Iraq battling more than 200,000 insurgents: intel chief

[onthebottom]

Well, as Powell said, 'You break it, you own it'

Although I do not agree with the invasion, I think we have to get over that phase of the angst and deal with the fact that the US is there. Now what? Obviously they cannot turn tail and run. Obviously they have to rebuild Iraq. It is quagmire... The war debt will hit 1 trillion before this is over IMHO (maybe only 800 billion, but whatever, it a large sum). There is no one answer I think.

Consider if democracy was actually spread through out the M.E., it would topple most of the OPEC current regimes...can we over here afford that? I don't think so... can we afford oil at 120/b...'cause it could easily go there, if the M.E. applecart was upset a la Shaw of Iran style.

Like it or lump it, the US is in trouble, and it affects the world economy. I would rather be sitting sqabbling over what to do in Iraq, that looking down at a handful of Yuan in my pocket book.

First PP is dead on, although I don't know about your fiscal forecast - could be right I just don't know.

Second PP I disagree, I think, regardless of political system, all those countries can do is pump oil, what other economic card do they have to play? Oil prices are more likely affected by Chinese expansion than by a change in governmental system in the ME.

You don't want Yuan, it can only go down with the dollar and then when/if it floats it will crash. A loose loose. Buy pounds (very strong economy), avoid Yen (Japan will not let it rise) or Euro (weak economy and you'd be buying high).

OTB

 

[Ranger68]

Two questions:
What makes you say the Iranians could exercise so much power over the Iraqis? What's going to prevent that from happening when the Americans eventually *do* leave?

Of course, this may just be one of the unintended consequences of the American invasion - something their ridiculously short-sighted venture hands back to them.

 

[onthebottom]

If they leave, the country will fall under the control if Iran, within a short time. Would you like to see that ranger68...I can't somehow believe you would. I wouldn't.

Ranger (or PAT) would roll on the floor in joy if the US is defeated in Iraq, it won't happen but that's what he desperately wants.

The liberals in the 1980s made all sorts of silly claims that Reagan was going to take us into WWIII bla bla bla - it was their worst nightmare that he basically won the cold war - they now have to fly out of an airport named after him in DC because of it. Those same liberals are worried that if things go well in Iraq over the next 4 years and the Palestinian / Israel deal gets done that Bush will get the historical credit for peace in the Middle East. The downside is that Dulles would then have to be renamed W.

Anyone who thinks Bush will cut and run has no clue at what makes the man tick – there is more a chance of Canada fielding a robust military – and we know that will never happen.

OTB

 

[Mcluhan]

First PP is dead on, although I don't know about your fiscal forecast - could be right I just don't know.

Second PP I disagree, I think, regardless of political system, all those countries can do is pump oil, what other economic card do they have to play? Oil prices are more likely affected by Chinese expansion than by a change in governmental system in the ME.

You don't want Yuan, it can only go down with the dollar and then when/if it floats it will crash. A loose loose. Buy pounds (very strong economy), avoid Yen (Japan will not let it rise) or Euro (weak economy and you'd be buying high).

OTB

You could be right about the price of oil being a non-issue...it will however be political leverage, and I for one, would not want riyadh under contol of religious extremists...lol..however, ironically it might actually be safer that way. Then no one is left to attack it.

I agree on the sterling...but sterling in my mind, is just another version of the USD.. personally, I think Euros are more solid. 500 million trading block...very solid. They will eventually work out their problems with the bureaucracy of trade with the eastern Europe Countries

 

[Ranger68]

Ranger (or PAT) would roll on the floor in joy if the US is defeated in Iraq, it won't happen but that's what he desperately wants.

The liberals in the 1980s made all sorts of silly claims that Reagan was going to take us into WWIII bla bla bla - it was their worst nightmare that he basically won the cold war - they now have to fly out of an airport named after him in DC because of it. Those same liberals are worried that if things go well in Iraq over the next 4 years and the Palestinian / Israel deal gets done that Bush will get the historical credit for peace in the Middle East. The downside is that Dulles would then have to be renamed W.

