Life just gets worse in Iraq - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-28-2006, 11:15 AM   #241
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:12 PM
I don't think so, it wasn't when they were pursuing the program in 2002. In any case Iran will go nuclear and Arab states like Egypt and even worse Saudi Arabia are going to try and match them - there is no room for democratic peace in an arena of hyperproliferation and that is going to mean bad things for everyone.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 11:20 AM   #242
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


might a Saddam Hussein next door been a deterrant for Iran to have been as aggressive in its nuclear ambitions?
On the contrary, Saddam Hussein was the central motivation behind Iran's Nuclear program which started in the 1980s as a result of its massive casualties it took during its war with Saddam and the lack of an effective response to Saddam's WMD. It turns out Iran took the threat of Saddam's WMD more seriously than any other nation except the United States.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 11:54 AM   #243
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


On the contrary, Saddam Hussein was the central motivation behind Iran's Nuclear program which started in the 1980s as a result of its massive casualties it took during its war with Saddam and the lack of an effective response to Saddam's WMD. It turns out Iran took the threat of Saddam's WMD more seriously than any other nation except the United States.


on the contrary, a weak, unstable Iraq has been the best thing to happen to Iran in decades as it's allowed the subsequent perception of US weakness as demonstrated by the failure in Iraq has to combine with the current alignment of the present Shia dominated Iranian government with the Shia majority in southern Iraq to result in a dramatically more powerful. Iran has increased it's influence in southern Iraq dramatically since the occupation, akin to the Soviet Union and its satellite nations. in repsonse to the invasion, Iran has accelerated it's program, not dismantle it! and so long as Iran believes that the US is completely pre-occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US will be deterred from striking Iran not because of Iran's ability to withstand a US bombing of the country but because of Iran's ability to create a major, calculated, retalitory Shia uprising against occupation forces. and that's just in Iraq. look at what happened in Lebanon this summer to understand the greatly increased influence of Iran across the Middle East, thusly putting Israel in even greater regional peril than before from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 12:07 PM   #244
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:12 PM
Well Britain is going to be out of there in the first quarter of next year; strategic strike timetable?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 08:13 PM   #245
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




on the contrary, a weak, unstable Iraq has been the best thing to happen to Iran in decades as it's allowed the subsequent perception of US weakness as demonstrated by the failure in Iraq has to combine with the current alignment of the present Shia dominated Iranian government with the Shia majority in southern Iraq to result in a dramatically more powerful. Iran has increased it's influence in southern Iraq dramatically since the occupation, akin to the Soviet Union and its satellite nations. in repsonse to the invasion, Iran has accelerated it's program, not dismantle it! and so long as Iran believes that the US is completely pre-occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US will be deterred from striking Iran not because of Iran's ability to withstand a US bombing of the country but because of Iran's ability to create a major, calculated, retalitory Shia uprising against occupation forces. and that's just in Iraq. look at what happened in Lebanon this summer to understand the greatly increased influence of Iran across the Middle East, thusly putting Israel in even greater regional peril than before from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Your missing the point that I responded to. Rather than being a deterent to Iran developing a nuclear weapon, Saddam was in fact the central motivation for such a program. Considering how close they had come by the time the coalition invaded Iraq, there was no way they would turn back.

Iran is far from being the only country in the region to benefit from Saddam's removal. Obviously, it benefits Kuwait more than anyone else which unlike Iran was swallowed by Saddam in 12 hours back in August 1990. Saudi Arabia would be next considering how vulnerable their oil fields in the Eastern part of the country are. Naturally, since the planets economy is so heavily dependent on oil from both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the whole world benefits from Saddam's removal.

The Shia of Iraq cannot be thought of as one large entity marching in step to the wishes of the Iranian government. Lets not forget that Shia Iraq did most of the fighting against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. Most of Saddam's army was composed of Shia personal, and nearly all the fighting occured in close proximity or on area's where Shia Iraqi's live. While many Shia Iraqi's have strong ties with Iran, others are very distrustful of Iran and do not want any major Iranian influence in their part of the country. There are strong conflicts among shia tribal groups on this issue and others.

The Soviets and their Satellite Nations are a poor example for the situation that exist between Shia area's of Iraq and Iran. The Soviets occupied their Satellite Nations with hundreds of thousands of troops and often controlled every aspect of life there, almost as if the country was apart of the Soviet Union. There are no Iranian troops in Iraq, except perhaps small numbers operating covertly.

