The Truth On Iraq: It's Devastated

[slowpoke]

The US is NOT interested in nation-building - which is what you would propose they do to increase Iraqi goodwill.
Sure, you can guage success - when attacks slacken, that's success. If they don't slacken, that's not success. Simple.
What do you think the population of Fallujah thinks of the American invasion?

This article was published in APRIL/04, over 8 months ago. Even then, Iraqi support was weak:

"...In Iraq, quite apart from Fallujah and Najaf, the U.S. occupation, according to the latest Gallup polls, has turned most of the population against America. In Baghdad, only 13 percent now believe the invasion and regime change it accomplished was morally justifiable. Only one-third of Iraqis believe the occupation is doing more good than harm, and a majority favor an immediate U.S. troop withdrawal while conceding this could put them in greater danger...."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040429-113745-2828r

 

[Cobra1]

Re: Re: A book worth reviewing

Not knowing much about Syria myself, how would you respond to Manji's statement:

And do you think that the US would benefit from widening the conflict into Syria? Or maybe the question is, what are the pros and cons...are there any benefits whatsoever..

The carrot is definately the way to go. Recognoze that Asad still walks a tightroap, he may be the dictator, but with Syrias history that could be over in a second. There are powerful people in Syria that are not visible - and despite being dictator, he is always accomodating vsarious interests.

Syrian history is intersting if only that it has been on the short end of the stick, and misfortunes often of its own making. Asad Sr was quite a principaled leader - who moved the Arab repbulic a long way. Women and minority rights is something he pushed - there is actually a womens military academy. Christians are safe there, and he strove to keep the state secular from religion. He did great battles in keeping the Muslem Brotherhood, the true combatants to the WEst at bay - and we in the west owe him big time for that.

Asad was alwasy the ME leader with the most integrity. He was stright forward, true to his word, not like his arab counterparts that constantly backstab each other and make secret deals. He later learned how to use guerilla tactics in dealing with military superiority with the US and ISreal - through fate he was linked up with the Russians - but only after being rejected by the West/US.

Syria could easily be in the WEsts camp. Isreal needs to give back the Golan, expand trade, and everyone wins. With little arable land, and arab pride/honour that is usually their downfall, return of the Golan is necessary. Isreal had pushed Syria in this area time and again before 1967, and then launched a suprise attack. Teh Isrealis generals had long identifies this spot as a region of possible expansion and chose to agitate heavilyt along here. The conflicts with ISreal over LEbanon are an endless chain of lies, deciet and underhandedness by Isreal and some forces inside the US who also kept the agenda from Reagan and Weinburger. Ironicly Sharon was part of the problem who with Begin, had a clear objective to expand ISreal. Asad kept making deals with Shultz, Habib and others only to be double crossed, in which the US envoys themselves were often lied to.

Asad clearly wants peace and is willing to negotiate - the US keeps staffing its ME policy group with people of allied or actualy jewish background - which affecrts the US position toward Isreal. From Kissinger on down, this group has not been persuing policy for the benefit of the US necessarily. Even WASPs like Haig, hoping for jewsih support for a possible presidential run gave Begin and Sharon cover for their attacks.

Isreal doesnt want to give back the land for obvious reasons. The US also needs a bogey man to pick on and use for propaganda - Syria is good for that. If the US picked policy makers that were not biased to Isreal and understood the history, they would require the Golan to be returned, and trade to be increased. Syria would gladly be an ally, in which you would then have Turkey, Syria and Isreal and Lebnon alongside Iraq and Saudi. Things could change for the better - but for those that trumpet ISreal, peace means reduced military and other aid - and why would you want that?

 

[red]

if only they had tried the carrot approach with hitler

 

[Mcluhan]

Fallujah may prove to be the turning point for the US military. It may have cost the United States political points but tactically it was a step in the right direction. – manji

There are others more qualified than I, who disagree strongly with that statement Manji. I’d like to hear Rangers point of view on Falluja. But glad you brought it up, because this thread is about the destruction of Iraq.

