BF2S Forums The US troop increase in Iraq.

UGADawgs wrote:

If the war were really about oil, we'd have kicked the crap out of the insurgency from the start and easily kept control of the country. Do you think that the war would be conducted this way if massive oil revenues were the only goal?

And I don't see how the idea that (gasp!) the war might have two or more purposes doesn't connect with you. Obviously we want to both create a stable democracy and prevent terrorists from using an unstable Iraq as a safe haven.

Now as for why we don't just go tramping all over the world, we obviously don't have enough troops to do it (even if we didn't go into Iraq), and honestly we only care about Islamists. If we cared about all terrorism, we could have invaded Ireland and helped the British secure Ulster. As for Sudan, if Europe wants something to be done about it, why can't they do it themselves? It's not like the EU has no offensive military power.

You're right that it isn't all about oil - there is the terror issue, strategic positioning in the middle east, becoming top dog as regards business interests in the country (replacing France and Russia) and also the more subtle issue of the security of state terrorists Israel. But you're wrong that they seek a democratic Iraq. Because I am willing to wager that a truly democratic Iraq would now display an open animosity towards occupation forces. History has time and again proven that all the US wants is a pro-US government in countries they occupy or 'liberate'. Their announcement of doubt in the 'democratically' elected leader of Iraq is the first sign of this recurring theme in the Iraq conflict.

The EU doesn't do anything because they are extremely isolationist. The only reason they went to Afghanistan was as a sympathy gesture to America post-9/11. Most of Europe didn't touch Iraq with a barge poll, of those that did many have since withdrawn.

And your Ulster example shows exactly the problem with the US position. To me the British civil and military structure on the island on which I live was a legitimate target, as they occupy a portion of my country. That's a patriotic belief. To side with the Brits on the issue would alienate 45% of the population of Northern Ireland and 100% of the population of the Republic. Playing the big bad boss man in Iraq will NEVER go down well with the locals.

The US CANNOT achieve a stable democracy in Iraq. The nation of Iraq itself is an illusion. It might as well be Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan. Democracies don't work when people who are diametrically opposed to each other occupy the same patch of land. Can't anyone understand that?

What the US needs to achieve their 'goals' is a ruthless police state.

PS 'If the war were really about oil, we'd have kicked the crap out of the insurgency from the start and easily kept control of the country' --> That is not possible. You live on a globe with other countries. All countries mutually rely on each other. Being so brazen would alienate your allies in the extreme. Don't kid yourself now - the USA is not an island: your trade deficit is evidence enough of that.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-11 15:38:26)

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Good analogy.
But not with a very good hand unfortunately.

Insurgents cheat, We are letting Iran is slip them cards under the table.

If people are cheating it's a better idea to leave the table than to up the stakes.

We have too much in the pot.

CameronPoe wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

If the war were really about oil, we'd have kicked the crap out of the insurgency from the start and easily kept control of the country. Do you think that the war would be conducted this way if massive oil revenues were the only goal?

And I don't see how the idea that (gasp!) the war might have two or more purposes doesn't connect with you. Obviously we want to both create a stable democracy and prevent terrorists from using an unstable Iraq as a safe haven.

Now as for why we don't just go tramping all over the world, we obviously don't have enough troops to do it (even if we didn't go into Iraq), and honestly we only care about Islamists. If we cared about all terrorism, we could have invaded Ireland and helped the British secure Ulster. As for Sudan, if Europe wants something to be done about it, why can't they do it themselves? It's not like the EU has no offensive military power.

You're right that it isn't all about oil - there is the terror issue, strategic positioning in the middle east, becoming top dog as regards business interests in the country (replacing France and Russia) and also the more subtle issue of the security of state terrorists Israel. But you're wrong that they seek a democratic Iraq. Because I am willing to wager that a truly democratic Iraq would now display an open animosity towards occupation forces. History has time and again proven that all the US wants is a pro-US government in countries they occupy or 'liberate'. Their announcement of doubt in the 'democratically' elected leader of Iraq is the first sign of this recurring theme in the Iraq conflict.

