority of Iraq did have an infrastructure... but it was old. It had not been updated or well maintained for years. All this has to be rebuilt.... along with what was destroyed during the war.
Someone mentioned Japan... Japan was not capitalistic prior to the WWII in the same sense as they are now. They were rebuilt in a very meticulous way. The US actually got lucky with rebuilding Iraq. The smartest thing done then was keeping the Japanese Emperor within the public eye. The Japanese public literally worshipped him. His remaining in the public light was the sole reason the Japanese occupation went so well...
If I remember correctly... Germany was a totally different matter. There was actually an armed resistance, guerilla style, after the Third Reich fell. Those who are history buffs can correct me if I am wrong about this.
Iraq is not a Vietnam. It is nothing like Vietnam. It is not a quagmire. There is much good that is going on in Iraq... Yet unfortunately we hear very little about it. Which is sad. No one ever said this would be easy. No one ever said this would be quick. And I will be the first to say that the US is not without blame... But in the end... I believe more good will come of this than without.
Someone mentioned Japan... Japan was not capitalistic prior to the WWII in the same sense as they are now. They were rebuilt in a very meticulous way. The US actually got lucky with rebuilding Iraq. The smartest thing done then was keeping the Japanese Emperor within the public eye. The Japanese public literally worshipped him. His remaining in the public light was the sole reason the Japanese occupation went so well...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are not a capitalistic society in the same sense we are now. Iraq does not have a real central person thta could unite Iraq. Anyway, while we are at it, let us discuss the creation of a kurdic state. Leaving the fate of the kurds undecided will only amount to more instability in the region in the long term :/
Sounds like Vietnam to me. Remember that Vietnam started small scale as well, then progessively got larger. 15 US soldiers dead in one stroke is more than many previous attacks. Who's to say the next attack won't kill 20? Then maybe 30? 50? 100?
By saying the US didn't learn from Vietnam, what I am saying is that the US failed to learn 2 things: One is the extreme difficulty of fighting a gurrilla war and second is that it's a really bad idea to be fighting such a war when much of the populace is against you.
*yawn*
g'nite
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stuart Mill
Btw, I rather object to being called a "gizmo". I do not call pro-war supporters any names, so kindly abstain from placing any such terms upon myself or any other anti-war supporter.
The US (and few other nations) fought a recent guerrilla war in Afghanistan, which was won quite handily (especially considering that the British and Russians fought guerrilla wars there for decades and got beaten badly). The Afghani's got a new Constitution today (which will hopefully be ratified in a couple weeks), which looks quite reasonable and emphasizes civil law. It looks to be pretty popular too, according to the BBC news I listened to this morning, especially due to the fact that women finally get some rights. Getting this new law and quieting the countryside of that land took almost 2 years. People need to lay off the sunnyD and get a bit more patient - the occupation of Germany and Japan took years before they were ready to self-govern again, and it is reasonable to think that it would take a year or more in countries these days as well.
As for the rest of you making all these personal attacks, this thread is one teeny, tiny flame away from being locked. Watch it.
As for the rest of you making all these personal attacks, this thread is one teeny, tiny flame away from being locked. Watch it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the war in Afghanistan was fought on much different terms. The U.S. did not invade and then occupy Afghanistan like we have in Iraq. The Afghan war was fought mostly from the air via targetted bombings. We had a limited number of troops stationed there, thus there was never a large occupation to form a target for resistance fighters. On top of that, you had the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan that actually wanted to see the Taliban go, and had a plan for stabilizing the government. There is no counterpart in Iraq.
The difference between our efforts and those of Russia is that Russia actually wanted to occupy Afghanistan. The U.S. had no such intention. Wipe out the Taliban with limited special operations troops, and restore control to the Northern Alliance. Very big difference, and it means you take a completely different strategic approach. Now in Iraq, the U.S. wants to occupy since there is no alternative party to take over. The Iraqis are fighting the U.S. back just like the Taliban fought the Russians in Afghanistan. The problem is that Iraqis are now claiming their lives were better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now that they're "free." Something that can't be good for U.S.-Iraqi relations.
Afghanistan is certainly occupied by us and other nations right now, and their government exists under the protection and good graces of the US government. The same is in Iraq, even if the government does not yet have as much input as in Afghanistan. It took 2 years there, it will likely take the same in Iraq.
