If we gonna lose this conflict, better to go out like the Spartans in Thermopylae. Only way the Shia, and Wahabbis will take a step back and relize they will be screwed royally... By then the rest of the west MIGHT be able to help with Iraq. Outside of that, I have no opinions about this confict.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Lets be honest, anyone here still support the Iraq War(GOP'ers please come, its safe)
- Thread starter Cheebs
- Start date
- Status
siamesedreamer
Banned
effzee said:
Psst........OBL is a Saudi from a rich family with American ties. His second in command Zawahiri was an Egyptian. We did not create them from the chaos in Afghanistan.
effzee said:
THEY DO NOT WANT US THERE. Only they can build the economy they want. Only they can form workable political solution. Only they know what they want.
We cannot do anymore for them than we have already done - especially when its done from the barrel of a gun.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Triumph Dolomite 1300cc said:
Can't say that it wouldn't surprise me. The fact that people are looking more towards al-Sadr than the Coalition.
This was the biggest problem. Bush has been itching to go to war with Iraq. He has been talking about it since 2000. So why would you appoint a Defense Secretary that doesn't know his asshole from a hole in the ground when it comes to Defense?
The fact that just about every General in the military, retired and still working, objected to just about everything Rumsfeld has done, pretty much shows who is actually responsible for ****ing things up. Had Bush appointed someone who knew their shit and would give the military the chance to do their job instead of just throwing cash everywhere, then things would have been better.
I just am not sure that pulling out might be the best idea. Then once we leave, it will be Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia all fighting over the land.
That's the way it's gonna be WHENEVER we pull out. We're prolonging the agony, nothing more. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but the sooner we do and learn from it the better off we'll be in the long run.The Experiment said:
And now, for a bit of Bizarro Theater, allow me to say a few words in defense of Donald Rumsfeld: his WAR plans for Afghanistan and Iraq were inspired and worked brilliantly. Or, whoever thought them up. As soon as we moved from WAR to OCCUPATION, though, we done ****ed everything up.
The man is still an idiot, and I would classify him as a war criminal personally, but for whatever reason things worked out well for us in the initial invasion stages.
Well hey, when you're counting down to that planned invasion in early March 2003 and you've forbidden your underlings from even discussing occupation plans, they're going to have a lot of time on their hands to make sure that first part goes off well.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Triumph Dolomite 1300cc said:
Both Iraq and Afghanistan were weakened. Post Desert Storm Saddam was pretty weak and the Taliban never had much support in the first place, except for of course, the CIA. It was an easy victory for Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld cared less about stabilization and strategy and more about how big the payoffs were going to be for his friends at PNAC, Trilateral Commission, and AEI.
Saying we should stay because we must help them is a very 2003 argument.
80% of the Iraq people feel its fine to MURDER Americans and more or less the entire population there want us out right now.
Their prime minister keeps saying, as recent as a few days ago that Americans should leave within 3-6 months.
Why should we stay in a country where everyone there does not want our help?
80% of the Iraq people feel its fine to MURDER Americans and more or less the entire population there want us out right now.
Their prime minister keeps saying, as recent as a few days ago that Americans should leave within 3-6 months.
Why should we stay in a country where everyone there does not want our help?
Alcibiades
Member
I semi-supported the war back then, but I can definitely say that we need to stay there or do something, even if it's a mess.
I also think it's very premature to know whether this will have been a good decision or not until a good 20 years from now. I know I don't like US soldiers dying and mini-Bin Ladens springing up because of US hate, but just because it's a mess right now and continues to be doesn't mean 20 years from now it'll still be that way. It could get a lot worse, or it could get better in some way. There are a lot of ways to analyze what's happening, but in the end, there are also unpredictable factors that we don't know that could affect the whole region.
I lean on supporting the war and definitely don't support abandoning Iraq, but I think it's just as premature to declare failure as it was to declare victory. There was a temporary "victory" in toppling Sadam, just as there is ongoing failure in securing the country, but we can't predict the future.
I also think it's very premature to know whether this will have been a good decision or not until a good 20 years from now. I know I don't like US soldiers dying and mini-Bin Ladens springing up because of US hate, but just because it's a mess right now and continues to be doesn't mean 20 years from now it'll still be that way. It could get a lot worse, or it could get better in some way. There are a lot of ways to analyze what's happening, but in the end, there are also unpredictable factors that we don't know that could affect the whole region.
