Iraq?

[tickleboynyc]

Sorry to bring up this terrible subject, but i'm just very curious on people's thoughts about the situation.

 

[qjakal]

Basically...

I'm against it.

Time to clear out, although they aren't ready to self govern most likely. They'll be hard pressed to reorganize themselves before Iran starts looking across the border and rubbing it's chin with a contemplative "Hmmm" and a military manuever towards the border.

I'd like to see them form their own version of NATO in that area of the world, but I have a feeling that comes under the "when pigs fly" category.

Anyway, keep it clean and civil folks...
Q

 

[MrMacphisto]

I'm starting to think these people are beyond help... It may have been unethical to pre-emptively attack them, but we did rid them of a dictator. (Granted, there were thousands of civilian casualties.) The most puzzling part of this problem is that thousands of these people seem to be clinging to the leadership of zealots rather than the American forces. What makes me wonder why they would do this is two-fold: 1)we are providing them a lot of aid and trying to bring them into a 1st World standard of living, and 2)they can't deny that our forces could truly obliterate all these rebel groups if we didn't care about collateral damage. Essentially, they are at our mercy, and yet, they have the gall to bite the hand that feeds them. The only rationale behind all of this is that we've been neglecting the interests of the Shiites. I suppose diplomacy is still an option, but if that doesn't work, then fuck 'em.... I wouldn't mind if it came down to a scene straight from "The Rules of Engagement" if they continue to fight us. Some people are just beyond help if they let religion control them to this degree. As for how to deal with zealots, I think Samuel Jackson said it best in the previously mentioned movie, "Waste the motherfuckers!"

 

[Sadistictickler]

Hmmkay, it's kinda obvious muslim-extremists are not interested in Americans, something which I find quite understandable from their point of view.

There are too many groups trying to seize power for the US to control; it's a total waste of time, money and effort. This problem cannot be solved by a western power...

I'd say the problem should solve itself. Let them murder eachother, let a massive civil war break out. Whoever wins should get the money to rebuild the country.

 

[Haltickling]

The problem is that the "hand biters" are not identical to those who get "fed" by the hand. They don't wish any "infidels" in their country, they don't wish a Western civilisation or a democracy, least of all do they want to become America's (=Israel's in their opinion) lackey. Some want an Islamic theocracy, some want Saddam back because they think that Iraq was better off in his days, some want autonomy for their specific region.

But most just want the occupation forces out, and they'll go to any length to achieve that. Most of them begrudge the lack of security since the invasion, and many of them want revenge for the "collateral damage". The Iraqis will not forget how US forces just stood by and watched the lootings, and that the only building they really secured was the Oil Ministry.

Now the American troops pay for the lack of an after-war-concept, for the naivety and cultural ignorance, for doing things "the American way". They pay not for America's or Iraq's freedom, they pay for the mistakes of their politicians. Sad.

And what's even sadder: The mistakes are continuing! Already about 500 dead and over 1000 wounded Iraqis in Fallujah alone, and certainly not only terrorists. The bombing of a mosque, a religious symbol. The house searches which include their women's rooms, an absolute taboo ("harem", the name for the women's rooms, also means "forbidden").

Now even Shiites and Sunnites are uniting in the fight against the occupants, although they normally are archfiends. As soon as the US troops move out, these two groups will wage a gruesome civil war against each other, there are too many axes to grind. Already now, the Iran sends undercover troops into south Iraq to support the Shiites. I'm afraid that nothing can be done to prevent Iraq from becoming a second Lebanon. Iraq's fate is out of Saddam's hands, yes, but it's out of the world's hand, too. And it's certainly out of America's control, so sorry.

 

[qjakal]

Mosques..

I'd say don't use them as a base for a fire attack if you'd prefer they not be shelled...

Seems to me they want the troops out so they can start slaughtering each other and see who ends up with the biggest piece. What a waste indeed of effort and treasure, but as always all you can provide is opportunity. If they insist on being locked into the past and resolving the ages old conflicts of that past, I agree that we should clear out as quickly as possible so they can back to enacting the inevitable tragedy and play it out to the bitter end.

You think there's civilian causalities now? This few years total will be surpassed in a matter of months shortly after they're left to their own devices.

