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

[pattylou]

If we did that, we'd be starting over from scratch.

No, we wouldn't.

We'd be starting from having residual troops there, and recent history, and relationships with the police forces we're training, and on-the-job know-how of the armed forces that were stationed there, and bases that have been built, and a non-Saddam government in place...

How can you argue that we're making progress and should stay the course, and then turn around and argue that leaving would revert back to square one? Do you recognize the illogic here?

My mind boggles.

As far as "risk," it is acceptable since we could *GO BACK* if things turned worse. Roughly dozens of people are dying daily as it stands, and have been for over a year. I can't really imagine that things would get worse so quickly that we wouldn't be able to respond.

 

[pattylou]

The true irony is, based on the draft constitution, if the US does 'stay the course' they will be expending men and equipment at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to eventually create a mirror gov't of Iran which they purport to despise so much.

Yes. That is very ironic. I agree competely.

 

[outsider]

Why do you think Colin Powell left the Administration?

Because he knew it was a mistake and wouldn't say 'me too'. Oh, I don't forgive him for playing along. I think he took the loyal good soldier thing to far, but that is just my opinion. He is, at this juncture the only person I know of with enough stature and bi-partisan appeal to be accepted by a divided nation.

Agreed to this... I have personally made this mistake in my life... this is why I know what is up with the Administration. Just that their "jack moves" are on an even larger scale than those I've been involved with. Believe me, I did benefit... I don't think it was right... but it's all said, done and money spent... so there you have it...

 

[outsider]

Crime exists all over the world too, and it will never be quashed either. Would you suggest that we shouldn't fight crime?

there is more than one way to reduce crime you know... how about feeding people?

By the way, it would really help if you would clearly state the point you're trying to make. You certainly seem to be implying that the use force is futile, and that it shouldn't be used... but if you read what you wrote, you'll see never actually said anything along those lines.

you will only see what you choose to see.

He can't get out of the way of what isn't there.

?

For example, how do hybrid vehicles keep Iraq from collapsing into anarchy? Why do you think this is an "alternative" to using troops to defend the government? As far as I can tell, the two are entirely unrelated.

you don't even realize that there are resources being spent daily that are not "investments" into the future. you are so in a box... i really feel for you.

 

[Hurkyl]

Crime is best reduced by tackling the causes of crime such as poverty. Terrorism also is best fought by addressing the reasons behind the terrorism.

(1) You need police to protect against criminals while you're tackling the causes of crime.
(2) You need police to protect against the remaining criminals after you've tackled the causes of crime.

The point I am trying to make is that addressing the root causes of terrorism doesn't eliminate the need to confront it with force as well.

 

[Burnsys]

(1) You need police to protect against criminals while you're tackling the causes of crime.
(2) You need police to protect against the remaining criminals after you've tackled the causes of crime.

The point I am trying to make is that addressing the root causes of terrorism doesn't eliminate the need to confront it with force as well.

The problem here hurkyl is that those who control the police are the causes of crime!.

Your government is the cause of terrorism, if Us government didn't supported saddam and osama bin laden and the mujaidin, i am sure you shouldn have such a fierce resistence now in irak, if your government didn't overtrown the democraticaly elected government in iran, now it wouln't be a problem. if your government stop suporting and helping current dictator of ubekistan i am sure tomorrow you will not have to worry about terrorists from ubekistan...

 

[Hurkyl]

Your government is the cause of terrorism

This is a red herring: nothing you've said addresses the question of whether one needs the ability to confront terrorism with force, when necessary.

But, I'll respond to it anyways.

Are gun dealers the cause of shooting murders?

The U.S. government is not the cause of terrorism. You may (or may not) be able to make a compelling argument that the actions of (previous!) U.S. administrations has made the problem worse, but resorting to such gross hyperbole only weakens your argument.

 

[Art]

The point I am trying to make is that addressing the root causes of terrorism doesn't eliminate the need to confront it with force as well.

Which perhaps just proves that you are missing the point. If the root causes are addressed there will be little or no terrorism to confront.

 

[Hurkyl]

If the root causes are addressed there will be little or no terrorism to confront.

(1) If there is little terrorism to confront, it is still likely one would need to confront it when it does arise.

(2) This line of reasoning is about what to do in the long-term, and tells us nothing about what to do now to deal with the terrorism that is happening now.

 

[Skyhunter]

(1) If there is little terrorism to confront, it is still likely one would need to confront it when it does arise.

(2) This line of reasoning is about what to do in the long-term, and tells us nothing about what to do now to deal with the terrorism that is happening now.

Addressing terrorism at this juncture is secondary to addressing the the insurgency, although the two are connected. The insurgency is a more immediate problem.