There are some who argue that destroying Fallujah spread out the resistance. Destruction of this city, (two thirds buildings destroyed) on the political balance sheet of plus/minus points, is probably a minus. How effective it was in neutralising the resistance, is highly doubtful. The 1200 insurgents that were killed seemed mostly to stay behind, and die for the fanatical cause of killing Americans. (50 dead, 300 severely wounded)

Mcluhan has stated numbers of enemy insurgents at 40, 000; but really, what do those numbers mean (even if they are correct)? - manji

Actually, these numbers do not belong to me, they are the latest published info…200,000 “supporters� etc. My comment was that I think the number is low. I suspect the support for the resistance is a lot higher than ‘published’ intel reports. 2 million would not surprise me. Especially given the state of Iraq’s infrastructure and the nightmarish effect its obviously having on the population. How do I arrive at this number 2 million you ask? Well, 20% of Iraq’s 25 million population is Sunni, and these 5 million people mostly live in the Sunni Triangle which is actually a rectangle. It seems logical (to me) that because the resistance seems so entrenched, and is in fact dominating the area, that at least 40% of the native population would be supporting it. It is just an uneducated guess.

The insurgents no longer have a clear safe haven point (remember, the Vietnamese Communists had North Vietnam). That means they no longer have a command and control centre, a place to rearm and reorganize, train new recruits or even a place to safely hide without fear of Americans capturing or killing them.
-Manji

I disagree manji. As yychobbyist says “ its likely that they are organized into small cells, it will be next to impossible for the U.S. to eliminate large numbers of them.�

If you read Scott Taylor’s report, Scott paints the destuction of Falluja as a hollow victory.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B2BC0FF0-1A7F-4AA9-826C-FBF3D5BDDF0A.htm

Two quotes from that article by Scott Taylor:

"In reporting that six police stations in Mosul had been overrun, no explanation was given as to how 5000 American-paid Iraqi police could have been overwhelmed without a single casualty on either side"

Whether or not US forces ever manage to pacify the few remaining fighters' holdouts in Falluja, their resistance has already taken on mythical proportions. Like those American frontiersmen who fought that legendary one-sided battle against superior Mexican forces at the Alamo, Falluja has now become a symbol of resistance to US occupation.

 

[Ranger68]

The US' destruction of cities - Fallujah chief among them - can only strengthen the hand of those fighting against them.
This sort of action is *precisely* what the "insurgents" hope for. You can win a battle tactically, but lose strength strategically. This is what is happening in these situations.

 

[islandboy]

This is the very frist time I have ever heard that the nazi did not have strong support within Germany during WWII. I have to consider the sources Rnager generally uses and ask, does anyone else have information about this.

While I do not trust what this Administration says, it is interesting to note that the more heat it takes results in two things: a) an increased reluctance to come clean and 2) a greater probablity that it will cut and run before the job is finished. I know that there are those that say we are part of the problem and that is a good point. BUT if we leave I see no alternative except a Lebonese style civil war pushing this country even further into the dark ages.

As far as Asad coming into the "fold" my perception is that he is too weak to do this. What is the basis for the contention?

 

[Ranger68]

Really? Read some history books about WWII. The German people, most of their cities destroyed, were VERY RELIEVED when the war ended - the VAST majority were NOT fanatically fighting the Allies at the end of the war.
???
More straw men. I didn't say "the nazi did not have strong support within Germany during WWII" (sic). I said:
"The Germans were NOT fanatical foes. The Nazis were. By the end of the war, few live Germans supported their government".
This is demonstrably true. If you'd like, I can post to that effect from MANY history books.

Please. Why don't you list some of your sources regarding WWII history, then we'll talk.

Why would you think that there would be a Lebanese style civil war when you leave? Why would you think you could postpone that, assuming you think it's going to happen, by staying longer?

The same old unanswered questions .........

 

[Ranger68]

LOL
I must say, that's the first time I've *ever* heard the Germans in WWII described, in general, as "fanatical".
LOL

 

[slowpoke]

I find it practically impossible to believe that the US people, having been committed to war with scant reason, will continue to stomach annual casualties in the thousand-range for very long. There will *not* come a time when these casualties stop being reported, and I think it very unlikely that the insurgency will grind to a halt. The US will be forced to withdraw "under fire", as it were.

