News Revolving door of Iraq war reasoning-This time it's OIL

[Skyhunter]

We're agreeing again. We must stop doing that.

It's is alright as long as we keep it to a minimum.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The US went in for oil huh?
Have they bought it, barreled it, put it on a ship, or even so much as declared it their's?
Iraq's strongest economic base will be oil. If we are going to protect Iraq's interests then we definitely ought to keep an eye on their most plentiful resource for them and make sure it doesn't go up in flames.
So if the US just up and left Iraq right now are you saying that you all wouldn't be up on here moaning about the US screwing over Iraq by walking out and letting their government fall apart after we invaded them? It hardly matters what the US does at this point because anything and everything they do will be criticized. If their troops staid away from the oil and the oil was destroyed because of it everyone would moan about the US not protecting Iraq's interests like it should be. If the US protects their oil then they must be there to steal it from them. The US let's them make their own constitution and it doesn't turn out well it's the US's fault. The US gives them a constitution then they're opressing them.

I think that all of you who are *****ing about things not going right ought to start coming up with some solutions. The onus is on you. You don't think what is going on is the right way for things to go on then tell us what you think ought to be done. And sorry saying that the US shouldn't have invaded in the first place is no solution unless you can figure out how to build a time machine.

 

[Skyhunter]

The US went in for oil huh?
Have they bought it, barreled it, put it on a ship, or even so much as declared it their's?
Iraq's strongest economic base will be oil. If we are going to protect Iraq's interests then we definitely ought to keep an eye on their most plentiful resource for them and make sure it doesn't go up in flames.
So if the US just up and left Iraq right now are you saying that you all wouldn't be up on here moaning about the US screwing over Iraq by walking out and letting their government fall apart after we invaded them? It hardly matters what the US does at this point because anything and everything they do will be criticized. If their troops staid away from the oil and the oil was destroyed because of it everyone would moan about the US not protecting Iraq's interests like it should be. If the US protects their oil then they must be there to steal it from them. The US let's them make their own constitution and it doesn't turn out well it's the US's fault. The US gives them a constitution then they're opressing them.

I think that all of you who are *****ing about things not going right ought to start coming up with some solutions. The onus is on you. You don't think what is going on is the right way for things to go on then tell us what you think ought to be done. And sorry saying that the US shouldn't have invaded in the first place is no solution unless you can figure out how to build a time machine.

Why is the onus on those of us who opposed the war?

What was it Colin Powell said?

"You break it you own it."

I don't have a solution. The man I thought could possibly lead us out of this disaster was Wesley Clark. When he didn't get the nomination I swallowed and threw my support behind Kerry.

Of course if congress had listened to Wes Clark and not given this madman in the White House carte blanch to wage war as he saw fit, the weapons inspectors would have determined that there were no WMD or imminent threat, so Bush & Co. would have had to manufacture some other justification for invading and occupying Iraq.

And even if I had a solution, do you think he would listen?

Face it, he has screwed us all and the only option left to us is to voice our despair and outrage on PF.

 

[Evo]

The US went in for oil huh?
Have they bought it, barreled it, put it on a ship, or even so much as declared it their's?
Iraq's strongest economic base will be oil. If we are going to protect Iraq's interests then we definitely ought to keep an eye on their most plentiful resource for them and make sure it doesn't go up in flames.
So if the US just up and left Iraq right now are you saying that you all wouldn't be up on here moaning about the US screwing over Iraq by walking out and letting their government fall apart after we invaded them? It hardly matters what the US does at this point because anything and everything they do will be criticized. If their troops staid away from the oil and the oil was destroyed because of it everyone would moan about the US not protecting Iraq's interests like it should be. If the US protects their oil then they must be there to steal it from them. The US let's them make their own constitution and it doesn't turn out well it's the US's fault. The US gives them a constitution then they're opressing them.

I think that all of you who are *****ing about things not going right ought to start coming up with some solutions. The onus is on you. You don't think what is going on is the right way for things to go on then tell us what you think ought to be done. And sorry saying that the US shouldn't have invaded in the first place is no solution unless you can figure out how to build a time machine.

Great post.

It's easy to sit back and criticize, but it doesn't fix things. I need to get a copy of something that was in a class I attended last week "because that's the way it is". It was great.