The iraqi's as a nation are not fighting back - we are not seeing general strikes, uprisings, and attacks by 99.99999% of the civillian population. Do not confuse a minority with a majority, the minority being foreigners, some former baathists, and some regular iraqi civillians. Saying things like 'the iraqi's are now claiming' is pretty silly - you have not seen polls, you have no idea what the majority of iraqis want. From listening to interviews on NPR ( a very unscientific, and often pretty left-leaning network), the iraqi's themselves don't yet know what they want. Let's try and stick to what we know, and leave the hyperbole out of the debate, k?
What really needs to happen?
If we can assume then that the majority of the Iraqi population are being compliant with the coalition, and the terrorists/ freedom fighters will stop attacks when the coalition forces leave Iraq(I use the term freedom fighters to imply the people who are attacking Coalition troops <i>purely</i> because they are occupying their homeland, , so dont **** at it please). Then as far as I can see, all that remains to be done is organise some kind of democratic election and let the country return to self government.
Is there any kind of plan or timeframe that has been publically broadcast?
or are we just left to assume that all is well and things will be finished when they are finished, however long that may be (a rather dangerous prospect imo while more Iraqis are becoming frrustrateed with the Coalition)?
[[also, please <i>do</i> try not to get this thread closed, as this is currently the only thread on this topic]]
Afghanistan is certainly occupied by us and other nations right now, and their government exists under the protection and good graces of the US government. The same is in Iraq, even if the government does not yet have as much input as in Afghanistan. It took 2 years there, it will likely take the same in Iraq.
The iraqi's as a nation are not fighting back - we are not seeing general strikes, uprisings, and attacks by 99.99999% of the civillian population. Do not confuse a minority with a majority, the minority being foreigners, some former baathists, and some regular iraqi civillians. Saying things like 'the iraqi's are now claiming' is pretty silly - you have not seen polls, you have no idea what the majority of iraqis want. From listening to interviews on NPR ( a very unscientific, and often pretty left-leaning network), the iraqi's themselves don't yet know what they want. Let's try and stick to what we know, and leave the hyperbole out of the debate, k? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
However few Iraqis actually want coalition forces to stay in Iraq. To me it seems that most of them are saying "Thanks for helping. We can take it from here ourselves." If democratic voting for Get out/Stay in would be held, I bet 'Get out' would win by well over 70%. At this point 'they don't know what's good for them' argument comes in to play, and it's probably right too. New Saddam would be sitting on the throne within two days. The situation is a double-edged sword; leaving the country at this critical point would throw away all the effort. Staying in makes the coalition look like anti-christ hypocrite with "We bring you democracy but we can't let you decide for yourselves" attitude.
Like someone said earlier: j00 r knee deep
(j00 referring to coalition, you nitpicky wankers <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Actually... That's not true.
The majority of Iraqis are actually afraid that Bush will lose the election. At the same time that they want us to leave, they realize that it would be extremely bad if we were to leave. They want us to stay until the job is done. Then they want us to get out. There was a recent bi-partisan visit to Iraq. Congressman from the right AND the left. They all came back questioning what the media was actually reporting. This is not Vietnam. This is not a quagmire.
If you really want to know who lost Vietnam for us... It was the Press.
<a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110004251' target='_blank'>http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/r...y/?id=110004251</a>
The US can fight a guerilla war and win. We have the troops. We have the expertise. But it is a war. At no time should we be surprised when soldiers die during a war ( except if some biological/chemical/nuclear weapon is used. Which probably won't happen. ).
We have not even been in Iraq a year. How can anyone expect a new government to be formed in less than a year? How can you expect this new government not to need support? Don't be absurb. We cannot leave. The harm that this would cause would be felt for the next century at the minimum. Iraq is more than just a war... Its a turning point in history. So much can come from an arab nation in the middle east that is a democracy...
Ok. There was a poll taken in Iraq back in August of this year. Polls are typically discarded because the questions and sample data are rarely supplied.
Here is a link to the story behind the poll: <a href='http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17697/article_detail.asp' target='_blank'>Summary and Analysis of the First Iraq Poll</a>
Here is a link to the poll with questions and sample data in PDF format: <a href='http://www.taemag.com/docLib/20030905_IraqpollFrequencies.pdf' target='_blank'>Zogby International Survey of Iraq August 2003</a>
I believe there has been another poll taken since that time but I can't find it posted anywhere. As usual, there is "good" news and "bad" news depending on your perspective.
Carry on.
EDIT: In regards to...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If democratic voting for Get out/Stay in would be held, I bet 'Get out' would win by well over 70%.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...this, take note of question #7. You'll find that 60% said the coalition should stay for at least 1 year.
