Success in Iraq?

[RyJ Maduro]

Originally Posted by azdave

Ryj, hate to burst that bubble but here is how it works. Decent looking woman is looking for a job, wants to be a TV anchor or reporter...

No, Tantaros actually is a Republican strategist, I believe she used to be a congressional press secretary or something of that nature.

Now there are plenty of very attractive Fox News anchors, but Tantaros actually has some genuine Neocon street cred in addition to the good looks.

[azdave]

Ryj, that is so sad. When I saw the FOX logo I thought for sure she was a sell your soul TV reporter but I feel really sad knowing that she is a Republican because she actually wants to be one. I think a few days reading the posts on the GSBB we could get her over to the good guys. In another thread I asked are you still in AZ. If so and you get the bug (oops) not big ugly goalie but the bug to play let me know. I can set you up and get you some gear. All quality stuff.

Dave

[sloth2946]

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Sloth, you can cut the condescending BS, it does your argument no justice.

Whether or not opening up the Iraq front was a good move strategically is debatable. I can understand and respect arguments that OIF was a mistake. However, that's now water under the bridge, and all the hand-wringing in the world won't change the present situation for the better. It doesn't matter if al-Qaeda was in Iraq in 2003, it matters that they're there now, (and getting beaten pretty handily) and it matters that the Iranians are exerting significant influence in the region.

It matters a lot.

It matters because the question of why we went there is at the root of the issue with regard to the military-industrial complex. Look at the people who pushed for it. They all have ties to large military contractors who stood, and have profited immensely from it.

And at what cost?

Is your life worth a couple extra billion $ in Haliburton's coffers? What about Lockheed-Martin? Boeing? Ecetera, ecetera.

As much as I think you're a dope...I'm sorry...I don't want to see your ugly ass mug on the news as a KIA. It's not worth it.

And of issue of importance was the fact that the war on terror is supposed to be against those who have perpetrated attacks against the US. Iraq wasn't in the list. Iran is not in the list. If we want to attack them...attack Saudi Arabia. Yemen. Egypt. Pakistan. Just to name a few. Those are places where al-qaeda is flourishing. Attack Afghanistan by all means because that is where al-qaeda's leadership was. Makes sense right?

Just because we are there doesn't mean we don't look at the mistakes made to get us there so that we can prevent them from occurring again. Yeah we are there. Yeah, we enticed al-qaeda to come there. Yeah it is a quagmire. Yeah, we'll be there long after your enlistment is up. I stated, long ago...in 2002 that going into Iraq would be a mistake and that we'd be there for a minimum of 10 years, if not permanently.

Considering I said that in 2002....maybe it means that I have a bit of perspective on this that is realistic.

What makes sense with Iraq is complete and immediate withdrawl. No good can come of it, and none has to this point. They have made no attempt to form a legitimate coalition government with the different ethnic and religious factions in the nation. They've had their shot, all the 'milestones' have not been met. There is no timetable for them to become independent of our presence, because those who make policy here(hint: not the POTUS, not Congress, rather those who pull the strings, double hint: follow the money, are the ones calling the shots) don't want it because it means that they have to quick suckling at the teat of the US taxpayer for a little while.

Since late 2003, we've been trying to let the take over at least on the surface, and what has come of it? ****, the reconstruction of Japan and establishment of their own working government and system took about 5 years, Germany took around 4....how much longer should we give them? How much money should we spend? How many more lives should we lose? Where does it end? Why is no one looking to do that?

But you don't care because you want to go play with your toys in the sandbox.

[Alec M]

YouTube - Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon's new map for war and peace

[Bones343]

Originally Posted by sloth2946

What makes sense with Iraq is complete and immediate withdrawl. No good can come of it, and none has to this point. They have made no attempt to form a legitimate coalition government with the different ethnic and religious factions in the nation.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Like I said before, regardless of your feeling on what we should have or have not done involving Iraq in the first place, the point is, we did go into Iraq, and we are still in Iraq. It is years late to suggest we don't have a presense in Iraq. Hind sight is 20/20. Simply leaving now would be a bigger mistake than going to Iraq in the first place as you feel was.

[biguglygoalie]

Originally Posted by Bones343

Hind sight is 20/20.

hell, foresight was 20/20 on this one - too bad they were so hellbent on this, they didnt listen to those in the know...

[Bones343]

Originally Posted by biguglygoalie

hell, foresight was 20/20 on this one - too bad they were so hellbent on this, they didnt listen to those in the know...

What the hell is your point? Go invent a time machine or something or maybe we can move on from the past now? I am pretty sure that it can't be changed now.

[azdave]

It is not a matter of hindsight or foresight it is a matter of true intelligence and common sense. Information was given from a variety of sources that there were no WMDs in IRAQ. This was not after the fact but way before. The Bush adm. was so charged up about revenge for daddy that they disregarded all this information and went in.