The path Bush chose to fight terror was to follow the PNAC blueprint and establish a strong military presence in the middle east. I don't believe he plans to leave. Under these circumstances I don't think the insurgency will go away until we kill a few million Iraqis.

I don't agree with this solution, I believe we need to abandon this strategy. The strategy that Russ laid out is possibly workable, provided the Iraqi gov't can reach the threshold of being able to fight the insurgents.

As Patty pointed out, we may be able to achieve that sooner if we set a timetable, let the terrorists give it their best shot and deal with them all at once. If we can appease the Sunnis, who are the ones feeding the insurgency we can possibly render the foreign agitators impotent.

This strategy would be easier to implement if we had the rest of the world with us and helping.

The other problem is the guy that Bush had dismantle and privatise FEMA is the same crony who is working the deals in Iraq. And that is the other thing feeding the insurgency. Iraqi's have been watching the New Orleans disaster and gross incompetence in their country for 2 years!

 

[russ_watters]

You can't be serious. 'Stay the course' has no meaning when there is no charted course.

Are you claiming that there there has been a coherent strategy in Iraq?

*I* am claiming that Kerry's presidency would have had at least as much guidance as Bush's, wrt Iraq. Would you like me to find the letters from former military commanders that claim time and again that there was no viable exit strategy? How about the ones that claim that the reasons for *invading* were questionable? How about the ones from the pentagon showing global terrorism up 3 fold over last year, which was 2 fold over the year before? Or the ones that state clearly that majorly insufficient troops were thought sufficient, in March 2003?

Are you seriously saying that Bush has any clue as to what we're doing there? If so, please tell me what that reason, and "plan" is.

Pattylou, could you please reread that post of mine? You didn't respond to it, and from what you wrote, it looks like you completely missed what I said.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem is the Iraqis are not showing significant, consistent progress in becoming stable. So if we "stay the course" it will be a very long and costly path...to where? Assuming there would be a time when it is felt there is enough stability (trained military/police, etc.), the chances of civil war and anarchy still exist. It is a no-win situation. Worse, it saps U.S. resources and actually fuels terrorism in the meantime. In looking at the pros and cons, an exist plan is a no-brainer IMO, and as stated above, we should try for an international solution in conjunction with pulling troops out. Actually Kerry would be a good envoy for this (having grown up in Germany and speaking French, etc.).

Let's face it, Bush supporters don't want to admit the invasion to be a mistake, and sure as heck don't want to concede anything to other countries, and certainly not to leaders in our country who are not in their Republican circle. We will all go down in flames together because of the prideful stupidity.

Excellent example of what I'm talking about: nowhere in there is a course of action suggested, its all about blame and politicking. And maybe that's just it - do you guys just plain consider the situation untenable? Nothing we do will help, so we may as well just pull out?

Edit: Heck, even that would be politicking - it would be a Vietnam-style abandonment and a clear-cut admission of failure for people to point at. It seems like people want it just so they can point at it.

 

[russ_watters]

No, we wouldn't.

We'd be starting from having residual troops there, and recent history, and relationships with the police forces we're training, and on-the-job know-how of the armed forces that were stationed there, and bases that have been built, and a non-Saddam government in place...

How can you argue that we're making progress and should stay the course, and then turn around and argue that leaving would revert back to square one? Do you recognize the illogic here?

My mind boggles.

As far as "risk," it is acceptable since we could *GO BACK* if things turned worse. Roughly dozens of people are dying daily as it stands, and have been for over a year. I can't really imagine that things would get worse so quickly that we wouldn't be able to respond.

I don't understand why you don't understand. The conditions you describe us going back to would not exist if the country deteriorated into anarchy, which you seem to agree would probably happen if we left!

And about dropping back to square one - did you read and understand my "tipping point" explanation? Regardless, again, you said you agreed that the country would probably decend into anarchy if we left - which is precisely what going back to square one means!

For example, no, the partially trained police force would not remain if anarchy took over, it would dissolve. That's part of what anarchy means. And the corollary: if the police force did remain, they wouldn't be in anarchy, and we wouldn't go back! It doesn't get any more perfectly self-contradictory than to say a police force could function in an anarchy.

 

[Hurkyl]

The strategy that Russ laid out is possibly workable, provided the Iraqi gov't can reach the threshold of being able to fight the insurgents.

And is of what I currently favor too. I guess it always just seemed so obvious to me I never felt the need to articulate it.

As Patty pointed out, we may be able to achieve that sooner if we set a timetable, let the terrorists give it their best shot and deal with them all at once.