Our presence in Afghanistan is completely different from our presence in Iraq. Afghanistan has a government and a controlling force in the Northern Alliance. You can say any number of countries exist purely because of our protection and good graces. That does not mean we <b>occupy</b> any of them. Israel, for example, would not have existed had the U.S. not provided for its protection and support. We occupy Iraq... it is our military and our government controlling the country. There is no Iraqi contigency with any semblance of control. Merely a puppet administration being hand-picked by the U.S.. I have to imagine the Iraqi people feel distanced and uninvolved with the process. Perhaps some of them are disillusioned.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The iraqi's as a nation are not fighting back - we are not seeing general strikes, uprisings, and attacks by 99.99999% of the civillian population. Do not confuse a minority with a majority, the minority being foreigners, some former baathists, and some regular iraqi civillians. Saying things like 'the iraqi's are now claiming' is pretty silly - you have not seen polls, you have no idea what the majority of iraqis want. From listening to interviews on NPR ( a very unscientific, and often pretty left-leaning network), the iraqi's themselves don't yet know what they want. Let's try and stick to what we know, and leave the hyperbole out of the debate, k?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not confuse majority with minority. I did not say "all Iraqis are claiming they were better off under Saddam." Perhaps I should have added "some" to make my point more clear. I do not make statements without backing. Here is a reference to a <b>Gallup poll</b> to indicate the validity of my statement:
<i>"A Gallup poll conducted in recent weeks found that most Baghdad residents believed the ouster of Saddam was worth the hardships they've endured since then. However, the survey also found that Baghdad residents were divided on whether the country is worse off or better off than before the U.S. invasion."
"The poll found that 62 percent think ousting Saddam was worth the hardships, including electrical outages, job shortages and civil unrest. Two-thirds, 67 percent, said they think that Iraq will be in better condition five years from now than it was before the U.S.-led invasion. Only 8 percent say they think it will be worse off."
"However, 47 percent said the country is worse off than before the invasion and 33 percent said it is better off."
"The Gallup poll of 1,178 adults was conducted face to face in the respondents' household from Aug. 28 through Sept. 4 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points."</i> - <a href='http://www.modbee.com/24hour/front/story/1008327p-7079821c.html' target='_blank'>Bomb meant for U.S. forces kills Iraqi</a>
There you have it. If, for some reason, you don't trust or like that site I linked, <a href='http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=gallup+poll+47+percent+said+the+country+is+worse+off+than' target='_blank'>click here to find some more</a>. 47% percent of the country think they are <b>worse off</b> than before the invasion. Only 33% think they are better off... I'd say the poll clearly shows that the majority feels they ARE worse off. If I were to analyze that poll, I'd say that the Iraqi people are willing to accept the fact that their old leader is now gone, and they have hope for the future. This is a GOOD thing. Given that Iraqis had no say in the matter whatsoever, and are operating under U.S. military presence, one can hardly find fault in those statistics. Even with that hope for the future, it does not change the fact that 47% think they were better off under Saddam! Am I wrong here?
I think you hit it on the head right there. The problem I see is that perhaps, just maybe, these people don't <b>want</b> the kind of democracy we have in the U.S.. Shocking, I know, but there are people in the world with their own values and cultures. Cultures that have been around far longer than the U.S. has even existed. Installation of a government system by way of military force doesn't seem to me to be the best way to show them the virtues of a democratic society. Killing innocent civilians accidentally surely can't help matters, either.
At some point in time, we're going to have to realize that our arrogance in pushing "our form of democracy owns joo" is not a valid excuse for war. I certainly wouldn't be happy if China sent her military over to the U.S., destroyed our infrastructure, overthrew our government, installed a police state, then declared that the U.S. must be a communist nation. I might be one of the people willing to resist that effort. Wouldn't you?
There is and has been a communist party in the US (IIRC). Just no one wants it bad enough to vote them in (with the republicans and democrats being the main parties).
Just because our media is filled nonstop with coverage of those who are attacking us, does not mean that there is total anti-US sentiment in the region. It's just that those who LIKE the us there are probably being quiet and out of the line of fire. Plus, good news doesn't sell.
As an admins note, I'd like to ask you all to wave absentic, who'll never, ever, post in this forum again, goodbye. Bye, absentic!
Now, for my todays (brief) contribution. Much of the last pages discussion is based on a statement put up by Mons:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US (and few other nations) fought a recent guerrilla war in Afghanistan, which was won quite handily (especially considering that the British and Russians fought guerrilla wars there for decades and got beaten badly).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After this, everyone went on assuming that this war was won. What led you to that idea?