I lean on supporting the war and definitely don't support abandoning Iraq, but I think it's just as premature to declare failure as it was to declare victory. There was a temporary "victory" in toppling Sadam, just as there is ongoing failure in securing the country, but we can't predict the future.
Because the region will become unstable and we must stay FOREVER!!!Cheebs said:
*sigh*
Thing is, it's pretty true. But Iraq is a failed war. Pour 100,000 troops into the country and make Baghdad a fortress, it doesn't matter. The day we leave is the day Iraq gets even more chaotic than it is and creates some serious instability within the region. So what are we going to do, stay there for another 10 years? I don't really think there is any long-term fix for the inevitable. Sadly all there's left to do is stomach the irreversible damage done to Iraq and the region, our military, and how the world perceives us. So embarrassingly bad.
A lack of public support for ANY increase of troops, be it by a small or large amount, is a pretty good sign that people will silently start to prefer phased redeployment and withdrawal. I think as people start to get a lot more vocal about it, the government will too, and Republicans won't be able to paint this as "not having a plan" if people are willing to view it as one.
Iraq is screwed long-term anyway, and that's really a shame. Saddam is dead and gone and that's great, but now there's a whole mess of other problems that can't be prevented right around the corner.
iapetus said:
I don't believe that Iraq was always going to be a mess. I think the situation can still be managed somewhat, but it will have to be a political solution.
I was never for the war in the first place. I thought it was unjust and illegal and I can't imagine how many lives our nation has ruined in Iraq. But, since we ruined their nation I don't think it is asking too much for us to at least leave something resembling stability when we leave.
We can't afford to stay there forever and watch our troops continue to get killed for no damn reason. Nor can we expect to successfully force a grand vision of a free, democratic and stable Iraq on the country and expect it to stick long-term. We can't even get it working now. The PM is saying we should leave. Iraqis don't want us there. It's kind of hard to get a country to head in a specific direction when most of the people don't accept your presence to begin with.
You really think that we can just continue to stay in Iraq and things will get better over an extended period of time?
You really think that we can just continue to stay in Iraq and things will get better over an extended period of time?
macarthur didn't order the execution of hirohito,and the whole country was devastated from fire bombing that there was no desire to have an insurgency, plus the fact that there was no religious sectarianism, and most Japanese at that time probably felt that they could rule the world with the tools that the US gave them (capitalism, etc.). I think Japan had a relatively higher standard of living/civilization for the time as well.
and we didn't invade japan for oil(although it certainly had other strategic advantages) or because FDR's daddy did it. We didn't invade China after Pearl Harbor either.
no, other than it being a country that was occupied by the US, the similarities end there.
and we didn't invade japan for oil(although it certainly had other strategic advantages) or because FDR's daddy did it. We didn't invade China after Pearl Harbor either.
no, other than it being a country that was occupied by the US, the similarities end there.
Manmademan
Member
Diablos said:
does anyone besides me see the irony of forcing a democracy and free elections on Iraq at gunpoint?
Democracy is one of those things a society has to work out for itself that it needs as well as the means to make it happen. Iraq is NOT ready for this yet, and will destabilize the SECOND american troops leave.
That's the sticky situation we're in. Iraq is no longer a "country" as it is an area inhabited by several factions that refuse to get along with each other. There's no unity there. But the longer we stay, the longer we provoke the populace. Stay...go...it's a lose/lose situation.
you have some good points, but I don't think we invaded iraq "for oil" though it was definitely a nice bonus for the oil companies. I think the ultimate point to the invasion was attempting to set up a nice, friendly puppet government in the middle east friendly to american interests so we don't have to bend over for the saudis as much as we do.
Unfortunately whoever planned this (or didn't plan this) grossly overestimated how friendly the iraqis would actually BE. Remember when the administration was insisting "we will be greeted as liberators?"
Manmademan
Member
Diablos said:
Pulling the troops out and letting iraq collapse into an uncontrolled den of terrorism and a breeding ground for fanatics 10 times worse than afghanistan would only lead to more people killed, and I don't mean just americans.
Do I really think we can/should stay there forever? Of course not. I couldn't even possibly begin to give you a good time table for how long we should be there either. What I do know is that (ostensibly - I'm sure you guys will disagree with me here) we invaded Iraq because we considered them an unstable regime that would remain to be a very likely nexus between terrorists and WMDs. I'm not saying Iraq bread terrorists, and I'm not saying they necessarily already had live WMDs (although I personally think they did), but I do think they were actively pursuing weapons programs, and I don't think that the Ba'ath government would have had any moral qualms with providing those weapons to terrorists.
