The Truth On Iraq: It's Devastated

[Mcluhan]

The Zen of Iraq

You have asked for the answer to the "Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t question". It’s a hard bite to swallow, but the answer in this situation is, swallow the bullet.

The US must leave Iraq. Now. Right now.

The situation: The Mujahideen increasingly more organised, more sophisticated, growing in number. Neither the Americans nor the Brits, nor any western force have the stomach to match the blood lust ferocity of jihadist warriors. It means a lot more civilians are going to die if the US pursues a military option like the Salvador solution now hotly debated. If not this outcome, there will be another similar, if left to military and Rumsfeld. Larger numbers of civilian deaths equals fanning the flames of Islamic extremism everywhere. Solution must be political, take a fall back position, leave and go home. As Ranger68 so many times said, let the chips fall where they may.

You may have to impeach Bush to get there. So be it.

Focus on China. The next superpower. Iraq is lost. Get on with it.

 

[Manji]

Your blind hatred for Americans gives it away. Like most Canadians on this board, you push Bush as a front to unload your childish anti american stands.

Nice try...but this dog doesn't hunt....

Hey!!!
I'm Canadian and I'm not Anti-American. I'm not a supporter of Bush or his policies but I do believe America needs to finish what it started in Iraq.

Was the war absolutly necessary? No...
Did Saddam deserve to be removed? Yes...
Do the Iraqi people deserve to suffer like they have suffered in the last two years? No... but hopefully Iraq will change for the better and in five or ten years, Iraqis will be looking back at this period as an era of tragedy and bloodshed that eventually led to a period of progress and prosperity.

 

[Mcluhan]

Good old doublespeak.

He had no WMD but he bought them from the US. At least make up your mind which arguement you're making.

Before and after sanctions. Next?

 

[Manji]

By the way guys, nitpicking over spelling is kind of childish and idiotic....

Not all of us have time to proof read our writings!!

 

[Mcluhan]

Manji...comical..we have posted two diametrically opposed arguments at roughy the same moment. I like your vision. But its not in this reality - unfortunately. You will need to jump a few strings to get there.

 

[Manji]

No my son, I do not *love* Saddam. He was a ruthless dictator. But that's all he was. He was no threat to world peace, nor to the future of the world economy. He was just another stongman, illiterate until the age of 16, rose up from poverty with a gun in his hand, to run a country. BTW...how much more *noble* was the Vietnam War as compared to Iraq Verses Iran? Perhaps you can educate me on this, as well..

On the Muppets, you'll have to ask Lange, he's the Muppet expert! lol

Well Dad....(or is it GrandDad....)

I wouldn't use the word "noble" for either the Vietnam war or for the Iran/Iraq confict.

The war in Vietnam was a war that the US entered because of its irrational fear and hatred of Communism.
The Iran/Iraq war was initiated by Saddam to simply grab more oil rich lands in Iran.

One was a war based on misguided fear and the other a war based on outright greed.

 

[Manji]

Manji...comical..we have posted two diametrically opposed arguments at roughy the same moment. I like your vision. But its not in this reality - unfortunately. You will need to jump a few strings to get there.

I guess we are going to have to wait and see what the future holds for Iraq....

I really hope for the sake of Iraq (and the United States and the world) that I'm right...

Your solution could lead to the destablization of the whole region. If left alone, the civil war in Iraq would make the Lebanese civil war look like a bitter arguement.

If the United States were to leave; how exactly do you think it will play out?
Don't you think many more will die if the United States leaves Iraq and the Iraqis will have to fend and fight for themselves?

With the US military in Iraq there will be deaths but without the US; there will be a lot more Iraqi deaths!!

 

[Mcluhan]

With the US military in Iraq there will be deaths but without the US; there will be a lot more Iraqi deaths!!

It will be Iraqi's killing Iraqi's. Let them sort it out. They will.

The deaths will be many less. Many.

