And the chaos continues...day of death in Baghdad

[AEON]

I don't see where you're getting glee over the present violence out of that--it's not your place to tell people that it's immoral for them to see it as having been damningly avoidable.

There are several regular posters here who only post tragic news when it comes to Iraq. And when they are confronted with hopeful news - they attack it. What else am I to conclude?

Concerning the idea that it is not my place to post a moral judgment - isn't that what I read in every thread? Moral judgments? If it is true that some people truly are rooting for the US to fail in Iraq - I see no reason why I can't call out such an opinion as morally wrong.

I think I have shared opinions about Iraq that are both critical and supportive of the commanders and the administration. I do not equate dissent with disloyalty. Nevertheless, there are many people out there that certainly seem to actually desire failure in Iraq because peace in Iraq would mean a victory for Bush and the Republicans...and they certainly can't have that.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Maybe you are confusing seeing failure and wishing it to stop with desiring failure. Just a thought. You certainly would be in my case.

I want peace there and I don't give a damn if GWB creates it and it's a victory for him. If he did I would be shouting my support of him from the nearest rooftop. I want the dying to stop as much as I have ever wanted anything else in my life.

 

[yolland]

Concerning the idea that it is not my place to post a moral judgment - isn't that what I read in every thread? Moral judgments? If it is true that some people truly are rooting for the US to fail in Iraq - I see no reason why I can't call out such an opinion as morally wrong.

Fair enough; let me rephrase. Insinuating that anyone else delights in the thought of 150 innocent civilians being blown to smithereens because the thrill of seeing the Administration's approach called into question trumps all else in their value system is highly inflammatory, and only likely to impair calm evaluation of the pros and cons of what-nexts (as for example A_W keeps trying to do). I don't see anyone implying that you delight in violence against civilians because it could be used to make a case against withdrawal.

 

[AEON]

Fair enough; let me rephrase. Insinuating that anyone else delights in the thought of 150 innocent civilians being blown to smithereens because the thrill of seeing the Administration's approach called into question trumps all else in their value system is highly inflammatory, and only likely to impair calm evaluation of the pros and cons of what-nexts (as for example A_W keeps trying to do). I don't see anyone implying that you delight in violence against civilians because it could be used to make a case against withdrawal.

I see your point. And the answer to all of this is somewhere between "No War on Iraq" bumper stickers and total, unending war.

I don't know anyone in the military that wants to stay in Iraq ONE DAY longer than necessary. We must all sit down and define what victory actually is with some quantitative milestones – then do whatever takes to achieve that objective. After that, we must move on and prepare for the next challenge. If the world thinks America was defeated in Iraq – it would be devastating to our future negotiating ability. Simply put, losing in Iraq would equate to more war and more American losses in the future because our strength will not be respected enough to actually prevent future conflicts.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are here and underway. The blame game on how we got here does no good at this point. Let history decide that. What we do from here on out is critical to what the world will look like for the next generation. Pulling out every last American troop tomorrow is simply not an option. Agreeing on what “victory” is, achieving it, and then preparing for the next international crises is something that both the Liberal and Conservatives can and should agree on.

In the future, we must ask other countries to share more of the economic and military burden in international affairs. If they are unwilling, then I believe that we must become more and more “self-reliant.”

 

[AEON]

I want the dying to stop as much as I have ever wanted anything else in my life.

We certainly agree on this.

 

[Vincent Vega]

We certainly agree on this.

Everybody agrees on this, and your accusations of posters here are sickening.

 

[yolland]

^ That's been addressed now, let's let it go and move on.

 

[anitram]

If the world thinks America was defeated in Iraq – it would be devastating to our future negotiating ability.

Newsflash: the world already thinks that. Most of us are scratching our heads as to why you're there at all and figure you've already lost whatever objective you had (aside from the obvious removal of Saddam) and are just waiting to somehow reframe it so that it doesn't sound like a defeat. Kind of like declaring victory in Vietnam and then getting the hell out of there.

In the future, we must ask other countries to share more of the economic and military burden in international affairs. If they are unwilling, then I believe that we must become more and more “self-reliant.”

Well maybe if it was a legitimate international affair and not some insane pursuit of your own self-interests built on complete fallacy. Why should we die for George Bush's cause? Most of the world didn't buy his "evidence" and turns out they were right.