Anyone who thinks Bush will cut and run has no clue at what makes the man tick – there is more a chance of Canada fielding a robust military – and we know that will never happen.

OTB

Bottomboy, it's a historical certainty that this American invasion will fail. Reread that carefully - HISTORICAL CERTAINTY.

Moving on.

It's people like ME who clearly hope for peace in the Middle East - which is NOT going to be achieved by invading sovereign nations because you don't like who's in charge. Where does that naivete and hubris come from?

Keep building those straw men - as if everyone who opposes the Iraqi invasion is opposed to peace, or thought this about Reagan. LOL I guess you need SOMETHING to defend your position with.

Too much.

Dude, I think it's about time YOU went on Ignore now, too - you have NOTHING intelligent to contribute and I'm sure you'll get along well with bbk, n_v and Pansey.

Enjoy.

I'll leave it to others who make more sense and can construct (and understand) cogent arguments to take up your cause.

Buhbye.

 

[onthebottom]

......

I agree on the sterling...but sterling in my mind, is just another version of the USD.. personally, I think Euros are more solid. 500 million trading block...very solid. They will eventually work out their problems with the bureaucracy of trade with the eastern Europe Countries

The UK has a strong economy, good growth, good finances, the most market based labor policies of the large EU countries - these are sustainable advantages. The EURO area can only grow by allowing in less developed countries that are in a less mature growth phase - the large countries (France, Germany) just can't seem to grow and have substantial structural problems. The WSJ reported today that the EU spends 1.3B on translating documents a year..... Go with the pub-crawlers - they have a strong track record.

OTB

 

[Mcluhan]

Go with the pub-crawlers - they have a strong track record.

OTB

lol... maybe your experience at doing business with the brits is better than mine...the are even worse than Canadians as far as im concerned lol

But yes, they do seem to have a grip on it. I think there vast wealth in the off-shore is keeping them afloat... 30% of this wealth in Sterling...the remnants of 300 years of empire.

 

[Drunken Master]

Bottomboy, it's a historical certainty that this American invasion will fail. Reread that carefully - HISTORICAL CERTAINTY.

Oh, geeze. I thought the "historical certainty" crap went out with Spengler.

As much as I think the Iraq invasion looks more ill-conceived every day, unless there's a halo around your head you have no more insight into what is "historically certain" than a pet rock - none of us do.

 

[onthebottom]

lol... maybe your experience at doing business with the brits is better than mine...the are even worse than Canadians as far as im concerned lol

But yes, they do seem to have a grip on it. I think there vast wealth in the off-shore is keeping them afloat... 30% of this wealth in Sterling...the remnants of 300 years of empire.

You'll notice I didn't tell you to hold Canadian Dollars. Hey, if you can't hold USD(and you may not want to for the next couple of years) Sterling is the next best thing - every other option is MUCH weaker.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Oh, geeze. I thought the "historical certainty" crap went out with Spengler.

As much as I think the Iraq invasion looks more ill-conceived every day, unless there's a halo around your head you have no more insight into what is "historically certain" than a pet rock - none of us do.

Yeah, it won't be long before everyone over the age of 30 is on Ignore from Ranger.... he's just a silly kid.

OTB

 

[Ranger68]

Oh, geeze. I thought the "historical certainty" crap went out with Spengler.

As much as I think the Iraq invasion looks more ill-conceived every day, unless there's a halo around your head you have no more insight into what is "historically certain" than a pet rock - none of us do.

No action of this type has ever been successful. None. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Where does the hubris and naivete come from that would make anyone believe this has ANY chance to succeed?
It's ridiculous.
I stand by my statement that history speaks CATEGORICALLY AGAINST this action.