They have a country to rebuild. It will pull them togther like glue. The threat is now from 'outside'...what you are seeing is 'nationalism'.. it will prevail. The lights and the water will come back on.

 

[Manji]

It will be Iraqi's killing Iraqi's. Let them sort it out. They will.

The deaths will be many less. Many.

They have a country to rebuild. It will pull them togther like glue. The threat is now from 'outside'...what you are seeing is 'nationalism'.. it will prevail. The lights and the water will come back on.

I think you're over-estimating the power of Iraqi nationalism...


Shiites and Sunnis ....
Arabs, Kurds and Turkoman....
Christian and Muslim...
Saddam loyalists and Pro-Democracy...
Secular and Religious and Religious Fundamentalists...
Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel...
And Oil!!!!!

That's just too many factors that will make Iraq a bigger and bloodier mess without the United States.
It will be every man, sect, tribe, etc... for himself and it may lead to the eventual dissolution of the nation of Iraq (but not before tens if not hundred of thousands of Iraqi lives are lost).

 

[langeweile]

Hey Slowand easy, welcome to the bash-fest, although you might want to duck under the table, while the glass smashes overhead into the walls on all four sides.

This thread now is mostly consisting of people strutting their stuff and insulting each other, so I'm surprised you even got to the journalistic elements. Information was the intention here. I did post a number of articles, and even introduced a blog authored by an excellent writer from Baghdad named River.. She chronicles life in Iraq seen through her eyes, on a day by day basis. It is a truely fascinating story. Yet, only one person bothered to comment (maybe two).

The journalists introduced here are: one American living there for six months, a Canadian ex-military kidnapped by the mujahideen on his 22nd trip to Iraq, and one Iraqi girl who lives there day to day. There is a story unfolding in Iraq that we only catch glimpses of over here. To really get to the truth of the matter, one needs to listen to what people like these have have to say. My grandfather used to say,'You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.' and it seems to apply here.

The thread conversation reminds me of when as kids we used to ride the bumper cars ar the fair. Everyone would run jump in a car, and drive around bashing hell out of each other. As for the truth on Iraq, it will all come out eventually, no matter how overshadowed by the various egos spinning out here and there. Much like we see with the government and the media, the thing this thread seems most interested in has little to do with the truth. So thanks for dropping by and pointing it out!

And remember to duck!

Interesting statement from somebody, that consistently belittles everybody else around here.
O great holder of the truth!!
Your arrogance and your believe that you hold the truth makes people attack you.
You ask people for their opinions only to disqualify them as wishy/washy, childish, stupid etc..
What kind of reactions to you expect in return?

What you claim to be your truth's are a quoting of second hand sources and blogs, some of them quiet dubious I might add.
So if you want people to have a civilized conversation with you, maybe you should stop threating them like children.

In my book you are as qualified (or not) than everybody else to make a statement here on this board. What makes you think, that you are above eveybody else?
What are your qualifications? What makes you believe that your answer is the only truth?
Truth is not always black and white.

 

[onthebottom]

DM,

I don't see how firing US politions is a solution in Iraq - a bit transparent on this one.

And yes, my spelling on my blackberry sucks - you looking for an admin job?

Bbking,

The cut and run is the only suggestion I've seen from the Bush bashers. I don't see how that would help the Iraqi people and slow down the Summi on Shiite violance. I think most Americans would love to cut and run, but I think many don't think it's the right thing to do. Even the Dems were supporting staying.

OTB

 

[slowandeasy]

What makes you qualified to say he was?

Hey DM,

I did not say that he was or was not... I do not really know.