I didn't vote for Bush, don't like Bush, and disagree with everything that he does, but thanks to many "felluh Amerkins" I'm sitting in this boat. TSA is right, pulling out of Iraq right now would be an even worse disaster, there are too many corrupt self interest groups wanting to take control. We are in a bad situation, let's not make it worse with more knee jerk decisions.

 

[pattylou]

I think that all of you who are *****ing about things not going right ought to start coming up with some solutions.

We have been.

A year ago we were begging everyone to "Vote Kerry."

Remember?

We still are suggesting solutions. On another thread, someone suggested overthrowing the government. LOL. I don't personally think that this is a tenable idea, but you can't say people aren't throwing solutions around. My suggestion: Vote democrat. Even more importantly: work towards paper-trail verified balloting in your area. Demand it, sign petitions, raise awareness, and so on. That's my solution. First make *damn* sure we're getting the person in office that the people want.

BTW, the point of the OP was to (futilely) try to wake up those who refuse to see that the reason for the war keeps changing. I don't know if people really don't see it, or if they see it and don't care. Either possibility is scary.

Our reasons for going to Iraq will change again. It will be tied into Iran soon, we'll have to keep fighting in Iraq in order to prevent Iran from blah blah blah... Iran was not an original reason for us to go to Iraq.

Neither was oil. Neither was "spreading democracy." Neither were a couple others that I forget. But everyone is so knee-jerk afraid that the muslims want to kill us all because we're the infidels, that we're hell bent on killing them first. So any morphing reason spouted by bush, feeds on that fear and gets licked up by a segment of the population.

Well, at least he's not a flip-flopper. He can change his reasons for invading a hundred times, but, you know, that's not "flip flopping." That's sticking to your guns. God bless him.

( OK, so maybe I'm a *little* bitter.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Why is the onus on those of us who opposed the war?

What was it Colin Powell said?

"You break it you own it."

I don't have a solution. The man I thought could possibly lead us out of this disaster was Wesley Clark. When he didn't get the nomination I swallowed and threw my support behind Kerry.

Of course if congress had listened to Wes Clark and not given this madman in the White House carte blanch to wage war as he saw fit, the weapons inspectors would have determined that there were no WMD or imminent threat, so Bush & Co. would have had to manufacture some other justification for invading and occupying Iraq.

And even if I had a solution, do you think he would listen?

Face it, he has screwed us all and the only option left to us is to voice our despair and outrage on PF.

Then why are you asking Hurkyl for solutions? He seems to believe that the way things are being handled are about as good as we can do (correct me if I'm wrong there Hurk). If you don't agree then you should have some ideas as to what should be done instead shouldn't you?

I'm not saying that the onus is on those that opposed the war. The war has happened. It's done. It's a non-issue now. Sorry let me correct that. Not a non-issue but a back burner issue for now. There's a mess that needs to be cleaned up. The resposability lies with those who got us into the mess. They are working on it, for better or worse. If you don't agree with the way things are going and think they ought to be done differantly then the onus is now on you to come up with alternatives. If you have none then why are you arguing?

I'm sorry if I'm coming off abrassive, I don't really mean to. I'm just trying to get my point across as directly as possible.

 

[pattylou]

The US went in for oil huh?
Have they bought it, barreled it, put it on a ship, or even so much as declared it their's?

The idea is that by establishing friendly democracies in oil - rich regions, we won't be at the bottom of the list when supplies are really dwindling.

The idea is *not* that we're going to stamp "Made in America" stickers on Iraqi oil.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We have been.

A year ago we were begging everyone to "Vote Kerry."

Remember?

We still are suggesting solutions. On another thread, someone suggested overthrowing the government. LOL. I don't personally think that this is a tenable idea, but you can't say people aren't throwing solutions around. My suggestion: Vote democrat. Even more importantly: work towards paper-trail verified balloting in your area. Demand it, sign petitions, raise awareness, and so on. That's my solution. First make *damn* sure we're getting the person in office that the people want.

BTW, the point of the OP was to (futilely) try to wake up those who refuse to see that the reason for the war keeps changing. I don't know if people really don't see it, or if they see it and don't care. Either possibility is scary.

Our reasons for going to Iraq will change again. It will be tied into Iran soon, we'll have to keep fighting in Iraq in order to prevent Iran from blah blah blah... Iran was not an original reason for us to go to Iraq.