Now hindsight does give you the advantage to see how inept the Bush adm. is/was. Not having a real plan in place, no exit strategy nor ability to foresee how long we would have to stay in Iraq gives you an idea of how poorly planned this whole thing was.

Some reminders, estimated cost of the war $60 to $87 billion. Bush adm. estimates not mine. Time in Iraq 6 months to 18 months again not mine. Mission Accomplished posted. Obviously they felt they had done all they set out to do otherwise why in the hell would post mission accomplished?

This thread is based on success in Iraq. Aside from a few positives most of the success in Iraq is forced and will not last once we leave so that is the point that most are trying to make. If we leave now or later results will be the same. That is unfortunate but it is true.

It is plain to see why you need a full blown crazy like Saddam running these countries. Too many factions fighting amongst each other and the various religious views will prevent any mutual government from existing.

[Goaliedad]

What is to be gained by staying in Iraq?

[Swedish goalie]

Originally Posted by Goaliedad

What is to be gained by staying in Iraq?

corporations and politicans making HUGE amount of money.

If you understand how modern capitalism work you know why USA still is in Iraq.

[Quart of Beer]

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who emabarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforseeable and uncontrollable events. Winston Churchill

[sloth2946]

Originally Posted by Bones343

I'm going to have to disagree here. Like I said before, regardless of your feeling on what we should have or have not done involving Iraq in the first place, the point is, we did go into Iraq, and we are still in Iraq. It is years late to suggest we don't have a presense in Iraq. Hind sight is 20/20. Simply leaving now would be a bigger mistake than going to Iraq in the first place as you feel was.

Do you agree that at some point we have to leave?

I will assume yes.

So when we leave, be it 2008 or 2028, what do you suppose will happen?

Do you think that in 5 years, or 10 years they will get it together and have a functioning government and security force in a unified Iraq where Sunni, Shia and ethnic Kurds get along like they are living on Sesame Street?

At what point do we say we've paid enough money and blood while waiting for something that will never happen?

Do you think that if we left tomorrow Osama is going to try and buy a nice 2BR condo on the Tigris and setup shop? He's not welcome there. A lot of the current violence is with Shia groups. And....get this....he stated in his last tape that the Palestinian issue is the one most near and dear to his heart these days.

Here's what will happen if and when we pull out. Civil war. Genocide. Fracturing of a nation-state that should never have been created in the first place. Turkey invading from the north to punish the Kurds and seizing the oil fields. And guess what...we created it. We made it all possible. And we can't fix it. We do not have the knowledge nor ability. No matter how much money we throw at this problem...it wont solve it. Just because we broke it, doesn't mean we can fix it. The Potterybarn Principle is nice....but it is illogical and impractical.

After 5 years it reminds me of the definition of insanity, which is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If we leave and say, 'we've done all we can, they need to help themselves'. I bet that after a period of strife, they would figure it out. Iraqis are quite well educated. They are a bright population. However while they suckle at the teat of the US Taxpayers to provide their security and reconstruction it puts them in a position of the old Confucius parable about teaching a man to fish.

They need to be taught to fish and handed the rod and left to their own devices.

[Goaliedad]

Holy crap, this is harder than getting Obama to explain what he plans to do if elected. Simply put, what is our current mission in Iraq? The WMD issue was put to bed years ago. As far as defense contractors are concerned I have worked for them and they are not running the war. Profiteering yes, calling the shots, no. If modern capitolism was in play here we would be floating in Iraqi oil and they would be living their version of the American dream. I should correct here. This is not a war. It is a policing action. We are policing a country that is trying to have a civil war. There must be real objectives here and a mission statement for this effort. Otherwise WTF are we doing there?

[Swedish goalie]

Originally Posted by Goaliedad

As far as defense contractors are concerned I have worked for them and they are not running the war. Profiteering yes, calling the shots, no.

Why do you think they went to Iraq? Isnt Cheney and most of congress part of big corporations making money of Iraq war? The bush adm knew before they went to Iraq that Iraq didnt have any wmds and that Al-qaida didnt cooperate with Saddam. It was and still is about making money.

You are definetly underestimating modern capitalism way to make profits.

[Goaliedad]

Originally Posted by Swedish goalie

Why do you think they went to Iraq? Isnt Cheney and most of congress part of big corporations making money of Iraq war? The bush adm knew before they went to Iraq that Iraq didnt have any wmds and that Al-qaida didnt cooperate with Saddam. It was and still is about making money.

You are definetly underestimating modern capitalism way to make profits.

Okay, so Dick Cheney and congress run the defense industry and they conspired to invade Iraq in order to profiteer from the war. I quess I better get me one of them there defense companies so's I can rake in the dough.