If we leave now, we're going to leave Iraq in a position where the leadership of the country can be taken over by extremists with hostile intentions for the region. I honestly don't know how we get to the point where that isn't the case, but that's why I said that I leave that thinking to military generals with decades of experience.
If it was honestly up to me, I'd probably either:
a.) Become completely isolationist and let the middle east destroy itself.
b.) Go ahead and destroy the middle east.
I know I'm going to be labeled a racist here, but I honestly think that the Islam is a barbaric religion, and I don't think there can be peace while there are still theocratic governments run by Muslims.
If we leave now, we're going to leave Iraq in a position where the leadership of the country can be taken over by extremists with hostile intentions for the region. I honestly don't know how we get to the point where that isn't the case, but that's why I said that I leave that thinking to military generals with decades of experience.
If it was honestly up to me, I'd probably either:
a.) Become completely isolationist and let the middle east destroy itself.
b.) Go ahead and destroy the middle east.
I know I'm going to be labeled a racist here, but I honestly think that the Islam is a barbaric religion, and I don't think there can be peace while there are still theocratic governments run by Muslims.
It was never a lost cause from the beginning. It was the idiocy of the Bush administration that let things get this bad. Keep in mind they never followed the advice of anyone on what to do in Iraq and now American troops and Iraqi citizens are paying for it.Diablos said:
Hell Bush didn't even follow the advice of the bipartisan report that just came out a few weeks ago.
Even know Bush won't acknowledge that it is still a primarily political problem. Instead he tries to impose his will on everything with the military. Didn't work for the last 3 years and it won't work now.
Manmademan
Member
Haleon said:
LOTS of problems with your post, the most obvious being-
1.) Iraq had no links to terrorism. none whatsoever. The countries that DID have known links to 9/11 and terrorist activity (Syria, Saudi Arabia) get no attention at all.
2.) re: WMD's- if it wasn't obvious that saddam didn't have any WMD's to use when we invaded him and he didn't use any to keep himself from being deposed and imprisioned, it should DEFINITELY be obvious by now. It's a moot point anyway, since Iraq had no possible means to attack the US with any weapon, WMD or not.
3.) Becoming completely isolationist and "letting the middle east destroy itself" isn't an option. Did you forget the US is utterly, totally, and completely dependant on mideast oil? A destabilized middle east would have disastrous effects on the US economy. Plus, that's a dick thing to do, considering we just caused the current problem in the first place.
4.) Islam itself is not the problem. There are plenty of predominantly muslim countries in southeast asia as well as plenty of african american muslims that cause no problems at all. If the middle east was 100% Christian I guarantee it would take the form of the most radical, violent brand of christianity possible, because the problems with the middle east are cultural, and not 100% the fault of the religion per se.
B-B-Bomba!
Member
The Iraq war was a mistake born out of arrogance. The single most important factor in putting that particular mess right, is to seek out, and act from, a position of sincere humility.
We're ****ed.
We're ****ed.
A bunch of permanent bases and a 104-acre $592 million embassy says that the US will never leave Iraq, sadly.
There was never a valid reason to go into Iraq, but business is going great for contractors over there, and oil companies that are finally getting their laws to claim rights to Iraqi oil.
Bush's "we must win in Iraq" probably means that we can't pull out entirely because Bush wouldn't really have control on who would win out in a civil war (probably Shia), jeopardizing the business interests of the companies he went to war for.
It has never been about terrorism. Terrorism is simply the line they can pitch to the few Americans that still believe their bullcrap, because they created ample supply of people that want to kill Americans with their crusade to Iraq.
There was never a valid reason to go into Iraq, but business is going great for contractors over there, and oil companies that are finally getting their laws to claim rights to Iraqi oil.
Bush's "we must win in Iraq" probably means that we can't pull out entirely because Bush wouldn't really have control on who would win out in a civil war (probably Shia), jeopardizing the business interests of the companies he went to war for.
It has never been about terrorism. Terrorism is simply the line they can pitch to the few Americans that still believe their bullcrap, because they created ample supply of people that want to kill Americans with their crusade to Iraq.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
After reading some books from the Trilateral Commission founder, the idea (written in 1998) is that Iraq is a great place to set up a power base there. Right in the middle of the slowly growing Islamic fundamentalist regions and its provides some key locations of trade, not just oil.