Neither was oil. Neither was "spreading democracy." Neither were a couple others that I forget. But everyone is so knee-jerk afraid that the muslims want to kill us all because we're the infidels, that we're hell bent on killing them first. So any morphing reason spouted by bush, feeds on that fear and gets licked up by a segment of the population.

Well, at least he's not a flip-flopper. He can change his reasons for invading a hundred times, but, you know, that's not "flip flopping." That's sticking to your guns. God bless him.

( OK, so maybe I'm a *little* bitter.)

I'm talking about how things are getting along in Iraq. I would like to hear from people who don't like how things are being handled there to give us some ideas as to what they think should be done there.
As far as I know Kerry never gave any ideas he just espoused getting our troops home. Do you know if Mr. Kerry ever said how he planned to do that?
The election is yet another non-issue until hard evidence turns up to show there was in fact fraud taking place and there are leads to find the culprits. But that has little to do with solutions in Iraq.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The idea is that by establishing friendly democracies in oil - rich regions, we won't be at the bottom of the list when supplies are really dwindling.

The idea is *not* that we're going to stamp "Made in America" stickers on Iraqi oil.

I agree. And I think that isn't necessarily a bad idea. It's how they went about doing it that was a problem.
What I don't like are the people who rant and make it sound like the US is there to steal Iraqi oil. As I phrased it in another thread (or was it this one) they wanted to free up an oil economy that was being restricted by UN sanctions. That is far from taking or stealing. Nor do I think that was the only or even main purpose, just a major one.

[edit: I will concede that the fact that the US invaded the country doesn't make it look very good but that is still no excuse to continually make an unfounded claim.]

If you're going to argue against something do it right and sound reasonable and credible. That's not aimed at you Patty, it's just what I would like to see.

 

[pattylou]

I'm talking about how things are getting along in Iraq. I would like to hear from people who don't like how things are being handled there to give us some ideas as to what they think should be done there.
As far as I know Kerry never gave any ideas he just espoused getting our troops home. Do you know if Mr. Kerry ever said how he planned to do that?
The election is yet another non-issue until hard evidence turns up to show there was in fact fraud taking place and there are leads to find the culprits. But that has little to do with solutions in Iraq.

My understanding is that Kerry's philosophy was more along the lines of "We will bring troops home..." And he specified January 2005 for a beginning to that. He didn't specify how many troops.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding what you wanted a solution to! I have never advocated pulling troops out. But, it would be interesting to pull out a few and see what happens. If we bring 5% home, and attacks settle down a bit, well, that would be most interesting, wouldn't it? I would guess everyone has a line. Personally, I think the commanders on the field know best - but if they can spare some to send home, then I think that would do a world of good in terms of iraqi morale and confidence in the future. You may draw the line elsewhere.

The problems I focus on, aren't what's going on Iraq. That's a bloody mess and it continues day in and day out. I got tired of it long ago and plateau'd. The problems I focus on are what this resident is feeding the american populace day in and day out, and it's crap. Those problems are the basis for the solutions I offered.

I disagree about the idea of "getting hard evidence" etc on elections. I have little interest at the moment in what happened in 2004. (Tomorrow might be a different story.) But how can you imply that lack of a paper trail is in any way acceptable? We are supposed to be a democracy. Should we not keep records of our elections?

In other words, if you were setting up a democracy in another country, would you tell them that it really doesn't matter if they keep a hard copy of the votes or not?

We are the United States of America. We should set the bar on elections. And we don't keep paper trails. My mind boggles.

 

[pattylou]

I agree. And I think that isn't necessarily a bad idea. It's how they went about doing it that was a problem.
What I don't like are the people who rant and make it sound like the US is there to steal Iraqi oil. As I phrased it in another thread (or was it this one) they wanted to free up an oil economy that was being restricted by UN sanctions. That is far from taking or stealing. Nor do I think that was the only or even main purpose, just a major one.

[edit: I will concede that the fact that the US invaded the country doesn't make it look very good but that is still no excuse to continually make an unfounded claim.]

If you're going to argue against something do it right and sound reasonable and credible. That's not aimed at you Patty, it's just what I would like to see.