As some of you might know, Germany took command of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan immediately after the war and only recently handed it over. Until then, every kind of (occupational) military action in Afghanistan was under direct German command, and even the highest German military commanders stationed in Kabul admitted that their influence did not extend the capital by more than fifty miles at any point. Look at a map of Afghanistan, and you'll soon realize this doesn't exactely cover the whole of the country.
Now that the command ended, the German Bundestag (our parliament) was presented with a summary of the current situation. In it, it is stated that "parts of Afghanistan are de facto under Taliban control again."
The democratic constitution passed lately is a nice piece of work, but outside Kabul, it's barely more than paper. Afghanistan has <i>not</i> been won.
As an admins note, I'd like to ask you all to wave absentic, who'll never, ever, post in this forum again, goodbye. Bye, absentic!
Now, for my todays (brief) contribution. Much of the last pages discussion is based on a statement put up by Mons:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The US (and few other nations) fought a recent guerrilla war in Afghanistan, which was won quite handily (especially considering that the British and Russians fought guerrilla wars there for decades and got beaten badly).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After this, everyone went on assuming that this war was won. What led you to that idea?
As some of you might know, Germany took command of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan immediately after the war and only recently handed it over. Until then, every kind of (occupational) military action in Afghanistan was under direct German command, and even the highest German military commanders stationed in Kabul admitted that their influence did not extend the capital by more than fifty miles at any point. Look at a map of Afghanistan, and you'll soon realize this doesn't exactely cover the whole of the country.
Now that the command ended, the German Bundestag (our parliament) was presented with a summary of the current situation. In it, it is stated that "parts of Afghanistan are de facto under Taliban control again."
The democratic constitution passed lately is a nice piece of work, but outside Kabul, it's barely more than paper. Afghanistan has <i>not</i> been won. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what worries me about Iraq too, from a military pespective that is, (I am sick debating the moral implications of it) the major fighting is going on in Baghdad, Karbala, and Tikrit. These three cities are fairly large, and from some recent discoveries there are huge caches of weapons hidden around them, and if we remember during the initial conflict how many of Saddam's forces simply seemed to flee. So if all the seemingly defectors simply went underground then at this moment there is still a huge military force, with a perfectly sound infrastructure due to lack of air attacks, and apperantly an aresenol of weapons literarly surrounding the US troops.
Now as bad as that is in itself, Nem pointed to the fact that the old goverments influence is still a great presence in Iraq and all it would take is a few Baath party members to set up a pseduo control center (possibly in one of these three cities) and they could actually restart the war with the US troops as immobile tired targets with low morale. Makes one uneasy thinking about it.
Well I have no choice but to point out U.S. foreign policy in Iraq during the 1980s when Saddam was at his worst. Saddam began using chemical weapons against Iranians during their 8-year war. This was 1983. What did the first George Bush and Ronald Reagan do in response to this? Why nothing short of <b>removing</b> Iraq from the "nations that support terrorism" list, and sending one Donald Rumsfeld on a personal visit with Saddam to restore diplomatic relations. Things were going really well between the U.S. and Iraq during this period.
<img src='http://www.citizensnotspectators.org/home/citizens/public_html/images/rummysaddam.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
So here we have Saddam, this brutal dictator, using chemical weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Rumsfeld somehow feels compelled to fly over there and shake this guy's hand, asking him if he wants to buy some more. Well, I don't know about you, but I find it very difficult to reconcile the stark and hypocritical difference between foreign policy in Iraq then and foreign policy in Iraq now. Saddam didn't use chemical weapons on his own people during the 1990s, he did it when we were allies with him! And why, pray tell, did the U.S. accept this? Because Iraq was fighting Iran, and we very much despised Iran. Killing a million Iranians is good for the U.S., right? Apparently the 70,000 Iraqi Kurds Saddam murdered in 1988 was just one of the prices you pay for achieving your objectives in the Middle East. Who's going to remember them, anyhow?
Yet again the U.S. did nothing to stop this crazy madman when Bush went from Vice President to President in 1988. Murder and mayhem throughout the 1980s was not enough to warrant action. No, it took something much, much worse to start a war. Poor, stupid Saddam had to go and invade Kuwait and threaten control over the oil industry by occupying the largest percentage of proven oil reserves on the planet. Bad, bad, stupid Saddam. If only he had played the game properly by appeasing to U.S. interests... he would have been able to stay in power and continue to murder hundreds of thousands of people. What a shameful and tragic chapter of human history. If only Saddam had played along, Rumsfeld could have kept making visits and offering him the latest and greatest mass-destruction technology. Who knows how many more Arabs he could have exterminated.
So now I expect an entire deluge of "well yeah, we were wrong then but now we're right" replies. Okay, makes sense. The people in U.S. government during the 1980s are long gone and have no influence or power today, right? Right? Do you really want to go there?