Q. Do I feel that the world is a safer place now that Saddam is no
longer the dictator of Iraq???
A. At first thought yes.... now definitely NOT.
Q. Is that a problem...
A. YES....
Q. Did GWB and the US create this problem by the invasion??
A. YES, but only partially. Why would you blame the US and GWB
for the actions of fanatics and terrorists who blow up their
own people?
Q. What is the US mission in Iraq now?
A. Set up democracy (and have a large influence over the
country's Oil reserves and natural assets) and supposedly
allow the Iraqi people to rule themselves.
Q. Does everyone believe that the US really wants democracy?
A. NO.... but that's their problem...but why do they support the
terrorists that are trying to undermine this attempt at
democracy?
Q. Are there large US corporations who have a vested interest in
this war?
A. Hell YA....so what's the problem. There are large corporations
that have a vested interest in Canada's elections and political
situation. And we still seem to be doing alright.

On a regular basis, the anti-invasion party (on terb) bash the US because they did not find WMD's. But then some very vocal and supposedly knowledgeable Anti-Invasion Party (lets call them the AIP) say that the US sold Saddam the equipment and knowledge to make WMD or the WMD's themselves. So you can't have it both ways....

If he had them, then the US had the legal right to invade... (read LEGAL not moral) and then I am safer.

I am completely at a loss to explain how they did not find WMD's. Going in I would have bet anyone $1,000,000 that they would have found WMD's??????

Why was I so sure you ask??? Like many conspiracy theorists, I thought that they would have found evidence of WMD's. Whether the evidence was planted or not is another story.

That was at the point that I did not understand what happened??

All the US had to do was plant the evidence??? Why did they not do this? This is most perplexing to me.... Planting the evidence would have solved alot of problems surrounding this war? Now I realize that planting this type of evidence would be extremely difficult, but if there is anyone who could have done this, it would be our neighbors

So where does this leave us?? WITH A REAL BIG PROBLEM!!!!

What's the solution???? While I do not like it, the only answer is to make the best of a bad situation and try to complete the mission and set up democracy.


to be continued...

 

[slowandeasy]

continued

Unfortunately, the Statler and Waldorfs continue to armchair QB the war...

Earlier, I had asked some questions and have not received a reply

Does anyone have a solution to the middle east (that does not include NUKE EM, or will not take 10 generations to solve?)?

How many of you in the Anti Invasion Party drive cars?
Use products related to crude oil???
Have you stopped using your cars and any products manufactured by crude oil?
Have you purchased an electric vehicle?
Have you bought a horse to commute to work with?

If not then...... never mind....

FACT: THE WESTERN ECONOMY AND LIFESTYLE IS BUILT UPON
AND HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON CRUDE OIL!!

DOES ANYONE DISAGREE?????

FACT: The recent power outage in TO showed us just how
vulnerable we are..

FACT: OK...maybe not fact... but I do not know if we (Canada)
would survive a winter without oil...

Someone help me draw a conclusion here.... there's another thought in here, but I have to run...

 

[strange1]

Re: continued

...

FACT: The recent power outage in TO showed us just how vulnerable we are..
...

Though I agree with your first few points to some extent, this one's a red herring. The vast majority of ontairio's electrical power generation is not from oil fired plants. (Off the top of my head, I believe less than 20%)


As for solutions:

- To make Iraq into a western, liberal democracy; fat chance.

- To make Iraq a reasonably safe place to live; takes time and significant $$ invested. They need a chance to develop a basis for their own system. To reach a democratic system, probably they need to go through a generation of control by criminal (or individually motivated individuals) before individual rights get valued enough for some type of democracy to function. Under a religous system, posssibly far longer until the religous leaders fell they have a comfortable enough base of power to allow freedoms.

 

[Drunken Master]

DM,

I don't see how firing US politions is a solution in Iraq - a bit transparent on this one.

And yes, my spelling on my blackberry sucks - you looking for an admin job?

Ah, I suspected the blackberry was the culprit. Not that I was going to let it slide.

I'm not suggesting firing politicians - there was an election, and that's that. Just the militaro-crats like Rumsfeld who were responsible for pushing the US into the war.

Put it this way - not only are most of the people responsible for the botched occupation still running the show, but those who have left have been rewarded! Paul Bremmer gets a medal! What kind of message does this send to the people running Iraq now?