I don't "rant and make it sound like the US is there to steal Iraqi oil." But there is no doubt in my mind that we Americans are killing thousands of innocent people to promote an end of us getting easy oil.

We could have spent the 300 billion on wind, solar, and other clean American, environmentally friendly, energy sources.

We could have been the global leader in these ventures, had we used the money we have poured into Iraq on alternative energies. (Spend a moment contemplating that scenario.)

We used to enjoy being a global leader. We are becoming a global pariah.

(And none of this is directed at you, either.)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My understanding is that Kerry's philosophy was more along the lines of "We will bring troops home..." And he specified January 2005 for a beginning to that. He didn't specify how many troops.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding what you wanted a solution to! I have never advocated pulling troops out. But, it would be interesting to pull out a few and see what happens. If we bring 5% home, and attacks settle down a bit, well, that would be most interesting, wouldn't it? I would guess everyone has a line. Personally, I think the commanders on the field know best - but if they can spare some to send home, then I think that would do a world of good in terms of iraqi morale and confidence in the future. You may draw the line elsewhere.

The problems I focus on, aren't what's going on Iraq. That's a bloody mess and it continues day in and day out. I got tired of it long ago and plateau'd. The problems I focus on are what this resident is feeding the american populace day in and day out, and it's crap. Those problems are the basis for the solutions I offered.

I disagree about the idea of "getting hard evidence" etc on elections. I have little interest at the moment in what happened in 2004. (Tomorrow might be a different story.) But how can you imply that lack of a paper trail is in any way acceptable? We are supposed to be a democracy. Should we not keep records of our elections?

In other words, if you were setting up a democracy in another country, would you tell them that it really doesn't matter if they keep a hard copy of the votes or not?

We are the United States of America. We should set the bar on elections. And we don't keep paper trails. My mind boggles.

I'm completely with you on the paper trail. It was the first problem that came to my mind when I was hearing news about electronic voting. Regrdless of how well the machines work and whether or not there was tampering people will not be happy unless you can show them with something tangible.

The idea of pulling some troops is a bit scary. If there is no clear reason as to why, such as more Iraqi troops to replace them, then I'd be afraid the insurgents would see it as a sign that they are winning their battle and step up their attacks. If it is done it should be done carfully.
Generally the strategy behind policing is to make the presence of authority known. I'm not sure but they may be trying to maintain a large number of soldiers thinking that numbers will have a better effect. If this is the case then I would be happy to see them drop the numbers down closer to the minimum necessary to maintain order and have the Iraqi soldiers make up for the numbers. I wonder if I can find something outlining what their current real strategy is instead of just listening to Bush's spew.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't "rant and make it sound like the US is there to steal Iraqi oil." But there is no doubt in my mind that we Americans are killing thousands of innocent people to promote an end of us getting easy oil.

We could have spent the 300 billion on wind, solar, and other clean American, environmentally friendly, energy sources.

We could have been the global leader in these ventures, had we used the money we have poured into Iraq on alternative energies. (Spend a moment contemplating that scenario.)

We used to enjoy being a global leader. We are becoming a global pariah.

(And none of this is directed at you, either.)

Again I'll have to say it oil among other things. They probably want more money for the military too. They way things go around here is that they need to be doing something to get money. If they aren't busy somewhere their money will be taken away. Also having bases in Iraq. I don't care what anyone says we never meant to pull out every one. The US will always maintain a military presence in Iraq unless they tell us to get out, which I doubt they will any time in the near future. Besides business and oil there are plenty good reasons to have a government friendly to tke US in Iraq, such as Iran. I doubt we really want to make a military advance on Iran. We just want to be able to watch them from as many places as possible and as close as possible, among others.

meh.. time to go. Night Patty.

 

[SOS2008]

As others have posted above, the OP is about the ever changing reasons for the war, not how the war should be managed.

In regard to drawing down troops, I think it's 60% of Americans who do not feel the U.S. can/should completely pull out of Iraq at this time, including many Dems such as Hillary. I am one of those Americans. However, I would like to see a timetable for U.S. withdrawal -- parallel to implementation of international peace keeping measures.

I don't believe a timetable for withdrawal will affect insurgency, turned into terrorism, back to insurgency verging on civil war. In fact, I think the "anti-U.S. opposition" would decrease--it would have to if we aren't there to attack. Unfortunately this would presume that Bush is sincere in his intentions regarding the Iraqi people, and that other countries would participate despite Bush's (...to be kind...) lack of diplomacy.