 

[assoholic]

...the US does not have a hope in hell as any one with just a little bit of knowledge and commen sense could have predicted. As some of us did before they even went into Iraq. The only asshats are the dummies who were predicting the Iraquis would welcome the Americans with open arms.
You know who you are.
Unfortunately I personally believe the Americans knew this all along. They know they cannot control the Middle East for much longer. They have basically been running it for 50 years, now their plan is to leave behind a nice big mess for Russia, China exct to deal with.
Yes I could be wrong of course, but not about whether ir not in the end the Americans will have to get the hell out of there. That was a no brainer from the start.

 

[Drunken Master]

No action of this type has ever been successful. None. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Where does the hubris and naivete come from that would make anyone believe this has ANY chance to succeed?
It's ridiculous.
I stand by my statement that history speaks CATEGORICALLY AGAINST this action.

Crossing the Alps was impossible until Hannibal did it. How many Romans were standing around at the time saying that since the Italian Peninsula had never been successfully invaded from the north it couldn't possibly happen?

I'm not sure what "type" of action you think this is. If it is a plain old occupation, then I'll agree they tend to fail - over time. Perhaps, say, the Chinese will find themselves leaving Tibet one day, but that hardly indicates we can form some kind of "historical law" which is true for all cases in all places.

Each historical situation is, to a degree, sui generis.

 

[Mcluhan]

bbk thanks for the history lesson (seriously). This forum is remarkable, who would think that we pooners have more than one dimension to our lives! lol

I do not agree with you ranger68, that the US should pull out at this time. But I have to say, maybe I'm wrong too. The way I see it, (and I have been to the middle east, not that it makes me any more enlightened than the guy sitting next me who hasn't), the country is a sitting duck for a civil war that Iran would simply in the end, control.

I think the Iraqis have the potential to be a great nation ...I think that to some extent they were a serious contender for Arab nationalism under Saddam, but he simply over played the cards. Lets not forget that Saddam built Iraq into a show case Arab state. It had the top educational, medical, and transportation infrastructure in the middle east..all because of saddam. Sure he was dictator…just like all the other regimes in the Arab states..well, most of them anyway. When they have a construction labour revolt in Bahrain, the ten malcontents leading the charge, end up dead and disappear. Its just the way the country runs.

I was in the gulf just before 1990's Operation Desert Storm, and doing business there with the powers that be. I am firmly convinced that the US sucked Saddam into Kuwait (ranger68 you will no doubt love that notion) just so they could clobber him.

They wanted to test out the new generation of smart weapons among other things. Saddam would NEVER repeat NEVER have entered Kuwait, unless he thought that the US administration would have sat back and watched. The CIA baited him. He took the bait. And Bush senior clobbered him. The US got their bases in saudi, and the you know the rest of the story.

The question is what now?? And it is the question. I for one do not believe the US can win against this element. They do not have the staying power or the guts to stick it out. They do not have the troops to make that country secure, nor will they ever.

The regimes like Saudi do not truthfully want to see democracy take hold and so they are going to keep funneling money into the hands of the resistance. Where do you think this money is coming from? And there is no end to it. It is not in Saudi's interest to see a democracy work.

I feel very sorry for the Iraqi people, because they are truly between a rock and a hard place. If there are 40,000 hard core resistance fighters there now, in 6 months there will be 60,000 and so on. They will keep coming…it is a jihad. And wait! Round two on US soil has not occurred yet…that is coming any day now. One day soon, you will wake up in the morning, and CNN will be on the site of a smoking train wreck in kansas, or New York or some such place, or much worse than a train wreck, and it will have mujahdeen behind it. And for sure it will be no less horrible than Spain was. Its not a question of if, but a question of when. And so it will worsen.. both side working up more hostility to the other.

But the bloody fact is, the US cannot pull out. And this idea as we know is totally irrelevant anyway, because as OTB says, Bush will never pull out…he will stay to the bitter end. If you want my best guess it will be Hilory Clinton that pulls the plug on this war, if anybody. But by then, the US could very well be in Syria in four years. This war is going to go on for a very long time, and eventually could involve the Russians. We are only seeing the beginning of a very very long protracted war…which eventually could lead to an energy crisis and then a global depression. This war is not a trivial thing by any stretch. I for one would not want to be in GWB shoes.