The United States is unlikely to strike Iran because only an intense air campaign lasting months or more would have any chance of changing the situation in Iran. Airstrikes by themselves will probably not hit all the important targets since getting intelligence on where such targets are is so difficult. The only way to insure that the current Iranian regime never gets nuclear weapons is to remove it. Given the level of threat Iran poses to the region as well as the cost of such an operation, for right now, the United States is not considering such an operation. As threatening as Iran is right now, its never engaged in the sort of behavior that required Saddam's disarmament and finally his removal from power. The threat from Iran is much lower given their unwillingness to act directly and instead using proxies to attempt to achieve relatively limited goals.

Iran's influence in other area's like Lebanon is no different that it was 25 years ago. In fact, Iranian troops were actually deployed in Lebanon back in 1982. There has been no evidence that Iranian troops were on the ground there last summer, and most of the modern weapon systems used by Hezbollah came from Syria which got such weapon systems from Russia.

Israel looks at the removal of Saddam as having a positive impact on their security situation. Something people should remember given Israel's experience in the region and the stakes for them when the security situation gets worse.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 09:09 PM   #246
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The only way to insure that the current Iranian regime never gets nuclear weapons is to remove it.


Starting to lay the groundwork I see...

Quote:
Given the level of threat Iran poses to the region as well as the cost of such an operation, for right now, the United States is not considering such an operation.
But if say, Iran strikes at the US, say, at the naval fleet building up in the Persian Gulf right now, say, through one of its proxies then how might the US respond to bring about regime change in Iran?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 11-28-2006, 10:14 PM   #247
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Your missing the point that I responded to. Rather than being a deterent to Iran developing a nuclear weapon, Saddam was in fact the central motivation for such a program. Considering how close they had come by the time the coalition invaded Iraq, there was no way they would turn back.


no, i fully understood your point, i just disagree with your analysis and conclusions.

though i imagine we could find a way to blame the tsunami, AIDS, and the Myanmar/Burma government on Saddam.

and, really, if Saddam were every bit the problem you make him out to be, then the Middle East would be in much better shape today now that he's gone.

instead, you've removed one problem and replaced it with a more volatile situation that will, ironically, require the implementation of another strongman/dictator very much in the mold of Saddam, the big difference, however, being that said new strongman/dictator won't be a secular Stalinist figure but a religious fanatic who'll put Iraqi women in burkas and execute gay people and not do a thing to bring back the 3,000 dead Americans and the tens of thousands of American limbs and shattered lives the survivors have left behind in the sand.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 08:14 AM   #248
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511






and, really, if Saddam were every bit the problem you make him out to be, then the Middle East would be in much better shape today now that he's gone.

instead, you've removed one problem and replaced it with a more volatile situation that will, ironically, require the implementation of another strongman/dictator very much in the mold of Saddam, the big difference, however, being that said new strongman/dictator won't be a secular Stalinist figure but a religious fanatic who'll put Iraqi women in burkas and execute gay people and not do a thing to bring back the 3,000 dead Americans and the tens of thousands of American limbs and shattered lives the survivors have left behind in the sand.
The biggest impact that the Persian Gulf Region has on the rest of the world is through its large supply of oil. So the most important question to ask is whether or not the removal of Saddam has made oil supplied by Kuwait and Saudia Arabia more secure or less secure. Its obvious that these countries are more secure now than they have ever been with the removal of Saddam's regime, and thus the rest of the world is more secure as well given the impact of Saudi and Kuwaiti oil have on the global economy.

There are currently no hostile forces in Iraq that have anywhere near the capabilities of Saddam's military in projecting military power beyond the borders of Iraq and thus being able to threaten neighboring countries. All you have are rag tag groups of militia's and insurgents that lose much of their capabilities once they leave their own neighborhoods and towns where its easy for them to hide.

Right now, Iraq has an elected government and a growing military force that given several more years of training and building, will be able to bring order to the country. But this process takes time, far more than simply 3 or 4 years.

Oh, and please stop overstating US casaulties in the war. There have not been tens of thousands of US limbs lost. Right now there is just under 10,000 US troops that have had injuries serious enough that have prevented them from returning to duty within 72 hours, and those that have lost limbs are a fraction of that figure.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 08:37 AM   #249
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy




Starting to lay the groundwork I see...