I think this is about the third time I've offered this solution. People on this forum are smarter than the average bear...so come on -- think outside the Bush propaganda box (to honor the nearly 2,000 Americans who have already died let's send more to their deaths...sounds like "throwing good money after bad" -- you Republicans should understand this ain't right) or maybe take a logic class. And for heaven's sake, stop enabling this horrible man who continuously invokes the tragedy of 9-11, or now the disaster in New Orleans...be appalled and maybe a little disgusted.

 

[Skyhunter]

Kerry's plan was to give it an international face. His reasoning was that he could repair our damaged image and restore our credibility with the rest of the world. This is still a viable option, although I don't see Bush apologizing and reaching out to all those he snubbed in 2002, 2003, 2004, and now 2005.

We cannot do it alone, remaining there is making it worse, so I am truly beginning to despair that this is going to prove to be the greatest political blunder in American history. And Americans will pay the price.

 

[vanesch]

TSA is right, pulling out of Iraq right now would be an even worse disaster, there are too many corrupt self interest groups wanting to take control. We are in a bad situation, let's not make it worse with more knee jerk decisions.

I don't know if pulling out right now would "be an even worse disaster". As the so-called "reasons" for invading Iraq have been changing every 10 minutes, there is no standard to compare with to find out if a situation is "worse" or not ; maybe according to a hidden agenda, everything is running just fine (but I have difficulties finding which one: there's only ONE agenda for which things are just fine and that's OBL's agenda).

What could be the goals, to which we have to compare the "goodness" of the situation, and hence the decisions to stay or to go ?
- WMD, imminent attack on the US or Israel: ok, you can pull out, there are no WMD (anymore?) in the hands of a terrible dictator. Goal reached (haha).
- Ousting a dictator. Saddam is no more in charge, goal reached. You can pull out.
- Bringing (superficial) democracy to Iraq. They've voted, goal reached, you can pull out.
- Fighting terrorist nests. That's gotten worse, and you're in a catch-22: if you stay, you create more terrorists, if you leave, they will consider it a victory. See further.
- Oil. I don't know if staying will further any sympathy of the future rulers of the oil wells to deal with you. To be seen.
- Fat state contracts for Bush's friends. Done. You can pull out now.
- Have fun for the military. If the idea is to have a laboratory for new military techniques, then you're indeed having what you want. Stay. Things are just perfect.
- Create a stable, Western-friendly, democratic regime in a prospering country. Goal completely f**ked up in any case. Lost case. Get out.

What are the options ?
1) asking the world to help you: I think the world will not do much, because it would only attract more troubles for those getting involved, and after being snobbed the way they were, there is a kind of "sweet revenge" in seeing the troubles. Nothing to be gained for others to get involved.
2) stay in similar ways as you are doing now. Situation will probably slowly get worse (except of course for the "military lab" option), and over the years, this will cost so much in soldier lives and money that you'll be obliged to pull out in any case. Civil war will at a certain point break out between the 3 ethnicities. It will be a huge terrorist nest.
3) take your bags and pull out. Civil war will break out, terrorists will have a victory. On the other hand, you will limit the costs and the responsability.
4) send in MASSIVE amounts of soldiers (organize a draft probably). Install a military dictatorship by those soldiers, give those soldiers double nationality so that they can go and live in Iraq (they will become "colonists"), and let them terrorize the population the way they want, and let them become rich off the money flow from the local oil production, so that they become the new "local" elite. They'll be friendly to the US (their former home country), things will be quiet and terrorists will be defeated, at least locally. The image of the US will of course get a deafening blow.

So what's the best option ?

 

[vanesch]

For those thinking that "civil war in Iraq" is but conjecture (which of course at this point it is, but a serious one), here are some sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1558962,00.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/08/23/rumsfeld.iraq/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1698308,00.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FC02Ak01.html

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_civil_122804,00.html

 

[outsider]

Then why are you asking Hurkyl for solutions? He seems to believe that the way things are being handled are about as good as we can do (correct me if I'm wrong there Hurk). If you don't agree then you should have some ideas as to what should be done instead shouldn't you?

