|
| |
Wrecker
Misanthrope   SSHOLE |
Posts: 463 Registered: 1/25/2006 Offline
|
4/12/2006 at 13:13 |
Everything I see and hear about Iraq looks and sounds like the place is in full on Civil War, but the administration keeps denying it. It like Officer Barbrady saying "Move along, nothing to see here." while the savages are tearing each other apart.
What is the major hangup with admitting the place is in Civil War? That might very well be the best thing TO happen.
The US had a Civil War and became a better country afterwards, so why not let that struggling democracy (if you can even call it THAT) fight it out amongst themselves and let the chips fall where they may.
I could support a plan where our military withdraws and allows the fight to happen, meanwhile keeping an eye on the outside players (IRAN) to make sure they don't get involved. It's high time that American boys stopped bleeding and dying for something that Iraqi boys should be bleeding and dying for.
I feel like I'm beginning to stray off topic, so back to Civil War.
Is the reason for the denial the fear that the winner will be the side we don't like? I'm sorry, but that dog just don't hunt. Every day that we stay in Iraq in the middle of their fight, is too long.
I have heard Iraq compared to Vietnam, and I definately see the similarities. Our forces are hobbled in their warmaking capabilities by low public opinion and it appears that every move is second guessed. The enemy looks like the ally so no one REALLY knows who the enemy is, until it's too late. The US keeps sending troops over (fresh meat for the grinder) and still has no real plan for withdrawl. Any withdrawl will appear to be a defeat, and everyone knows that the US cannot be defeated, right?
I see the only way out of this is to call a spade a spade and let the Iraqis have their Civil War. Let them fight for the gift we have presented to them, let them earn it.
Nothing would make me prouder than for my children to serve in the military, but I have to say that right now (if my kids were of that age), I would try my damnedest to keep them out because while I love our troops I do not believe in the mission (I thought I would never say that) and do not want my children laying their life on the line for a bunch of desert rats who will not stand up for themselves.
Damn, I know this was sort of all over the place, but I had to get this out of my head.
Discuss.
____________________
< nuevoSock_> "me and the phone cable plugged to her labia were shaking hands
|
| |
vladtweano
DARTH MENSES  Posts: 517 Registered: 3/11/2002 Offline
|
4/12/2006 at 14:30 |
What is the major hangup with admitting the place is in Civil War?
It's an admission of failure. Verboten.
I could support a plan where our military withdraws and allows the fight to happen, meanwhile keeping an eye on the outside players (IRAN) to make sure they don't get involved. It's high time that American boys stopped bleeding and dying for something that Iraqi boys should be bleeding and dying for.
Sounds like Jack Murtha. Be careful, or people who have never served in the military will brand you a coward. Why do you want to cut & run, Wrecker? Why do you hate America? Why am I being intentionally obnoxious?
Our forces are hobbled in their warmaking capabilities by low public opinion and it appears that every move is second guessed.
Is low public opinion of the war and the president actually detrimental to their ability to wage war? Don't tell me that their standard "you're hurting the troops" response to critics actually has merit. I've yet to meet a single person who blames the troops for this mess.
Let them fight for the gift we have presented to them, let them earn it.
Ladies & gentlemen, I give you...a gift.
You're welcome. Now get up off your lazy sand negro asses and fight for it.
I'm being facetious, but only partly. After years of dictatorship (under which they at least had running water), they've been blown up and are now under occupation. They're told that this is for abstracts like "freedom", and that they're now expected to organize and unify and stand up for themselves. This in spite of their never really having much of a national identity (Iraq's borders were hastily drawn up by the Brits, I think, without regard for things like ethnicity or religion or ancient hatreds) and pretty much being kicked around for many years. It's no wonder they're fractured and pissed. I would be too. Stand up for what? Getting blown up? It's not like they have a single nice neat polarizing issue to fight about. It's a fucking smorgasbord of grievances. Somebody's kid who just needs a job is going to get decapitated and left in a ditch because Joe Sunni bombed Bob Shiite's mosque. There's a civil war all right, but it's not for anything called "Iraq". I also think that we continue to make the mistake of expecting angry muslims to behave and make decisions like westerners.
FWIW, I can also understand why our troops despise the place and the people. This isn't what they're trained for, they're doing their best with what they've got with (probably mostly) good intentions, and they're getting attacked daily by an enemy that they can't simply crush. Fuck.
Damn, I know this was sort of all over the place, but I had to get this out of my head.
____________________
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."
- Groucho Marx |
| |
Wrecker
Misanthrope SSHOLEPosts: 463 Registered: 1/25/2006 Offline
|
4/12/2006 at 18:34 |
What sucks is that I know the answers to my questions, but that is a hard pill to swallow.
I was very pissed about the way Murtha was treated for presenting a perfectly sensible solution to a shitty problem.