Q

 

[Haltickling]

Re: Mosques..

I'd say don't use them [mosques] as a base for a fire attack if you'd prefer they not be shelled...

But that's whe whole idea of it: Hide in a mosque, fire at the Americans and wait till they shell the place. Is there a better way to get even less fanatical people furious? That's what guerilla tactics is all about! You just can't win a war like that with regular forces.

 

[qjakal]

War?

Hal, if we truly at war with them there wouldn't be 2 stones to stack on top of each other left to be found. We're in a political quagmire at this point in time. The extremists are actually working against their own cause if you think about it, because a pullout would be opportune for our current administration. The only thing we/they won't do is be bullied out or appear to be retreating in any way. I'm not a religous man, but if I were I'd pray for peace and quiet. I think the latest atrocities have come close to lighting a fuse...one which will result in a lot of death and destruction in Iraq yet again if flamed a bit. Marines fight to win...period...end of story and no excuses or obstacles allowed.

The extremists should be careful...they might get what they wish for, and as the parable goes, it can be quite disconcerting.

It's a sad world, old friend. BUT we've lived long enough to see wondrous things that I don't think either of ever expected. That wall coming down...the USSR going broke....Mars being seriously explored. Can't wait to see what else is in our future. Perhaps that world government? Nah...not unless I get a new lease on life pretty soon and some new parts eventually...lol.

Sleep well, Sir Hal..

Q

 

[red indian]

I would love to contribute but.........

.......I dont need any more patronising e mails berating me for not being a team player and threatening to throw me off this web site.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Now even Shiites and Sunnites are uniting in the fight against the occupants, although they normally are archfiends. As soon as the US troops move out, these two groups will wage a gruesome civil war against each other, there are too many axes to grind. Already now, the Iran sends undercover troops into south Iraq to support the Shiites. I'm afraid that nothing can be done to prevent Iraq from becoming a second Lebanon. Iraq's fate is out of Saddam's hands, yes, but it's out of the world's hand, too. And it's certainly out of America's control, so sorry.

Hmmm... interesting idea here... Maybe we should invite the rest of the world into helping us crush both groups and making Iraq the world's bitch, instead of just America's. I mean, I don't think too many countries would miss Iraq or the Iraqi people. Iran hates them. Israel hates them. Kuwait hates them. The majority of the Islamic World seems to only stick up for them because they share the same religion, but if we offered these other Islamic countries shares of the oil revenue, I'm sure they'd compromise this facade. Whatever the case, if indeed, it seems to be that, no matter what is done, they are destined to slaughter each other, then why not do them the favor of completing the task ourselves? I'm not naive enough to think that Americans are any better than Iraqis, but our culture is certainly more functional in the modern world, as is the majority of the 1st World's cultures. Once again, if a difference of theological belief leads these desperate fools into killing each other, then they deserve to die.

 

[august spies]

the war was obscene the occupation is horrible. it will increase terrorism and we are spending billions of dollars on government pork.

 

[Knox The Hatter]

Here's what's interesting: I predicted all of this happening before this shebang started. Not because I'm clairvoyant by any means; but rather, I've made myself more well informed. I just have an interest in geopolitics.
You yourselves don't have to be that well informed, either. You just have to look at a map, and understand the divisions. Face it, Saddam did one incredible job of keeping this disparate group together! Iraq was created by a stroke of a pen, out of the convenience of politicians in London, without a thought to cultural and political divisions within. Near the end, Saddam had a police force of 20,000 patrolling a city of three million in Baghdad (I think New York, with eight million, has something like 8,000), and the force was that large for a reason. Some might point to Saddam's considerable gifts for repression, but the fact is, he needed every one of those police officers to maintain order. Of course, Nitwit Central here couldn't figure that out until it was too late.
The American people still haven't grasped yet what we've gotten ourselves into over there. One thing's for certain: we can't leave. We're stuck there. For how long, is anyone's guess, but we simply can't leave. Period. While we're there, this civil war will break out, and the Bush Regime won't know what to do.
I'm not the only one who was well informed. There were people down there who knew what would happen, but the Bush Regime wasn't listening...the execution of a no bid contract given to Dick Cheney Inc. was more important.
Man, what a mess.