It never was about terrorism because Saddam cracked down on it. The only problem is that we as a people didn't think about the real reasons of going there and no, its not just because of oil.
It never was about terrorism because Saddam cracked down on it. The only problem is that we as a people didn't think about the real reasons of going there and no, its not just because of oil.
siamesedreamer
Banned
It amazes me that people still trot out the same "it was about OIL!!11!" line.
We only get about 4% of our oil from Iraq. If it the war was truly about oil, then it would have been more economically feasable to invade Canada for their oil. We currently get about 20% of our oil from them...........and they have the largest oil reserve in the world with the newly discovered oil sands.
We only get about 4% of our oil from Iraq. If it the war was truly about oil, then it would have been more economically feasable to invade Canada for their oil. We currently get about 20% of our oil from them...........and they have the largest oil reserve in the world with the newly discovered oil sands.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Oil comes up only because it represents a concrete reason for being there. If the Administration had ever bothered to explain WTF they were invading Iraq for (none of their supplied reasons make the slightest bit of sense) perhaps oil woulnd't be trotted out so frequently.siamesedreamer said:
Haleon said:
It's a serious enough question. Surely everyone has to accept that the reasons put forward for the Iraq war have changed over time? I'm not talking about the 'LOL!1 TEH O1L!!1" rationale, but about the various reasons put forward for the war over time, from 'defence from WMDs' through 'support for terrorism' to 'to remove Saddam'.
It's not comparable at all.Haleon said:
1. Occupation of Japan came after a couple years of war in the pacific ocean, a war Japan provoked. Occupation of Iraq was an entirely elective pre-emptive move.
2. The US worked with Japan to rebuild the country in a manner appropriate to its culture. In Iraq, we came in, dismantled most institutions to put in perfect Western versions instead and its proven to be a disaster.
3. Occupation of Japan did not involve alternately avoiding and mediating a religious/ethnic fueled civil war.
etc.
That comparison is utterly ridiculous.
Exactly. We went to war with Iraq for 3 reasonsiapetus said:
1. They had WMD's (Which turned out to be un-true, no one is left in the Bush admin. who believes he did now)
2. To remove Saddam (Which we did, back in 2003)
3. Because they supported Bin-Laden (which was untrue, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan did)
None of the rationale for going to war is left. Either we completed them or they turned out not to be true.
Right now our obvious goals in Iraq are:
1. Stop the Civil War between the Shiite and the Sunni
2. Protect the government in the capital from the attacks in the civil war
The thing is how does one police a civil war? You can't. A civil war is a horrible and bloody thing. But its a CIVIL WAR. A war within one country, you can't have outside influences tampering with it. You have to let it run its course and find the solution on its own. Which in the end would likely end up with the Shiite wiping out the Sunni and putting in a Shiite government, which is what we have now. But with this the war would be over. But it'd take 5-10 years likely.
Why keep Americans in for this 5-10 year war? The Iraq government REFUSES to take down the Shiite militia forces, all we are doing now is helping out the Shiite side of this civil war.
siamesedreamer said:
I'm confused then, what do you think the war was actually about?
P.S. Just because your nation only gets 4% of their oil imports from Iraq now doesn't mean thats because thats all the US wants or more importantly needs. In a world that has now hit peak oil controlling the reserves now means wealth and power in the future.
Iraq is about oil... if it was about terrorism then it would have been Bin Ladden that got hung.
I disagree with this line of argumentation. Before the war began, contemporary version of this argument was, there were too many rationales. Now it's shifted to, well, they argued one thing once and another thing at another time--presumably, when it was pretty certain that, for example, there were no large stockpiles of WMDs to be found. But of course, it's bizarre to argue, when there were many reasons [given] to perform an act, that when one of those reasons appeared to no longer be relevant, therefore no longer arguing from that particular (now invalid) rationale is somehow a meaningful counterargument to the action itself, or in this case to continuing work towards creating a stable country in Iraq.iapetus said:
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
That's assuming that the given reasons were ever valid.APF said:
APF said:
Well the Democrats were are retarded opposition so they gave a different reason for why they objected to the war every week and by extension a different reason why Bush and his team wanted to go into Iraq. But I think its fair to say the failure to find WMD was the biggest discredit to the whole mission.
- Status