I agree whole heartedly with you on this point This isn't what they're trained for, they're doing their best with what they've got with (probably mostly) good intentions, and they're getting attacked daily by an enemy that they can't simply crush. Soldiers can do two things and two things only: kill people and break shit. Anything outside of that, they are ill-prepared for. Building schools and teaching the local savages to not shit where they eat are jobs for the fukin Peace Corps (are they still around?)
____________________
< nuevoSock_> "me and the phone cable plugged to her labia were shaking hands
|
| |
jwalker
Token Discordian  SSHOLEPosts: 958 Registered: 8/6/2005 Offline
|
4/12/2006 at 20:19 |
Call it what you will - civil war - sectarian violence - insurgency - terrorist activity - civil unrest... or as the Bushies might say, a bump in the road to democracy.
There might have been a chance if the US had taken the proper steps to secure the country and actually done the reconstruction that was promised. But that wasn't really a priority for the neocons.
So what were the priorities? Privatizing the oil industry, electrical grid, water, etc. That's why the country is in the state it is today - because a bunch of greedy pigs thought they could take advantage of the "war on terror" to cash in.
What went wrong in Iraq? Wrong answer (2006)
The invasion was initially successful, but the plan for the peace was faulty. Bush administration officials misestimated the amount of resistance they would find in the wake of Baghdad's fall. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his civilian officials in the Pentagon ignored military warnings and did not deploy sufficient soldiers to handle this initial resistance. As a result, the occupation was unable to quell the rebellion when it was small.
...
This, I think, is a fair summary of the thinking on Iraq currently dominant in the mainstream media and, because it ignores the fundamental cause of the war-after-the-war - the American attempt to neo-liberalize Iraq - it is also profoundly wrong.
See also:
Halliburton's War (2006)
Privatization, Corruption Mar Iraq’s Recovery, New Report Finds (2005)
Secret US plans for Iraq's oil (2005)
Privatizing Iraq (2003)
Privatization in Disguise (2003)
What do we do about it now? It's probably too late to do anything about it. And the current decision-makers won't anyway.
Just be glad you don't live there.
On 2006-04-12 at 20:09:34, jwalker enjoyed furrysex
____________________
We don't need no crowd control. |
| |
HOBO
* b0bo has quit IRC ('Exit')  SSHOLEPosts: 1144 Registered: 3/19/2002 Offline
|
5/26/2006 at 13:04 |
The next six months are critical.
____________________
" I have never understood the female capacity to avoid a direct answer to any question." ~Spock~
|
| |
mundhra
dread pirate neckbeard  SSHOLEPosts: 1671 Registered: 3/25/2002 Offline
|
5/26/2006 at 14:50 |
HOBO: The next six months are critical.
wasn't that true six months ago?
____________________
Amero and New World Order: the libertarian version of the rapture. |
| |
HOBO
* b0bo has quit IRC ('Exit') SSHOLEPosts: 1144 Registered: 3/19/2002 Offline
|
5/26/2006 at 16:32 |
mundhra: HOBO: The next six months are critical.
wasn't that true six months ago?
hasn't it been true every six months since we invaded.....errrr...liberated?
____________________
" I have never understood the female capacity to avoid a direct answer to any question." ~Spock~
|
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit  SSHOLEPosts: 439 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
5/26/2006 at 16:33 |
Anal: The US didn't not fight a civil war. By any account, the CSA was a seperate country, and thus it was a true war, of one country versus another country. War of Nothern Aggression / War of Southern Secession.
Is low public opinion of the war and the president actually detrimental to their ability to wage war?
Partly so. Commanders and decision makers are worries too much about how the public perceives their actions to take that much action. Much how we never bothered to bomb the VietCong supply routes at the beginning of Vietnam, and thus end the war early.
Iraq is not really a civil war. Usually in civil war, the true warring factions having something in common - religion, government, culture. But with the Shiites and Sunnis killing each other over religious differences( this is a sorta-sorta. Most people consider them to both fall under Islam, and thus would qualify for the term, supported by the large history of civil wars involving Islam), and terrorists/insurgents trying to end the American-supported government and way of life, it wouldn't really be classified as a civil war by a historian. The media calls it that because it is dramatic.
As for rebuilding society, there is no established way to rebuild civilization after war and still maintain control. Reconstruction was a monumental flop and took another decade to fix the South. Europe rebound after World War II so well because the US allowed them to run things, to an extent. As long as they were democratic and hated the USSR, they got money. As a contrast, COMECON / Molotov Plan, which had dictated control, left the Eastern Bloc in pretty shitty conditions.
Your plan for pulling out is novel, and could work in some far fetched way, but it won't happen. The Iraqi government would crumble in months, warlords would take control, and we would have created Somalia. And we all remember Black Hawk Down. |
| |
|
but do they like Kiddie porn? because then, and only then, they will have something in common with the average linkswarmer. -- uart
|