I agree with you about public opinion in the US. There just wasn't enough reason for the invasion in the first place. Now that election fever has died off, support at home is dropping and recruitment is down. The American people, God bless 'em, know this thing is headed down the toilet but Dubya is too delusional to face up to it:

"...American casualties in Iraq now number about 1,500 dead and well over 10,000 wounded. Instead of decreasing, the casualty rate is increasing. The U.S. Army and National Guard are overstretched. Recruitment has fallen sharply. The war has already cost $130 billion and is expected to soar to over $200 billion. The Bush administration is expected to ask Congress for another $100 billion this year. American public opinion is beginning to rebel. The latest poll suggests that 56 percent of Americans do not think the war is worth the cost in men and treasure...."

"...The present situation is untenable. Fresh thinking is urgently required - not the least in Washington - if poison from the wound in Iraq is not to infect the whole region..."

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=11656

 

[langeweile]

This is the very frist time I have ever heard that the nazi did not have strong support within Germany during WWII. I have to consider the sources Rnager generally uses and ask, does anyone else have information about this.

While I do not trust what this Administration says, it is interesting to note that the more heat it takes results in two things: a) an increased reluctance to come clean and 2) a greater probablity that it will cut and run before the job is finished. I know that there are those that say we are part of the problem and that is a good point. BUT if we leave I see no alternative except a Lebonese style civil war pushing this country even further into the dark ages.

As far as Asad coming into the "fold" my perception is that he is too weak to do this. What is the basis for the contention?

In the last open election in Germany the NSDAP got about 30% of the votes, hardly a majority support.
Adolf was forced to build a coalition with some other splinter groups to obtain the majority.
Once he had it, he passed a law, banning most or all of them.
The subsequent elections, were a farce.

Ranger is right. Why Adolf might have had a fairly broad support in the beginning, due to the fact that he provided work to most unemployed, and effectively steered Germany out of the depression. This support rapidly declined once he started the war, and was non-existent by in the end.

Germans ( I was born there) have the thing about duty, honour and total obedience to their goverment. In this case the soldiers did the very best, right to the end. Not because they were fanatics, they did it out of loyality to their leadership.

 

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68

I find it practically impossible to believe that the US people, having been committed to war with scant reason, will continue to stomach annual casualties in the thousand-range for very long. There will *not* come a time when these casualties stop being reported, and I think it very unlikely that the insurgency will grind to a halt. The US will be forced to withdraw "under fire", as it were.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry Ranger, but i have to agree with you again...shit..that is the second time today...

 

[Ranger68]

You have it exactly right, lange.
Although there *were* fanatical elements of the German military - the SS and Hitler Youth - most of them were merely excellent, loyal soldiers.
Throughout late 1944 and 1945, many of them were happy to give themselves up to the western allies when the situation demanded it. Only those fringe, fanatical Nazi elements fought to the bitter end in the west. In the east, all units fought practically to the death rather than be captured by the Soviets.
The German army of WWII was hard and professional, not fanatical.

 

[danmand]

In the last open election in Germany the NSDAP got about 30% of the votes, hardly a majority support.
Adolf was forced to build a coalition with some other splinter groups to obtain the majority.
Once he had it, he passed a law, banning most or all of them.
The subsequent elections, were a farce.

Ranger is right. Why Adolf might have had a fairly broad support in the beginning, due to the fact that he provided work to most unemployed, and effectively steered Germany out of the depression. This support rapidly declined once he started the war, and was non-existent by in the end.

Germans ( I was born there) have the thing about duty, honour and total obedience to their goverment. In this case the soldiers did the very best, right to the end. Not because they were fanatics, they did it out of loyality to their leadership.

Don't get carried away now, old boar, it was not that some aliens from outer space came and took over Germany.

As Peter Ustinov has one of his carricatures state in his book "We were only human" : "Soap out of human fat? I can explain that. It is not generally known that there were an acute soap shortage in the Fatherland.".
Another one states: "As far as I know the ovens were only used for bakery"

 

[langeweile]

Don't get carried away now, old boar, it was not that some aliens from outer space came and took over Germany.