But if say, Iran strikes at the US, say, at the naval fleet building up in the Persian Gulf right now, say, through one of its proxies then how might the US respond to bring about regime change in Iran?
mmm...no, just a statement of the obvious. If the current Iranian regime is willing to get nuclear weapons at all cost, the only way it will be prevented from eventually getting such weapons will be to actually remove the regime.

For Iran to strike the United States now would be very foolish. The US response would depend on several factors, whether the US could actually link the attack to Iran, as well as how much damage was done in the attack.

What ever the response, the United States has a large number of air and naval assets that it can respond with and do massive damage to Iran and the Iranian regime. In addition, current caps on the use of National Guard Brigades could be rescended. There are currently 34 National Guard Brigades. In addition, there are around 27 active Army and Marine Brigades resting from their deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and other area's if the world.

There is no doubt, than an invasion of Iran would put an incredible strain on the US military, but provided the caps on the rate of use of National Guard Brigades are removed, deployments for brigades in Iraq are extended, and brigades resting in the USA are redeployed, there are technically enough Brigades to invade Iran and remove the regime if the President decided it was necessary. The problem of course comes after the removal of the regime and the long term occupation that would be required to ensure a proper replacement. The force level would have to eventually be cut in order to allow brigades to come home to rest and refit.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 10:05 AM   #250
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Its obvious that these countries are more secure now than they have ever been with the removal of Saddam's regime,


how can you say this with a straight face?

seriously. EVERYONE, except you and maybe the president, admit the chaotic civil war in Iraq. EVERYONE admits now that we vastly misjudged the operation back in 2003. EVERYONE admits that the Iraqi government barely functions. EVERYONE.

it boggles the mind. perhaps civil wars in Palestine, Iraq, and Lebanon in 2007 will change your mind?

as for your oil -- i do think it's refreshing that you admit that it really is all about the oil, nothing else -- there's tremendous unease in Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia about the perceived marginalization of the Sunni Arab former elite by the ruling Shiite majority in Iraq, particularly as the reprisal sectarian violence gets even worse, and as Iran continues to expand it's influence across the region and especially in Iraq.

and your indifference to US casualties -- not to mention your dismissal of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis -- is increasingly offensive.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 02:15 PM   #251
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




how can you say this with a straight face?

seriously. EVERYONE, except you and maybe the president, admit the chaotic civil war in Iraq. EVERYONE admits now that we vastly misjudged the operation back in 2003. EVERYONE admits that the Iraqi government barely functions. EVERYONE.

it boggles the mind. perhaps civil wars in Palestine, Iraq, and Lebanon in 2007 will change your mind?

as for your oil -- i do think it's refreshing that you admit that it really is all about the oil, nothing else -- there's tremendous unease in Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia about the perceived marginalization of the Sunni Arab former elite by the ruling Shiite majority in Iraq, particularly as the reprisal sectarian violence gets even worse, and as Iran continues to expand it's influence across the region and especially in Iraq.

and your indifference to US casualties -- not to mention your dismissal of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis -- is increasingly offensive.
Well, perhaps you could technically explain how Kuwait is more likely to be overrun now than it was while Saddam was in power. Please explain which Iraqi militia group is going to march over a hundred miles through the desert into Kuwait in civilian vehicles and defeat a Kuwaiti military force with several hundred tanks as Saddam did in August 1990 in 12 hours?

Do you know who General John Abizaid is? He is the commander of Cent Com and perhaps the leading expert on Iraq and the middle east in the US military. He does not call the current situation in Iraq a Civil War. He understands that 90% of the sectarian violence, the reason people call it a civil war, happens within 30 miles of downtown Baghdad. The vast majority of the rest of the country is free of this type of violence.

But hey, call the situation in Iraq whatever you like. It does not change what has to be done in order to succeed there. It does not change what has been accomplished already in attempting to stabilize Iraq.

The Planets economy is dependent on Oil to survive. Its why the United States and its allies went to war in 1991, attempted to contain Saddam in the 90s, and had to remove him in 2003. There are threats to the security of oil supply from the region that simply cannot be tolerated.