<a href='http://www.livejournal.com/users/kim_jong_il__' target='_blank'>http://www.livejournal.com/users/kim_jong_il__</a>
The democratic constitution passed lately is a nice piece of work, but outside Kabul, it's barely more than paper. Afghanistan has <i>not</i> been won. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And portions of the Apalachian mountains in the US are under hillbilly control. The fact remains that anything important in Afghanistan (and very little is) is under the control of its government and the occupying forces. When you control all that is important in a country (and barren land is not), you control the country. You don't have a squad of men standing every few feet in order to control a few mounds of dirt.
And you have not been following the news very well if you think the Constitution will hold no sway outside of Kabul. I leave it to you to listen to today's reports, not ones from months ago. Hint - check with the BBC, the reports were from this morning (US time).
As has been said plenty of times before - good news does not sell. News outlets as a whole tend to just move on to other new topics of bad news. You will never see any good news from any of these countries, only a diminishment of bad. There was never any story saying 'german civilians less resentful of America occupiers now that Soviets threaten their country' in 1946, for example. It was just assumed...
Now that the command ended, the German Bundestag (our parliament) was presented with a summary of the current situation. In it, it is stated that "parts of Afghanistan are de facto under Taliban control again."
The democratic constitution passed lately is a nice piece of work, but outside Kabul, it's barely more than paper. Afghanistan has <i>not</i> been won. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ahhhh... but it is getting better. Before the new constitution was signed, militias were already starting to hand over their weapons. Although, I won't kid anyone and claim these are all the weapons... Its just the start of a process that takes time. Afghanistan will take far long than Iraq to rebuild. Where Iraq had a 10 - 20 year old infrastructure... Afghanistan has next to nothing ( which you would expect after fighing the Russians for a decade ).
We have not even been in Iraq a year. There is a deadline of December 15th for a preliminary constitution to be drawn up. Within the next year in Iraq, as long as we remain there, things will get better. As Iraq is rebuilt and the US determination to rebuild Iraq stays strong... Things will definately get better.
Iraq is not going to be forced into any particular type of democracy. They will decide on that themselves. The US is there to ensure that it can start. Of course the US administration in Iraq will hold sway over certain things... But for the most part, the Iraqis themselves will determine what form of democracy their government will take. Although many can, and do, claim and profess that the Iraqi Governing Council is a puppet government... That is far from the truth. It is representative of Iraq as a whole. The US made sure that it was a representative group. It is not uncommon for this council to outright disagree with US actions within Iraq or to criticize decisions; however, they know how necessary US involvment is to rebuild Iraq.
Although people still disgree about invading Iraq... That time has passed and now we should all be looking forward to the best path to rebuilding Iraq. Leaving Iraq should not... or rather IS NOT an option. Handing the rebuilding effort over to a government that cannot handle it at this point is also not an option.
The US is working hard to enable the fledling Iraqi government to protect itself and its citizens. The US is training thousands of police officers and also a new military ( now former officers and military personell are being brought back ). It should be no surprise that Iraqis think things are worse off now than they were before the war. A war happened between then and now. Things are not rebuilt over night. It takes months and years to rebuild many things... And then its one thing at a time. You take baby steps... Not giant leaps.
This won't be easy, but our military can handle it. The things that will have the worst effect on rebuilding Iraq are these Democratic President wanna-bees and the Press. I've posted it once before, but I'll post it again ( <a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110004251' target='_blank'>http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/r...y/?id=110004251</a> ). The greatest threat to success in Iraq lies not in Iraq but here in the US.
Another American was killed and nine wounded in attacks in the northern city of Mosul, raising concerns that the anti-US resistance was spreading north.
Everyone on the Black Hawk died. "Six soldiers were on board and all of them were killed," said Major Jossyln Aberle, a spokeswoman for the 4th Infantry Division based in Tikrit. All were from the 101st Airborne Division, she said.
It was not immediately clear whether the helicopter was brought down by hostile fire or a mechanical failure, Major Aberle said. But an officer who asked not to be identified said it might have been hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just breathing some life back into this thread.
What effect do people think these attacks are having? As it is overwhelmingly Americans being targetted, how to our American forumites feel about their countrymen dying? In light of more and more US deaths after the "official" end of major combat, has anyone changed their mind about the US involvement in Iraq? When do people expect the attacks to cease?
And perhaps a question aimed mainly at forumites who are undertaking, or who have undertaken, military service: how can the US army best combat these attacks? Can the US army hope to effectively prevent these attacks?