As I see it, setting a timetable is a "greedy" thing: doing so would net short-term gains, but risks huge long-term losses if the job takes longer than was allotted.

I don't particularly trust anyone's ability to set the timetable: these sorts of projections are so very frequently underestimated. (Though, I imagine that's partly due to pressure to show off how quickly the job can get done) As such, I view the long-term risk of setting a timetable as being almost certain.

Of course, while I expect in the long run that the long-term losses will outweigh the short-term gains, I guess I don't really have an argument as to why that should be the case.

 

[vanesch]

I have two questions for those advocating the stay (Hurkyl and Russ, not to name them).

1) Do you think that with your current presence you will be able to stop a civil war from develloping ? Or would you need massively more soldiers ?

2) And if your presence is needed to hold back a civil war, how long do you think you will need to do so ? 3 years ? 10 years ? 15 years ?

 

[loseyourname]

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

25 states, accounting for 56% of the electoral vote, have legislation requiring a paper trail. 13 more states have such legislation pending.

www.verifiedvoting.org

I've posted this in every single one of the 'election fraud' threads, oftentimes in response to you.

Edit: By the way, you don't have to respond to this, as it will be pulling the thread off-topic. I just want to remind you.

 

[Hurkyl]

I have two questions for those advocating the stay (Hurkyl and Russ, not to name them).

1) Do you think that with your current presence you will be able to stop a civil war from develloping ? Or would you need massively more soldiers ?

2) And if your presence is needed to hold back a civil war, how long do you think you will need to do so ? 3 years ? 10 years ? 15 years ?

I can honestly say that I don't know.

 

[Anttech]

So you or I may not agree with a member's ideas for solutions. Then suggest one yourself.

I was being sarcastic :-) I aggree with Art (I normally do), and even gave an example of what can be accomplised when greavences are talked through...

I also aggree with you, the method currently being used to fight Terrorism isn't working, so we do need to readdress how we are fighting it...

 

[Skyhunter]

As I see it, setting a timetable is a "greedy" thing: doing so would net short-term gains, but risks huge long-term losses if the job takes longer than was allotted.

I don't particularly trust anyone,s ability to set the timetable: these sorts of projections are so very frequently underestimated. (Though, I imagine that's partly due to pressure to show off how quickly the job can get done) As such, I view the long-term risk of setting a timetable as being almost certain.

Of course, while I expect in the long run that the long-term losses will outweigh the short-term gains, I guess I don't really have an argument as to why that should be the case.

I don't believe Bush has any intention of leaving and never did.

Goals can be set and a draw down could be implemented as the goals are met. He refuses to say when we will leave because he doesn't intend to.

He lied to start the war. He is being dishonest about leaving now.

Do you not see what is so obvious to many?

The Army is building permanent bases. The Twin towers were attacked because we have bases in Saudi Arabia. The US started this war as far as the terrorists are concerned. They use terror but so do we. Operation "Shock and Awe" was a terror campaign, just ask any of the innocent Iraqi civilians that witnessed it. Because the US is engaging in torture we can't even claim a moral high ground.

We are the same as our enemy so why should the Iraqi people believe we are going to somehow make life better for them?

They don't want us there. Tell them we are going to leave and then tell them when and how, and what must be done in order to make it possible. As it stands, they don't believe George Bush anymore than I do.

 

[pattylou]

25 states, accounting for 56% of the electoral vote, have legislation requiring a paper trail. 13 more states have such legislation pending.Edit: By the way, you don't have to respond to this, as it will be pulling the thread off-topic. I just want to remind you.

Yes, and this move appears to be in response to loudmouths who are demanding paper trails.

From your numbers, I take it we have 12 states with no such legislation. This is why I haven't acknowledged your comments on this before. 12 is too many.

I'll leave off the other vote problems for the moment, in the interest of not derailing the thread further. The move towards paper trails is good! I assume we only use paper ballots in some of those states, for recounts. Do you rememebr how much opposition was thrown up to recounting Florida, and Ohio?

 

[SOS2008]

Excellent example of what I'm talking about: nowhere in there is a course of action suggested, its all about blame and politicking. And maybe that's just it - do you guys just plain consider the situation untenable? Nothing we do will help, so we may as well just pull out?

Yes, we need to "cut our losses" not "stay the course" and this uncompromising attitude of the Bushies that you and other conservatives so admire, and all of you who will not admit to mistakes, and that you were wrong about invading Iraq (you won't because of your neocon dreams of imperialism under the auspices of spreading freedom and democracy, which I have debunked countless times) is resulting in the over-extension that is the fallacy of this philosophy, as well as global strife and anti-American sentiment. I have provided solutions, but good old mind set prevents you from seeing it:

...we should try for an international solution in conjunction with pulling troops out

If you could tell me why your "stay the course" with no guarantee of success plan is better than an exit plan such as this, with gradual draw down along with UN peace keeping and nation building measures, please do. I think we should get people together, like Wes Clark, etc. and begin addressing this problem realistically.