I'm not saying that the onus is on those that opposed the war. The war has happened. It's done. It's a non-issue now. Sorry let me correct that. Not a non-issue but a back burner issue for now. There's a mess that needs to be cleaned up. The resposability lies with those who got us into the mess. They are working on it, for better or worse. If you don't agree with the way things are going and think they ought to be done differantly then the onus is now on you to come up with alternatives. If you have none then why are you arguing?

I'm sorry if I'm coming off abrassive, I don't really mean to. I'm just trying to get my point across as directly as possible.

Let's get it straight... I asked Hurkyl for solutions... THE REASON being that he was the one who was bringing up the situations. I asked him to come up with solutions instead of just complaining. Why are you protecting him? are you his dad? He has yet to come up with any solutions that are original and do not constitute rope towing... wake up and smell the carnage!

 

[outsider]

I'm talking about how things are getting along in Iraq. I would like to hear from people who don't like how things are being handled there to give us some ideas as to what they think should be done there.
As far as I know Kerry never gave any ideas he just espoused getting our troops home. Do you know if Mr. Kerry ever said how he planned to do that?
The election is yet another non-issue until hard evidence turns up to show there was in fact fraud taking place and there are leads to find the culprits. But that has little to do with solutions in Iraq.

you are right... there was no clear plan from Kerry either... I don't think he ran very hard for office... so I'm not surprised that he lost... he was just the lesser of 2 evils... and he was not supposed to win... so no facts means no conviction... did you think ojay simpson was innocent? I agree.

 

[outsider]

I have to take notice that many of the Badge wearing PF Mentors & Contributors tend to defend the President and his Administration...

I can't understand why some members never make any concessions when valid opinions are made and alternative solutions are brought to the table.

I do think that the PF community is not your average community which is why I enjoy being on PF, however there appears to be certain individuals who instead of finding common ground to work from rather oppose opinions in favor of defending the Administration. Let's drop the defense and work on improving the world. It is not my intention to hate the USA or blame America for anything.

I feel that if enough thought is put to this, hopefully some solutions will come of it that "someone" may actually be watching this board and take the solution to where it needs to be.

Bush needs to look at his situation and rearrange his priorities. You should not worry about saving other people, when your own family is starving and dying. (Yes, I'm talking about the victims of Katrina) As for the war on terrorism, this should be a war that the world would agree with which should be discussed in the UN. He should try to get the consultation and approval of the UN on how to fix the current situation.

 

[outsider]

People on this forum are smarter than the average bear...so come on -- think outside the Bush propaganda box (to honor the nearly 2,000 Americans who have already died let's send more to their deaths...sounds like "throwing good money after bad" -- you Republicans should understand this ain't right) or maybe take a logic class. And for heaven's sake, stop enabling this horrible man who continuously invokes the tragedy of 9-11, or now the disaster in New Orleans...be appalled and maybe a little disgusted.

Agreed.

when you grow up rich like the president, you can afford to gamble in this fashion... as long as you double up your bets in a 50/50, you will eventually come out a winner. Mathematically it is sure fire as long as your pockets are deep enough to sustain the bets.

Now that Bush's image is shot to bits, I'm afraid that he'll just do whatever he wants. I believe Osama bin laden started out in a similar way. Instead of being a shame to his country, Osama was just a shame to his family. When you are an outcast, you have contempt and just want to ruin it for everyone. I just hope this isn't the case for GWB.

 

[Hurkyl]

As the so-called "reasons" for invading Iraq have been changing every 10 minutes

Wouldn't this be cleanly explained if there was more than one reason to invade Iraq, and there is more than one reason to remain in Iraq?

He has yet to come up with any solutions that are original

So? Being unoriginal isn't a bad thing.

I can't understand why some members never make any concessions when valid opinions are made and alternative solutions are brought to the table.

Probably because those who bring what you call "valid opinions" and "alternative solutions" are more interested in lashing out at those who disagree than defending their own opinion or solution.

How do you expect me (or anyone else) to give any sort of serious consideration to your "solution" if you absolutely refuse to discuss any of the negative consequences of your solution?

however there appears to be certain individuals who instead of finding common ground to work from rather oppose opinions in favor of defending the Administration.

Just like certain individuals who instead of finding common ground to work from rather prefer to oppose the Administration, right?