 

[Irvine511]

America's international credibility will be restored with a new administration.

even a Bush supporter must realize this now.

 

[AEON]

America's international credibility will be restored with a new administration.

even a Bush supporter must realize this now.

Depends on the administration and what is taking place in the world at the time.

 

[Irvine511]

Depends on the administration and what is taking place in the world at the time.

George Bush doesn't have the credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world, and most of the United States, to replace a lightbulb.

*any* current senator or governor would be seen as an improvement.

 

[AEON]

George Bush doesn't have the credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world, and most of the United States, to replace a lightbulb.

*any* current senator or governor would be seen as an improvement.

I agree on the improvement part. However, a new leader backed by a military that recently protected two fledgling democracies in the tough Middle East would give the US the credibility that is necessary to gather international support against regimes like those in Iran and North Korea.

If the new President is a master diplomat and has a battle tested, victorious military in his/her back pocket - then we will not only restore our credibility, but actually have more than when this whole mess started.

 

[Irvine511]

I agree on the improvement part. However, a new leader backed by a military that recently protected two fledgling democracies in the tough Middle East would give the US the credibility that is necessary to gather international support against regimes like those in Iran and North Korea.

but hasn't this whole fiasco just emboldened precisely these countries? wasn't that what the Axis of Evil was all about? wasn't Iraq supposed to be a warning to Iran and NoKo? weren't we supposed to be in and out within a year or so with some "shock and awe" that would knock out the government -- indeed, any government -- that would serve as ample warning to the regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang?

clearly, we've been proven wrong. and i'm not sure how to undo the damage that has been done.

If the new President is a master diplomat and has a battle tested, victorious military in his/her back pocket - then we will not only restore our credibility, but actually have more than when this whole mess started.

what does "victory" look like?

 

[AEON]

what does "victory" look like?

That is the million dollar question. And that is what both parties need to agree on. Once we have that, so many other things will fall into place.

 

[anitram]

That is the million dollar question. And that is what both parties need to agree on. Once we have that, so many other things will fall into place.

This is where your ethnocentric viewpoint shows.

Victory to YOU means what your American parties want. Victory to various factions in Iraq means something else. Victory can legitimately mean to these people that they have a Shia state friendly to Iran. But of course that is contrary to your idea of victory.

Which is why there is no such thing, regardless of what the Dems and Reps "agree" on. It's not your country, it's theirs.

 

[deep]

That is the million dollar question. And that is what both parties need to agree on. Once we have that, so many other things will fall into place.

Hello Aeon,

I hope you are well.

I have not read all of this thread
since my last post

but, I will add,

that even though "we broke it" as Colin Powell has said

we can only own it for so long.


and after many, many efforts have been made, different plans rolled out, the only option may: to slowly disengage

I also understand that it may seem that there are some that do not want the Administration to walk away with a "success' or win in Iraq


I also understand that it may seem that there are some that disparately do not want the Administration to have a "failure" or loss in Iraq


I think allowing either side's political concerns to drive the debate and influence the decisions is very dangerous for all parties involved.

 

[AEON]

This is where your ethnocentric viewpoint shows.

Victory to YOU means what your American parties want. Victory to various factions in Iraq means something else. Victory can legitimately mean to these people that they have a Shia state friendly to Iran. But of course that is contrary to your idea of victory.

Which is why there is no such thing, regardless of what the Dems and Reps "agree" on. It's not your country, it's theirs.

So what does my anglo-germanic ethnicity have to do with this?

And please offer your definition of victory.

 

[deep]

And please offer your definition of victory.

Victory (by the Administration's definition)

is not the only option.


Iraqis working it out for themselves is the best option.

And yes it will be ugly and there will be much more death.

At the end of the day, this is what is going to happen. Why should we spill more blood, and hundreds of billions of dollars for 3-5 more years when it is inevitable.


I am beginning to think the only reason we are still there, paying this heavy price, is because we are hoping to get a better place at the table when the caucus is picked over.

 

[anitram]

And please offer your definition of victory.

The definition of victory depends on whose perspective you are considering. What does it matter what my definition is if it's contrary to the definition of the various factions of Iraqis on the ground.

If you define victory from an American perspective (and not the local perspective, which may differ), then your only solution is to stay there forever and beat them (literally) into submission. Because so long as their idea of victory is not the same as yours, you can only compel them into "defeat" by force.