Let's say I did take that admin job. Does this scenario make any sense?

DM: Hey OTB, remember that shipment that had to be in Sacremento by Tuesday or else the company was going to lose 2 million dollars in penalties?

OTB: Yes......

DM: Well, I sent it to Pakistan instead. Apparently Osama has it now.

OTB: Oh. I see.

DM: Yeah.

OTB: I'm very disappointed in you.

DM: I know.

OTB: Here's a raise and a promotion.

DM: Great! I'll get right on that shipment that needs to go to Portland by tommorrow - just let me have a few drinks first....

 

[Mcluhan]

The cut and run is the only suggestion I've seen from the Bush bashers. I don't see how that would help the Iraqi people and slow down the Summi on Shiite violance. I think most Americans would love to cut and run, but I think many don't think it's the right thing to do. Even the Dems were supporting staying.

OTB

I see more than one solution posted here from the anti-bush league. (and so would you, if you looked). Let’s separate the two ideas shall we, anti-bush and pro-stick-it-out verses cut-loss-run.

I’m a bush-basher, no doubt about it. Before engaging here, I was pro stick-it-out. Why? One main reason, I felt the country left unto itself, would escalate the level of global terrorism (my main concern). I spent the last 36 hours thinking over my position. I read a bunch, looking for info on the real situation in Iraq, not just the vanilla version that Canadian Press and CNN push. Finally, I came to the undesirable conclusion (and please believe me, I tried to push my point of view hard into stick-with-it camp) that the military solution is the only solution in Iraq, if the US is to stay the course. There is no political solution. This will lead to more genocide, (yes, same will occur if they pull out). The difference is that in the military solution, the US will have a hand in the genocide. This consequence will be like pouring naptha gas on the Islam extremist movement everywhere. I finally concluded this is the bigger of the two problems we all face.

If we compare the two outcomes in terms of US interests (staying the course verses cut and run), the escalation of islamic extremism world wide is a larger negative, than having Iraq fall into the chaos of self-rule. The cut and run solution is the more detrimental of the two for US corporate interests, because by staying the course, there is the ongoing business of war, and the billions that flow due to the business. However the counter point, is that US security weakens on a broader scale, along with those of France, UK, Asia etc (Pakistan for one) , in the equation, due to the large boost of cannon fodder to international terrorism and its recruitment etc etc. resulting from the US hand in genocide in the M.E. region.

This is simply ‘a point of view’. Like all points of view, it can be changed. I am open to any light that can be shed. But for now I have to side with this point of view, because that’s the outcome I see for the future, based on current reality. Bush has come and Bush will go. Islamic extremism will be here for decades. What the US does in Iraq now (in the next year), will largely determine/affect the course of that destiny.

 

[Mcluhan]

On Bush bashing and the Canadian view. There is a completely different mind set in Canadian Politics (includes UK and France) verses the American mind set. Here we call our politicians liars quite openly when they lie. It is the ‘Canadian thing to do’, in fact we expect out politicians to lie, and they rarely let us down. So we land on them mercilessly. However, in the US, when a politician lies, it is unpatriotic to outwardly call a politician a liar, and you are unpatriotic if you do. The Americans dance around the lies, trying to find some failure somewhere to pin it on. So when Canadians bash the US political leadership, it is not ‘un-American' on this side of the boarder, it simply Canadians doing what they do - bashing a lying politician. And we probably do it well. (hopefully)

On the US in Iraq. The only people anywhere that want Americans in Iraq, are Americans (and the Israelis, an American territory). The Iraqis don’t want them there, The rest of the M.E. doesn’t want them there, and the other countries of the world (includes Ukraine) don’t want them there. They are alone in wanting to be there.

The US and those Americans that got behind the invasion, made a mistake when they invaded Iraq. It’s that simple. Now they have to admit to the mistake, and pull out. Somehow, they have to find a way to say, “It wasn’t really sex.�..or ‘I didn’t inhale’… or “We didn’t really kill 110,000 Iraqis�….and get the fark out. The sooner the better.