The EU doesn't do anything because they are extremely isolationist. The only reason they went to Afghanistan was as a sympathy gesture to America post-9/11. Most of Europe didn't touch Iraq with a barge poll, of those that did many have since withdrawn.

And your Ulster example shows exactly the problem with the US position. To me the British civil and military structure on the island on which I live was a legitimate target, as they occupy a portion of my country. That's a patriotic belief. To side with the Brits on the issue would alienate 45% of the population of Northern Ireland and 100% of the population of the Republic. Playing the big bad boss man in Iraq will NEVER go down well with the locals.

The US CANNOT achieve a stable democracy in Iraq. The nation of Iraq itself is an illusion. It might as well be Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan. Democracies don't work when people who are diametrically opposed to each other occupy the same patch of land. Can't anyone understand that?

What the US needs to achieve their 'goals' is a ruthless police state.

PS 'If the war were really about oil, we'd have kicked the crap out of the insurgency from the start and easily kept control of the country' --> That is not possible. You live on a globe with other countries. All countries mutually rely on each other. Being so brazen would alienate your allies in the extreme. Don't kid yourself now - the USA is not an island: your trade deficit is evidence enough of that.

I mentioned somewhere before that plain democracy really isn't what we want. It'd be no good if we promoted a democracy that elected terrorists. Of course we're going to play a heavy hand in the Iraq government, especially since it'd probably collapse without some kind of guide.

If the EU won't do anything on their own, then they need to either get proxies in Africa to destroy the janjaweed or just drop the issue altogether. Everyone knows the US doesn't have the military capability to fully help the Darfur region at this moment, so the EU needs to put up or shut up if they are so ardent about Darfur.

Unfortunately, dictatorships have become most prevalent in the Middle East simply because the whole idea of separate Arab nations is an illusion. Really, the whole idea of being able to fix Iraq in a few years and leave is just idiotic, to me. To be fair, I blame the administration as much as the opposition for this view. However, I recognize that any viability in Iraq will require not only a major troop presence in Iraq for many years, but a major reform of Iraq society on all levels. I still think it's possible that a major reformation of education and societal views can help lessen the sectarian violence in Iraq, but I'm not foolish enough to think it'll just happen in a few years.

And if Iraq really would be the magical font of oil that people like you say it would be under US occupation, we definitly wouldn't allow any of this crap in Iraq. You know that if oil were the major reason for invasion, we'd be replacing governments left and right until we got one that was subservient enough to give us the right to take the oil fields and hold them come hell or high water.

Bertster7 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

If people are cheating it's a better idea to leave the table than to up the stakes.

We have too much in the pot.

Not as much as you stand to lose.

I'm not too bothered though. Britain have already clearly stated that we're getting out of there, gradually. I'm glad we are.

I give the US till the summer. If we have no results with the new plan I see them bailing by then. Most Americans want what most of the world does, less involvement. The problem is when you become the biggest you have national interest everywhere. I would love to have the luxury of doing minimum and worrying about other important stuff, like the borders . What we need now is a diplomatic revolution. Then we need to lead ourselves away from the failed European model of statecraft (including Israel).

Clinton urges conditions on U.S. funding for Iraq
Bush vows to defy Congress on Iraq plan
State leaders write legislation to bring U.S. troops home
Iraq resolution may expose GOP divide
Presidential aspirants assail plan for Iraq buildup
Bush Sending 21,500 More To Iraq
Criticism of Bush's Iraq policy mounts in US Congress
Bush insists Congress can't halt Iraq buildup

All I'm saying is do it or don't. In or out.

Un'f'n believable.

ATG wrote:

Tough month
    On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.
    "In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "
    "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."
    Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
    Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
    "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.
    The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.



From AP news.



Fucking dummies

Hypocrisy at it's finest worst.