The US foreign policy has wanted this move for 20 years. Now they are there. As OTB's tag line warns, They Got What They Wished For. But the question is, where will it lead? Because it ain’t going to wind itself backwards. And there is no victory that I can see, going forward.

 

[Ranger68]

Crossing the Alps was impossible until Hannibal did it. How many Romans were standing around at the time saying that since the Italian Peninsula had never been successfully invaded from the north it couldn't possibly happen?

I'm not sure what "type" of action you think this is. If it is a plain old occupation, then I'll agree they tend to fail - over time. Perhaps, say, the Chinese will find themselves leaving Tibet one day, but that hardly indicates we can form some kind of "historical law" which is true for all cases in all places.

Each historical situation is, to a degree, sui generis.

Why was it impossible to cross the Alps? Had anyone ever tried it?

This type of action is one where a nation invades another and occupies to impose regime change. Yes, they ALL fail, over time, where they're aggressively resisted - *unlike* Tibet.

I otherwise agree with your last sentence.

 

[Ranger68]

Gee Ranger, you really need to read more history. The Boxer Rebellion comes to mind. After China's defeat by Japan in 1895, the Western powers decided to carve up the China melon. This resulted in a rebellion that was brutally put down by the European powers and resulted in the Boxer Protocols which allowed the Europeans to station their military in the capital and thus putting the Imperial Government under house arrest. Other things the Protocols did was to suspend the civil service examination, they demanded a huge indemnity to be paid to the European powers for allege losses and required that Government officials be prosecuted for their role in the rebellion. Doesn't sound like this is an insurgency that worked out well.

See we didn't even have to go 100 years to find an example of how wrong your statement about history is. In fact Ranger you will find plenty of examples through out history of these small rebellions being crushed by a superior military. Grant it there examples where a rebellion is successful but it is hardly certain as you seem to think it is.

On a positive note - well somewhat, China's upperclass came to understand from the loss to Japan and the resulting humiliation of the Boxer Protocols, that China needed to rid itself of it's Royal family and for a time China went down the road of a democracy of sorts until the change was hi-jacked by Mao and his Commie Party. Anyways China was never the same after the failed Boxer Revolt.



bbk

Lots of examples? Name some.

I'm not talking about "rebellions" - where one power is already in control of another. I'm talking about "foreign invasions" which are resisted by large-scale guerilla and terrorist tactics.
Clear now?

 

[onthebottom]

Lots of examples? Name some.

I'm not talking about "rebellions" - where one power is already in control of another. I'm talking about "foreign invasions" which are resisted by large-scale guerilla and terrorist tactics.
Clear now?

Ah, Afghanistan leaps to mind, a bit early to declare victory yet but I'd say things are pointed in the right direction. Japan also worked out pretty well.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Lots of examples? Name some.

I'm not talking about "rebellions" - where one power is already in control of another. I'm talking about "foreign invasions" which are resisted by large-scale guerilla and terrorist tactics.
Clear now?

bbk,

I though you were on ignore?

OTB

 

[Magister]

Lots of examples? Name some.

I'm not talking about "rebellions" - where one power is already in control of another. I'm talking about "foreign invasions" which are resisted by large-scale guerilla and terrorist tactics.
Clear now?

How about the Second Boer War?

The British defeated the guerillas ultimately by burning crops and farms and placing the farmers and their families (including women, children, and the elderly) into concentration camps where many of them died. This broke the spirit of the resistance.

I doubt that adopting similar tactics in Iraq would help win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and the rest of the world though…

 

[assoholic]

.. a year ago the Americans said the Insurgents numbered 5,000, now its up to 200,000. I'll say it again, any one who actually believes that this will end in anything but the Americans having to turn tail and run live in la la land, and I'm not talking about the City of Angels.