 

[Mcluhan]

Amid Talk of Withdrawal, Pentagon Is Taking Steps For Longer Stay in Iraq
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 14, 2005

WASHINGTON - As the Bush administration drops hints about withdrawing troops from Iraq as early as this year, the Pentagon is building a permanent military communications system that suggests American soldiers will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

The new network, known as Central Iraq Microwave System, will eventually consist of up to 12 communications towers throughout Iraq and fiber-optic cables connecting Camp Victory, located outside of Baghdad, to other coalition bases in the country, according to three sources familiar with the project. The land-based system will replace the tactical communications network the Army and Marines have been using in Iraq. That network relied primarily on satellites and is much easier to dismantle. The contract for the new communications system covering central Iraq, won by Galaxy Scientific Corporation, is worth about $10 million.

http://www.nysun.com/article/7680

 

[slowandeasy]

Brief moments of Clarity?

Were you not paying attention when I provided said solution? Fire those responsible for screwing up in the first place. Was this too complicated? Or, true to form, are you simply going to put your head in the sand whenever somebody provides an answer to one of your silly little challenges?

I'm not sure I can find the place where I contradict myseld (your spelling is really going to pot), but I do want to make sure you understand the problem: we can do nothing but expect the momentary joy over their liberation to be slowly bleeding away, and a nostaligia for the old stability - however oppressive - to be just as progressively infecting the Iraqi people.

As I'm sure you realise, this is not a question of saying "Iraq would be better off with Sadaam" - a tacit way of putting forward the tired old pathetic "an opponent of Bush is a friend of Sadaam" defense - but simply of noting how badly off Iraq is today. Iraqis are now dying a rate that is 2.5 times higher than during the last year of Sadaam's regiem - a testament not to the gentleness of that regiem, but to the massive neglect of the occupiers.

DM you must really be drunk when you post, as you seem to have brief moments of amazing clarity then you lapse..

First your solution was impractical and would wreak further havoc.

I don't know what the figures are, but I do believe that Iraqi's are dying at a rate of 2.5X higher.

But then you draw the conclusion that this is a direct result of the Occupiers neglect. That is not necessarily the case. It's a combination of a number of things.

Gotta run again..

 

[xarir]

The US and those Americans that got behind the invasion, made a mistake when they invaded Iraq. It’s that simple. Now they have to admit to the mistake, and pull out. Somehow, they have to find a way to say, “It wasn’t really sex.�..or ‘I didn’t inhale’… or “We didn’t really kill 110,000 Iraqis�….and get the fark out. The sooner the better.

It's interesting to see the historical parallels here. In the early 1940s, the US sent military "advisors" in the form of elite military teams to Vietnam. Why? To help train the Vietnamese in their fight against the Japanese. The guy in charge of things in Vietnam? Ho Chi Minh who went on to lead the Viet Minh which later evolved into the Viet Cong.

A few decades later, the US sent in military advisors and other covert assistance to a ragtag group of folks in Afghanistan to help them combat the evil Soviet Union.

A decade later, the US sent in military assistance to a guy name Saddam Hussein to help him fight the evil regime of Iran.

I would like to think, naively perhaps, that the intentions of the US were relatively good at heart. I don't thing they were trying to destabilize the world and make it a Bad Place, but they were thinking a little short-term and being self serving in that they did what was perceived to be the right thing only for US national interests. Nonetheless, one has to wonder if a time may come when the US politicians realize that non-interference is a viable alternative.

That's not to say that one stands by idly while two groups try to beat the living crap out of each other. Rwanda and now Darfur are precise examples where interference in the form of protecting innocents should be used judiciously. But not imposing "Western values" in regions that don't inherently subscribe to them is something that US foreign policy must learn. Otherwise the US, the areas they try to "help" and by extension the world will forever be paying the price of human tragedy and of lost opportunities for peaceful co-existence.