As Peter Ustinov has one of his carricatures state in his book "We were only human" : "Soap out of human fat? I can explain that. It is not generally known that there were an acute soap shortage in the Fatherland.".
Another one states: "As far as I know the ovens were only used for bakery"

I am not suggesting that all of Germany was oblivious to what was going on.
At best I would put the number at 50-60%. there is a difference in suspecting something and actually knowing something. ADOLF had complete control over the media and the press.

I wasn't trying to defend what we did. My point was, that the Wehrmacht didn't fight hard because they were fanatics. They fought hard because it is the "German way". That also doesn't mean that you didn't have some fanatics within the wehrmacht, but certainly not the majority.

 

[Hadrien]

I love the deathsquad option: it makes US become the terrorist state, and train people who will in less than a generation become their worst ennemies.

The difference between Vietnam and Salvador is that neither country took revenge on US soil: they just wanted to be left alone. But with the Jihad and religious element thrown into the equation, the crusade is on. And demographics and democracy are against a force that is more poweful because it doesn't require equipement and doesn't care about any life (the adversary's or their own).

If you look at the history of terrorists against the US, most of them came from allied countries (saudi arabia, pakistan) which are protected against invasion.

The whole plan coming from people who dodged the Nam war is pretty scary.

h

 

[Ranger68]

Don't get carried away now, old boar, it was not that some aliens from outer space came and took over Germany.

As Peter Ustinov has one of his carricatures state in his book "We were only human" : "Soap out of human fat? I can explain that. It is not generally known that there were an acute soap shortage in the Fatherland.".
Another one states: "As far as I know the ovens were only used for bakery"

Although I think more Germans knew about the holocaust than is generally admitted (for obvious reasons), this is a long way from *fanatical support* for those in power.
I believe that most Germans who did know the whole ugly truth felt powerless to do anything about it. As, in all likelihood, they were. This is in no way an apologia for their behaviour, mind you.

The Nazis rode a powerful crest of nationalistic sentiment to power, then so firmly embedded themselves that little short of cataclysm could actually unseat them. There is no doubt that support for the Nazis, and many of their policies, was quite high at the outset. When it became apparent to what lengths those in power were willing to go to foster those notions of supremacy - the utter destruction of the country - I think support had generally totally eroded.

 

[danmand]

I love the deathsquad option: it makes US become the terrorist state, and train people who will in less than a generation become their worst ennemies.

The US is the only country that has been convicted of state terrorism.

 

[onthebottom]

The US is the only country that has been convicted of state terrorism.

Really, can you send me a link on that?

OTB

 

[xarir]

A very interesting thread.

The BBC today reports that the search for WMD in Iraq is officially over now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

So now that the official reason for invading Iraq has turned out to be false (surprise surprise), what now? It's been postulated in previous comments in this thread that if the US leaves, there will be a power vaccuum. While true, history has shown that these vaccumms can be successfuly filled. In Vietnam, Saigon fel in 1975 but today the country is vibrant and healthy. True, they are not a wealthy nation, but give them a few years and that will change.

Arafat died recently and nothing terrible has happened in that corner of the world. Even old Adolf died in 1945 and Germany went on to become a successful country despite being split in 2 post war.

When the US leaves, Iraq may suffer a power vaccumm for a while. But it will overcome in time, the damages done by the American occupation. The only real question is when will America leave Iraq? The US Military has no more troops to spare so short of extending tours of duty indefinitely, it follows that the troops must leave eventually.

 

[langeweile]

A very interesting thread.

The BBC today reports that the search for WMD in Iraq is officially over now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm

So now that the official reason for invading Iraq has turned out to be false (surprise surprise), what now? It's been postulated in previous comments in this thread that if the US leaves, there will be a power vaccuum. While true, history has shown that these vaccumms can be successfuly filled. In Vietnam, Saigon fel in 1975 but today the country is vibrant and healthy. True, they are not a wealthy nation, but give them a few years and that will change.

Arafat died recently and nothing terrible has happened in that corner of the world. Even old Adolf died in 1945 and Germany went on to become a successful country despite being split in 2 post war.

When the US leaves, Iraq may suffer a power vaccumm for a while. But it will overcome in time, the damages done by the American occupation. The only real question is when will America leave Iraq? The US Military has no more troops to spare so short of extending tours of duty indefinitely, it follows that the troops must leave eventually.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6727646/

Here is your answer...happy now?