I have not dismissed any US casualties, I've only asked that you not inaccurately claim what US casualties are since there are actually accurate figures on them. There are not relatively accurate casualty figures for Iraqi civilian deaths, but it is certain is that the current sectarian fighting in Iraq no where near resembles the level of fighting in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 when nearly 10% of the population was slaughtered.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 04:15 PM   #252
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The Planets economy is dependent on Oil to survive.
That and continuous, confident American consumer spending.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 06:00 PM   #253
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Well, perhaps you could technically explain how Kuwait is more likely to be overrun now than it was while Saddam was in power. Please explain which Iraqi militia group is going to march over a hundred miles through the desert into Kuwait in civilian vehicles and defeat a Kuwaiti military force with several hundred tanks as Saddam did in August 1990 in 12 hours?


when the Shiites of Iraq and Iran join together, look out.

the Saudis are nervous. shouldn't you be?


[q]Do you know who General John Abizaid is? He is the commander of Cent Com and perhaps the leading expert on Iraq and the middle east in the US military. He does not call the current situation in Iraq a Civil War. He understands that 90% of the sectarian violence, the reason people call it a civil war, happens within 30 miles of downtown Baghdad. The vast majority of the rest of the country is free of this type of violence.[/q]




Abizaid has about as much credibility as Bush or Rumsfeld. gee, it wouldn't be in his own personal interests and reputation to deny that he's, you know, FAILING at his job and the US military is incapable of dealing with the increasing sectarian violence. oh, right, you think the military is incapable of spin and PR . in reality, NO ONE agrees with your assessment of the situation in Iraq, nor does anyone agree with Abizaid. 3,700 civilians died in October ALONE.

Quote:
There are not relatively accurate casualty figures for Iraqi civilian deaths, but it is certain is that the current sectarian fighting in Iraq no where near resembles the level of fighting in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 when nearly 10% of the population was slaughtered.
oh, i see, so we only care if it measures up to Bosnia. what convenient, self-serving metric. and let's not forget that the lack of intervention in Bosnia was a great European failure, as well as being a situation where outside militlary intervention would have indeed (and did indeed) help end the fighting whereas in Iraq its the presence of an outside military, and the removal of a strongman, that has given us the violence we now see.

still, the comparison between Iraq and Yugoslavia is apt, but not in the way that you think.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-29-2006, 11:55 PM   #254
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


when the Shiites of Iraq and Iran join together, look out.

the Saudis are nervous. shouldn't you be?


Abizaid has about as much credibility as Bush or Rumsfeld. gee, it wouldn't be in his own personal interests and reputation to deny that he's, you know, FAILING at his job and the US military is incapable of dealing with the increasing sectarian violence. oh, right, you think the military is incapable of spin and PR . in reality, NO ONE agrees with your assessment of the situation in Iraq, nor does anyone agree with Abizaid. 3,700 civilians died in October ALONE.



oh, i see, so we only care if it measures up to Bosnia. what convenient, self-serving metric. and let's not forget that the lack of intervention in Bosnia was a great European failure, as well as being a situation where outside militlary intervention would have indeed (and did indeed) help end the fighting whereas in Iraq its the presence of an outside military, and the removal of a strongman, that has given us the violence we now see.

still, the comparison between Iraq and Yugoslavia is apt, but not in the way that you think.
I asked you to technically explain why Kuwait is more likely to be overrun now than when Saddam was in power and all you have to say is "when the Shiites of Iraq and Iran join together, look out"? I thought the Shiites of Iraq and Iran were "already together" according to yourself and others, but in any event, please explain how they would be in a better position to overrun Kuwait than Saddam was at any time he was in power.

Part of the problem of many people in the media as well as critics is that they only look at the day to day events without considering the scale of what is being done and how long it will take to complete the process. You claim that General John Abazaid is failing at his job, but you ignore what has been accomplished and how much worse things would be on the ground without the accomplishments of the past 3 years. How can you call an operation that will take 10+ years to complete, with plenty of setbacks along the way, a failure after only 3 years? What level of violence would you consider to be normal given the tasks involved and how long it will take to complete them?

There are plenty of people who agree with Abizaids position, especially among the US military, the largest group of foreigners on the ground in Iraq. If you understand and appreciate how long counter insurgency operations and nation building takes, then you would realize that these sudden declarations of failure are absurd.

You could make the case that Taliban controlled Afghanistan was a more stable place prior to their removal. In both cases, the Taliban and Saddam's regimes had to be removed because of the threat they posed to the planet. Naturally, rebuilding both countries after the removal of such dominating regimes are very difficult tasks that require TIME in order for them to be successful.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 11-30-2006, 03:34 AM   #255
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 09:12 PM
I say outline a definitive strategy for victory, get out and hammer it home to the public and you can build support back up for the war. The problem is, there isn't one. And everyone looking for objective answers knows it.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com