 

[Haltickling]

Re: War?

Hal, if we truly at war with them there wouldn't be 2 stones to stack on top of each other left to be found.

You're right, Q, the US is not at war with Iraq, it was at war against Saddam.

But the political shortsightedness of the planning, the clumsy inflexibility of the military, and the incredible disregard for geopolitical and cultural problems have led to this disaster. The invasion made most political solutions impossible, and the US troops stomping around like a clumsy elephant in a glass shop is continually reducing the chances for a peaceful end.

To leave now would mean absolute chaos now, and not to leave now will lead to a similar catastrophe soon.

I can see only one halfway viable solution: Divide the country. One Shiite state in the south (Basra as capital), one Sunnite state at the center (Baghdad), and two (!) Kurdish states in the north (Arbil and Kirkuk). It will lead to a very large scale ethnic cleansing, but it may eventually stand the chance for some kind of reluctant peace afterwards.

I'm aware of the problems though: USA would never concede the oil wells, they would do everything to prevent Iran from gobbling up the south, and Turkey will never accept any independent Kurdish state, which may lead to a Turkish invasion in the north. And none of the 4 new states will be able to survive without help from the outside. Oh well, forget it, logic doesn't help here!

 

[Knox The Hatter]

"I'm aware of the problems though: USA would never concede the oil wells, they would do everything to prevent Iran from gobbling up the south, and Turkey will never accept any independent Kurdish state, which may lead to a Turkish invasion in the north. And none of the 4 new states will be able to survive without help from the outside. Oh well, forget it, logic doesn't help here!"

Sadly, Hal, you're right. There's no solution to this. True, logic doesn't help here, but then, logic is a concept that is not accepted by the Regime...it has no application in anything they do.

 

[qjakal]

Solutions vs. blame

Sorry to say, but "I told you so" doesn't help at any point in finding solutions, it just makes you feel better/smarter. It's a bloody mess (that was for red indian) and I'd feel better if we could put Hal in charge of the reconstruction, pullout and resource division in Iraq. BUT we now have to deal with this and find some type of equitable solution or resign ourselves to being the creators of a civil bloodbath upon departure. It MAY indeed be inevitable, since Saddam favored his own faction for so many decades...his enemies are likely intractable and the dissidents causing the current problems are probably scared of a leveled playing field and vengeful former victims.

Those troops stomping around (hey, some of them are light on their feet Hal..lol) are doing an impossible job imo, and in constant danger until we formulate some sort of endgame. It's not a matter of logical solutions as you're trying to apply logic to an emotional state that resonates throughout this torn country. Knox got that right albeit encased in one of those all or nothing slams he likes to lay upon the current administration.

Damn shame, because there ARE enough resources to build a few strong nations inherent in their oil wealth. Better hurry though, alternative fuel sources are on the rise dramatically and nearly ready for commercial application (whole new thread THERE).

Hal, I think we could dissuade Turkey regarding that northern border as they always need economic and technological support and have shown themselves to be reasonable players in the past. We'd likely have to sign assurnace pacts agreeing to protect their soviergnty in case of problems.

Ya know...it IS a mess..sigh.
Q

 

[Shem the Penman]

"We don't need blame, we need solutions" is easy enough to say when it's your boys who are at fault. Les Aspin, Clinton's first defense secretary, resigned in shame over the mess in Somalia. Why aren't Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of those in the war-now-plan-later party lined up outside the Oval Office with resignations in hand?

I suspect any "solution" that lot come up with will involve trying to install Ahmed Chalabi as prime minister by force -- and when that, predictably, fails, we pull out and let the country collapse into chaos amidst much sighing and hand-wringing about how we -tried- to help those rotten ungrateful Iraqi barbarians. To come up with a more subtle solution would require flexibility, diplomacy, and a willingness to compromise, which are -- to put it mildly -- not hallmarks of the current administration.

 

[Haltickling]

Re: Solutions vs. blame

...and I'd feel better if we could put Hal in charge of the reconstruction, pullout and resource division in Iraq.

LOL, thanks but no, thanks! It's more than any politician in this world could do, and everybody who tried it would be crucified by the media and most states in this world.