 

[vanesch]

Wouldn't this be cleanly explained if there was more than one reason to invade Iraq, and there is more than one reason to remain in Iraq?

That's exactly what I tried to do: take all official and unofficial reasons, and find out, for each of them, whether they still justify STAYING.

To repeat:
-WMD: ok, they're not there NOW (whether there were some or not, doesn't matter ; right NOW, WMD are NOT a reason to stay).
-Bringing a dictator down. That's done now, so no reason to stay.
-Having the Iraqi people vote: that's done too, no reason to stay.
-Fighting terrorism. Either way (staying or leaving) there's a problem (things don't seem to IMPROVE on that side by staying).
-Oil: can go either way, not clear if staying improves getting Iraqi oil.
-Give state contracts to friends of the administration: that's done now, so it is no reason anymore to stay.
-have a military lab: that's a reason to stay. It's a great lab.
-create a stable, Western-friendly democracy: I think this is IN ANY CASE not going to work, whether you stay or not.

Chances are that Iraq, whether you stay or not, is heading for a civil war, and the situation, with the current level of military presence, is not going to be stabilized. The so-called constitution is 1) OR going to instore a theocracy in Iran style, OR going to lead to civil war.

So I think the worse option is to stay at current levels of presence: it costs you a fortune (and soldier lives), it is propaganda for OBL, and it won't in the end avoid a civil war.

The only alternative to pulling out (with also a lot of negative consequences) is to INCREASE SERIOUSLY your presence there, and rule with an iron hand, for many years to come. It is the only way to shut up the terrorists and avoid a civil war.

 

[russ_watters]

If you have none then why are you arguing?

Well that's just it: is this meant to be an argument or a flame-fest? Whether intentional or just because its easier, most of these threads are just bash-the-US threads, without any real discussion of how things could be made better. Ie:

A year ago we were begging everyone to "Vote Kerry."

"Vote Kerry" says nothing whatsoever about what to actually do in Iraq.

My understanding is that Kerry's philosophy was more along the lines of "We will bring troops home..." And he specified January 2005 for a beginning to that. He didn't specify how many troops.

And that's one of the reasons I didn't vote for Kerry - he didn't have any more ideas than the people in this thread! A vague - 'start bringing troops home in Jan 2005' says nothing whatsoever about how to deal with the problem, unless what he meant is that he intended to simply abandon Iraq to anarchy, which, as Ape pointed out, Bush is currently being criticized for!

As others have posted above, the OP is about the ever changing reasons for the war, not how the war should be managed.

Yes, and as still others have pointed out, the OP is wrong about what the article says. Oh, I understand where he wanted this thread to go, its just that the basis for it was a misunderstood article. Remove the article and the discussion could simply be about the motivation for going to war in the first place, not what to do about it now. Frankly, though, I think what to do about it now is a far more important (and more ignored) question.

I don't believe a timetable for withdrawal will affect insurgency, turned into terrorism, back to insurgency verging on civil war. In fact, I think the "anti-U.S. opposition" would decrease--it would have to if we aren't there to attack. Unfortunately this would presume that Bush is sincere in his intentions regarding the Iraqi people, and that other countries would participate despite Bush's (...to be kind...) lack of diplomacy.

I think this is about the third time I've offered this solution.

Well, its better than not providing a solution at all, but its tough to put unpredictable events on a schedule. I'd prefer to see withdrawal tied to a criteria or event, like 10 days without a terrorist attack, or something like that. But I'm also comfortable with simply looking at the situtation, saying "not good enough" and keeping the troops there until we can look at it and say "ok, now its good enough".

 

[vanesch]

I'd prefer to see withdrawal tied to a criteria or event, like 10 days without a terrorist attack, or something like that. But I'm also comfortable with simply looking at the situtation, saying "not good enough" and keeping the troops there until we can look at it and say "ok, now its good enough".

The question is: is the parameter you want to see reaching a certain value before withdrawing, going in the right direction ?
Take yours. Is the time lapse between successive terrorist attacks actually INCREASING, so that we can hope for it to reach your threshold (10 days) ?