 

[AEON]

Victory (by the Administration's definition)

is not the only option.


Iraqis working it out for themselves is the best option.

And yes it will be ugly and there will be much more death.

At the end of the day, this is what is going to happen. Why should we spill more blood, and hundreds of billions of dollars for 3-5 more years when it is inevitable.


I am beginning to think the only reason we are still there, paying this heavy price, is because we are hoping to get a better place at the table when the caucus is picked over.

You think we should pull out tomorrow? Phased? 6 months? 12 months? Or a few years?

You do know that just about everyone agrees that if we were to pullout now, the only blood that would be spared is American blood, correct? I only say this because you said "why should we spill more blood" - because if we were to leave today, the Iraqi bloodshed would be enormous.

 

[AEON]

The definition of victory depends on whose perspective you are considering. What does it matter what my definition is if it's contrary to the definition of the various factions of Iraqis on the ground.

If you define victory from an American perspective (and not the local perspective, which may differ), then your only solution is to stay there forever and beat them (literally) into submission. Because so long as their idea of victory is not the same as yours, you can only compel them into "defeat" by force.

What do you think most Iraqis want? Safety, security, raise a family, live without fear of a tyrant...etc.? From my understanding of the Iraqi population, they are well educated (by Middle Eastern standards), secular, and enterprising. It seems a Western-style system would be a perfect fit for them.

 

[deep]

I think it should not be an immediate pull out.

It should be a phase out

over some time.

That way other regional parties could get more involved, with the willingness of the Iraqi people, of course.

and yes I think it will be messy.

I think that those that want to do mayhem in Iraq know there is a time limit to our involvement.

I believe once the U S is not the dominate controlling force in Iraq, the violence will subside quite a bit.

I also believe that those doing all the mayhem will get less support from the ordinary people.

Our staying power is limited. Everybody knows this.

What is the danger making it public.

 

[anitram]

What do you think most Iraqis want? Safety, security, raise a family, live without fear of a tyrant...etc.? From my understanding of the Iraqi population, they are well educated (by Middle Eastern standards), secular, and enterprising. It seems a Western-style system would be a perfect fit for them.

And what about the ones who genuinely want a Shia state, and a Shia leader and friendly relations with Iran.

Or the Kurds who genuinely want their own state, free of Turkish influence and apart from the rest of Iraq?

That is not a perfect fit for you, now is it?

 

[AEON]

And what about the ones who genuinely want a Shia state, and a Shia leader and friendly relations with Iran.

Or the Kurds who genuinely want their own state, free of Turkish influence and apart from the rest of Iraq?

That is not a perfect fit for you, now is it?

I'm not automatically opposed to three independent, democratic states. I believe this would hurt the Kurds and Sunnis because of losing oil revenue, but that is for them to choose.

Is this what these groups actually want?

 

[deep]

the purple thumbed election was about people going to the polls and choosing their group

the so-called 'secular group' did very poorly


it was people identifying as Shia, Sunni or Kurd mostly

and in these groups is where the power lies


sadly this liberation did more to divide Iraqis and make their State less secular, and even less "Western".

 

[deep]

Is this what these groups actually want?

absolutely it is what the Kurds and Shia want

the Kurds will claim Kirkuk with its oil

 

[BVS]

- because if we were to leave today, the Iraqi bloodshed would be enormous.

Really? Do you think it would get worse? Stay the same? Or would their main target be gone?

 

[AEON]

Really? Do you think it would get worse? Stay the same? Or would their main target be gone?

Right now it seems that the main target is the civilian population and not US troops. I think it would definitely get worse for the Iraqi civilians in our absence. An all out civil war without any worry of US gunships, aircraft, tanks...etc., would make the marketplace bombings seems like kids setting off firecrackers. I fear it would get much, much uglier than it is today.

 

[BVS]

Right now it seems that the main target is the civilian population and not US troops. I think it would definitely get worse for the Iraqi civilians in our absence. An all out civil war without any worry of US gunships, aircraft, tanks...etc., would make the marketplace bombings seems like kids setting off firecrackers. I fear it would get much, much uglier than it is today.

How much were they bombing before we got there?

 

[AEON]

How much were they bombing before we got there?

That's not the issue on the table. The issue on the table is what would happen if the US military left right now. And I think it is safe to say the Iraqi civilians will face brutal acts of terror far worse than they are currently experiencing. The chaos would become genocide.