 

[outsider]

. We are the same as our enemy so why should the Iraqi people believe we are going to somehow make life better for them?

This signal has been transmitted for a few years now, and hipocracy will prevent some individuals from receiving this frequency.

I have provided solutions, but good old mind set prevents you from seeing it:

exactly.

They don't want us there. Tell them we are going to leave and then tell them when and how, and what must be done in order to make it possible. As it stands, they don't believe George Bush anymore than I do.

Yes, reasoning is a good way to re-establish some credibility to the world community. As long as it's Bush, any good solutions will be bastardized. His whole "gang" (in my opinion) does not have the decency and heart to do more than turn profits at any price. As Skyhunter asked before, why do you think C. Powell stepped down? I'm not trying to change this over to a bash Bush party again, but the people have got to realize that to effect great change and solve this problem, America needs a commander who has good intents rather than an inferiority complex.

I say again, this is not a bash Bush, but I recognize that his Administration will not be able to lead this country to the so-called promised land. The solutions that we can come up with are less than half the battle as my experience tells me that giving a good idea to a bad boss leads to bastardization of the idea.

So the plan or solution should involve getting the Prez out of office. Maintaining the battle is necessary, but as suggested before, this could be placed on a timeline. In doing this placing an understanding that (like in soccer) whoever is ahead by the end of 90mins is the winner and we can go home with pride. Otherwise, someone is always extending the match... this will become a fight to the finish instead of a lose-leave-town match (that was a wrestling reference for any fans out there).

The plan should also include a way of opening the lines of communication with all the "intended enemies" (this includes Korea, China, Russia too). To facilitate the opening of these communications, the UN should be consulted and the duality of gaining international support will be a biproduct of taking a reasonable stance. This will reduce some of the pressure from all sides as the world is all preparing for the day they will have to face America.

America as I see it right now is like an early Mike Tyson of sorts, willing to take on all comers with an inflaming cocky attitude. He was a fighter who only knew how to fight... other people did his thinking for him and all he did was throw punches... he did the best he could and gained a big fat head as a result. Now he is a laffing stock.

I can honestly say that I don't know.

at least you are honest about it and that is a step in the right direction.

 

[Skyhunter]

America as I see it right now is like an early Mike Tyson of sorts, willing to take on all comers with an inflaming cocky attitude. He was a fighter who only knew how to fight... other people did his thinking for him and all he did was throw punches... he did the best he could and gained a big fat head as a result. Now he is a laffing stock.

No ear biting please!

 

[Skyhunter]

The plan should also include a way of opening the lines of communication with all the "intended enemies" (this includes Korea, China, Russia too). To facilitate the opening of these communications, the UN should be consulted and the duality of gaining international support will be a biproduct of taking a reasonable stance. This will reduce some of the pressure from all sides as the world is all preparing for the day they will have to face America.

I am glad that you mentioned China and Russia and not Iran. I don't think Iran is a threat to us. A possible threat to Israel but not necessarily to us. The people of Iran are not their government. I know Persians who fought in the revolution to overthrow the Shah, and they were shocked by what happened once they won.

These people are not our enemies and they are the still the majority in Iran. Although many of them fought died in the Iran/Iraq war. We need to support the Iranian people and not make the same mistakes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am not talking about the invasions and occupations, those are the results of old failed policies.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As far as "risk," it is acceptable since we could *GO BACK* if things turned worse. Roughly dozens of people are dying daily as it stands, and have been for over a year. I can't really imagine that things would get worse so quickly that we wouldn't be able to respond.

Going back would be a problem. As has already been stated US intervention is what is fueling the problem. To go back after leaving would likely precipitate more problems.
And as already pointed out I seriously doubt the US will ever be leaving completely unless asked to (or told to more likely).
As far as a time table is concerned I believe the White House is reticent in announcing one officially because they probably believe that announcing one and having it turn out incorrect would have a worse impact politically than waiting until they feel they can be sure the time table will be correct. I'm sure there is one and it is probably fluctuating as events transpire. That and again, as Skyhunter pointed out, I don't see them figuring on ever actually leaving entirely. They may not want to advertise that.

 

[outsider]

I am glad that you mentioned China and Russia and not Iran. I don't think Iran is a threat to us. A possible threat to Israel but not necessarily to us. The people of Iran are not their government. I know Persians who fought in the revolution to overthrow the Shah, and they were shocked by what happened once they won.