Hal, I think we could dissuade Turkey regarding that northern border as they always need economic and technological support and have shown themselves to be reasonable players in the past. We'd likely have to sign assurnace pacts agreeing to protect their soviergnty in case of problems.

Q, the problem with Turkey is that they have their own, rather large Kurdish minority within their borders, but they refuse to acknowledge them. For official Turkey, there are no Kurds, only so-called "Mountain Turks". Part of the Kurds have organized as terrorist group, called "PKK".

Now, any sovereign Kurdish state, be it in Iraq, Syria, or Iran, would cause an immediate uprising of the Turkish Kurds, and a large support for the PKK. And that is just as much out of US control as Iraq. BTW: The most important strategic US airbase in the whole region (covering Iran, north Iraq, Syria, and the Caucasus mountains), Incirlik, is in Turkish Kurdistan. So much for who needs whom...

I'm afraid Shem is right. Pandora's box has been opened, mostly with US help, and now we have to cope with the consequences. The only certainty is that those who are responsible for it will never feel any of those consequences. They will hold large industry board seats whatever happens at the November elections.

 

[qjakal]

Nationalism

Exactly the point Hal. They'd have a "homeland" to emigrate to, and an economic base to build, IF they were capable of doing so. An emerging country, especially one on shaky ground should have its hands full with their own infrastructure concerns rather than getting on a war footing...*shrug*...if it worked perhaps someone could talk the Palestinians into some such setup.

Hey, Israel was founded on the concept and they made it work in about as hostile an environment as you could postulate.

Btw, I'm sure you'd do well at resource allocation Hal, and I promise I wouldn't second guess your decisions. Can't speak for the whole country/world though...lol. Decision making always looks simple from a distance of time and space, doesn't it?

🙄 Q

 

[red indian]

Ok....what the hell.......

......I have to say something, its too good a thread.

The U.S. HAVE to stay, and i hope very much that they will do so. Lets be honest folks, we all want gas in our tanks come Monday morning to get to work, no matter what the colour of our politics.

Thats the true reason why the U.S. are so interested in Iraq. Of course no U.S. government or U.K. government can say so, as it is not possible to justify an invasion based on the need for oil. You need only look at what President Mugabe is doing to his people in Zimbabwe, and compare the totall lack of interest by the international community to what is going on there, to the manufactured excuses for invading Iraq.

Bush and Blair tell us it is all about spreading the gospell of freedom and democracy, and throwing out of power despotic dictators like Saddam Hussien.

Its total bollocks of course, Saddam was "our man in the middle east" for many years, and we armed him and bank rolled him against Iran.We did not give a shit who he arrested, tortured and murdered in his own country as long as he was looking after the wests interests.

Why are we letting Mugabe get away with much the same kind of thing? becuase he has no oil or any other natural resource that we covet.

Saddams real mistake was getting "delusions of granduer" and thinking he could get away with invading Kuwait when they refused to write off the massive debt he owed them for helping bank roll his Iran/Iraq war.

He was doomed from that point on, the west could no longer trust him and he had to go. Its really that simple folks.

As has been said by others, the lid is now off the pressure cooker of all the different factions in Iraq and they are bound to start squabling and fighting.Lets face it, every policeman will tell you that the worse call out they can deal with is a domestic dispute. No one wants you there.

However, the disputes and the fighting factions will have to be sorted out. The west have to look after long term oil supplies, and the best way to do that is to see that Iraq is stable and western friendly. That means installing a democracy, on the pretext of some kind of pious, evanglistic aspiration to democratise the world.

Lets see this the aspiration at work in Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia, then i might start to believe Bush and Blairs motives.

The U.S. fought a good war, of that there is no great dispute. Casualties were extreamly low, the the predictions of "armageddon" by the anti war lobby were totally wrong.

Unfortunately the U.S. forces seem to be still trying to fight this same kind of war, even though it has long since ceased to be relevant to the situation.

U.S. allies are starting to become highly critical of the lack of flexibility and sensitivity of U.S. forces, to a changed situation politically and militarilly. The U.S. is in danger of loosing support from the moderate majorities in all the different factions present in and around Bhagdad.