I have the serious impression that things are getting worse. And what is SERIOUSLY getting wrong-headed is that constitution. It might even face the same problem as the European one (and, I think you'll admit this, the European situation isn't as bad as the situation in Iraq ). That after A LOT OF NEGOCIATION AND COMPROMISE, it is finally put to vote, and many people, for different reasons, simply say NO.
But that constitution is heading terribly wrong, and there's nothing to be done about. Sistaniani or what's his name will always head for a theocracy which will give unsolvable problems with the two other ethnicities. The country is heading for a civil war and gets every day CLOSER to it.

So again, what criterium to use for withdrawal, which has some hope of being reached (which is FACTUALLY IMPROVING) ?

 

[russ_watters]

The question is: is the parameter you want to see reaching a certain value before withdrawing, going in the right direction ?
Take yours. Is the time lapse between successive terrorist attacks actually INCREASING, so that we can hope for it to reach your threshold (10 days) ?

The frequency and severity is fluctuating pretty wildly due to specific events like the election and the signing of the Constitution, so I'm not sure if there is an overall trend. But the government of Iraq is being built, and that is progress.

As, I think you pointed out in another thread, there is a catch-22 with withdrawing because a withdrawal, while it takes away a target for attack, it may also be taken as a sign of victory by the terrorists. I think there is probably a "tipping point", where the government becomes inherrently stable, terrorism starts to drop, and removing troops only increases stability. I think we should be looking for that tipping point, and continuing to build the government is the way to achieve it.

 

[vanesch]

I think there is probably a "tipping point", where the government becomes inherrently stable, terrorism starts to drop, and removing troops only increases stability. I think we should be looking for that tipping point, and continuing to build the government is the way to achieve it.

If only that were true. Hopefully we'll reach the "terrorist peak" before the "oil peak" then

 

[Skyhunter]

As i pointed out earlier the best solution is to give it an international face, not an American one. Bush has made this option nearly impossible.

If you want help with solutions, why not start by admitting it was a mistake, or if you don't believe it was a mistake at least admit it has been handled badly.

I have had to take over projects that were terribly bungled. Once I take over the project I am the one who gets all the blame for the project from that point on. Many times it is more costly to fix than it would have been to build from scratch. I don't accept that responsibility until there is an admission of failure, otherwise the mistakes made by the previous builder become mine.

If you want to have an "Ideas to end the Iraq debacle thread". Start by admitting there is a problem and allocate the blame for the past failures. Otherwise I am not interested. Let Bush assume responsibility for Bush's gross incompetence.

 

[alexandra]

To get back to the OP:

Here we go. The kooks and nuts of America who thought this war was about oil from the beginning---I say this because many Bush apologists have minimized those who espoused this reasoning as the real reason as said crazies---have been vindicated.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/

I'm feeling verklempt now. Talk amongst yourselves---here, I'll give you a topic "The war in Iraq is for oil not democracy, not WMD, not the WOT, but for oil."

My contribution on this topic is to suggest that there are strong arguments pointing to the truth of the view that the Iraq invasion was always about oil in the first place and to recommend that those who are interested in finding out a likely scenario for how future wars are on the cards, read Michael T. Klare's book, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict

Here is book review from http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?chunk=25&mtype=&wtopic=Nature%20Natural%20Resources&qwork=5711984&page=1&matches=18&qsort=r&browse=1&full=1 :

About this title:
From the oilfields of Saudi Arabia to the Nile delta, from the shipping lanes of the South China Sea to the pipelines of Central Asia, Resource Wars looks at the growing impact of resource scarcity on the military policies of nations. International security expert Michael T. Klare argues that in the early decades of the new millennium, wars will be fought not over ideology but over access to dwindling supplies of precious natural commodities. The political divisions of the Cold War, Klare asserts, have given way to a global scramble for oil, natural gas, minerals, and water. And as armies throughout the world define resource security as a primary objective, widespread instability is bound to follow, especially in those areas where competition for essential materials overlaps with long-standing territorial and religious disputes. In this clarifying view, the recent explosive conflict between the United States and Islamic extremism stands revealed as the predictable consequence of consumer nations seeking to protect the vital resources they depend on. A much-needed assessment of a changed world, Resource Wars is a compelling look at warfare in an era of rampant globalization and intense economic competition.

 

[pattylou]

"Vote Kerry" says nothing whatsoever about what to actually do in Iraq.

Whereas "Vote Bush" did?