These people are not our enemies and they are the still the majority in Iran. Although many of them fought died in the Iran/Iraq war. We need to support the Iranian people and not make the same mistakes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I am not talking about the invasions and occupations, those are the results of old failed policies.

actually, after speaking to some iranians... they do consider america a threat... this is due to the adhoc style of the current admin... thus my posts that said Bush is part of the problem that needs to be addressed regardless of how many great ideas that come out. the iranians reluctantly divulged this to me and didn't want to go into great detail (which is completely understandable as I'm not iranian) but they said that at this time anything can happen and it wouldn't surprise them.

 

[outsider]

Going back would be a problem. As has already been stated US intervention is what is fueling the problem. To go back after leaving would likely precipitate more problems.
And as already pointed out I seriously doubt the US will ever be leaving completely unless asked to (or told to more likely).
As far as a time table is concerned I believe the White House is reticent in announcing one officially because they probably believe that announcing one and having it turn out incorrect would have a worse impact politically than waiting until they feel they can be sure the time table will be correct. I'm sure there is one and it is probably fluctuating as events transpire. That and again, as Skyhunter pointed out, I don't see them figuring on ever actually leaving entirely. They may not want to advertise that.

Strange enough, I actually agree with your post. I believe that fighting does not have to take place, but a support system will have to remain for a period of time. When I say pull out, I really mean to stop fighting and try alternatives to resolve the matters that exist. Words and understanding mend differences. War creates deep seeded hate and psychological scars that last a lifetime. Ask any of the "comfort women" of WW2.

 

[Hurkyl]

The Army is building permanent bases. The Twin towers were attacked because we have bases in Saudi Arabia. The US started this war as far as the terrorists are concerned. They use terror but so do we. Operation "Shock and Awe" was a terror campaign, just ask any of the innocent Iraqi civilians that witnessed it. Because the US is engaging in torture we can't even claim a moral high ground.

We are the same as our enemy so why should the Iraqi people believe we are going to somehow make life better for them?

Progress in discussion would be much better if you would just make the points you're trying to make, rather than ludicrous comparisons like this. There's a big difference between "terrorizing" enemy troops and terrorizing civilian populations.

(Yes, the civilian population was not terrorized by "Shock and Awe" -- afterwards, they were out in the streets rejoicing and praising the coalition, not cowering in their homes in fear of the coalition)

They don't want us there.

Let's try this again: some don't want is there. You don't have nearly enough information to claim they don't want us there. (Well, I suppose that you could have that information, and just refraining from presenting it... but I don't have nearly enough information to make that a reasonable assumption. )

Yes, we need to "cut our losses" not "stay the course" and this uncompromising attitude of the Bushies that you and other conservatives so admire, and all of you who will not admit to mistakes, and that you were wrong about invading Iraq (you won't because of your neocon dreams of imperialism under the auspices of spreading freedom and democracy, which I have debunked countless times) is resulting in the over-extension that is the fallacy of this philosophy, as well as global strife and anti-American sentiment

Is it really so inconceivable to you that some of us simply don't want to abandon the Iraqi people, and wish to continue with a course of action with the potential of stabilizing the country?

If you were really so sure that there is no hope, then it is more likely you'll persuade us to your point of view by presenting a convincing argument that there is no hope than your current course of action of asserting that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced.

(Besides, isn't that approach entirely futile? If you were actually right that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced, then what is the point of trying to convince us?)

 

[Anttech]

Let's try this again: some don't want is there. You don't have nearly enough information to claim they don't want us there

Do you have proof that the iraqi's want you there?

Is it really so inconceivable to you that some of us simply don't want to abandon the Iraqi people, and wish to continue with a course of action with the potential of stabilizing the country?

Do you believe that this "course of action" is actually working good for the Iraqi's? Seems to me you do... The funny thing is that the majority of people on this Earth would dissagree with you... So being democratic, perhaps you should listen to the voice of the majority and push your government to have a rethink on its stratagy... Because I wouldn't hedge my bets on the current "course of action" "potentially stabilizing Iraq" All the news reports and information point to this NOT happening...

(Besides, isn't that approach entirely futile? If you were actually right that we're too arrogant, or whatever, to be convinced, then what is the point of trying to convince us?)

True, but are YOU (personal) too arrogant to see with all the news reports coming out of bagdad that Bushes/US army current course is NOT working!

 

[vanesch]

(Yes, the civilian population was not terrorized by "Shock and Awe" -- afterwards, they were out in the streets rejoicing and praising the coalition, not cowering in their homes in fear of the coalition)

I must have missed reporting of that grand festivity !