The situation in the south of Iraq especially around the strategically vital city of Basra appears to be much better. Who is in charge down there? could it be that the U.S. have something to learn from who ever it is thats running the place?

 

[august spies]

some good talking points on the subject:

Iraq Talking Points
The Vulnerabilities of the Bush Iraq Policies

by Phyllis Bennis; Institute For Policy Studies; April 11, 2004

Almost one year from President Bush’s announcement of the end of "major combat operations" in Iraq, the U.S. drive towards empire faces new and serious challenges. One year to the day since U.S. military forces pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein, the front page of the Washington Post features a photograph of another U.S. soldier pulling down a poster of Shia’a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr from a pillar in the same Baghdad square. Certainly the most important challenge is seen in the widening military confrontation now facing U.S. troops in cities across Iraq. But there is a further challenge internationally. The "second super-power" is on the rise, and it now has broadened to include not only social movements and global civil society protests but as well a new assortment of governments prepared to defy U.S. pressures, inter-governmental organizations and groups (some of them newly formed, such as the G-21). And new developments may point to a potential to reclaim the United Nations itself as part of the global resistance to U.S. war.

The bottom line is that it has become impossible for the Bush administration to claim that their policies are good for Iraqis or good for Americans. The key weaknesses facing the administration’s policies start with exposés – from lies regarding weapons of mass destruction to the failure of an Iraq-obsessed White House to take real terrorist threats seriously. The specific vulnerabilities reflect the specific false claims the administration has been using (some of them now being discarded) to actually brag about the "success" of their strategy.

"We have liberated Iraq from tyranny." What Iraqis see outside their doors are foreign soldiers occupying their country. Violence is escalating on a scale unprecedented inside Iraq since the Iran-Iraq War and the Anfal campaign of the 1980s. Many Iraqis, particularly many women, are afraid to leave their homes becomes of the surging violence.

"We are bringing democracy to Iraq." The so-called "transfer of power" scheduled (though perhaps soon to be delayed) for June 30th will not transfer power to Iraq. The U.S. military occupation, of 110,000 + troops will remain occupying the country under U.S., not Iraqi, command and control. The nominal turning over of civil authority to Iraqis will have little significance, since there is no legitimate Iraqi government to take charge. Authority, what U.S. officials will falsely call "sovereignty," will likely be passed to the current members or perhaps a slightly enlarged version of the Iraqi Governing Council, the U.S.-backed group of U.S.-chosen, largely exile-based, Iraqi officials. The interim constitution that will be the basis for that group to "rule" has no legitimacy, having been crafted by U.S.-selected Iraqis and subject to U.S. veto of any section unacceptable to the U.S. pro-consul in Baghdad, J. Paul Bremer.

"Iraqis view us as liberators and support our troops being in their country." It is becoming clear that a wide percentage of the Iraqi population wants the U.S. occupation to end. The apparent breadth of popular support for the Iraqi military attack on the U.S. occupation is undermining Bush administration claims that only left-over Baathists, disgruntled Sunnis and foreign terrorists are responsible for the violent challenge to the U.S. The militia of the fiery young Shia’a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr first initiated the current escalation of military resistance (responding to the provocative U.S. decisions to shut down his newspaper). But the rapid expansion of the resistance to include Sunni strongholds and statements of at least tacit support from the mainstream Shia’a hierarchy indicate a far wider level of public anger at the occupation and at least openness to a military resistance campaign.

"We have enough troops in Iraq and our lean-and-mean military is capable of whatever needs to be done." In fact the military is seriously stretched. The announcement that 25,000 troops expecting an imminent return home would instead be re-deployed for as much as another year in Iraq, was met with widespread anger among military families and active-duty personnel. Continuing the "stop-leave" law that prohibits people from leaving the military even when their contract is up is likely to create new anger in the ranks and the potential for a significant GI resistance movement. There are reports that the highest ranks of military staff are furious with the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, setting the stage for serious undermining of military capacity. The expansion of Military Families Speak Out and other military family networks, as well as the increasing visibility of opposition among active-duty and reserve troops, indicates an important new strengthening of the anti-war movement.

"We are in Iraq leading a broad international coalition – dozens of countries are participating in the Coalition with us." In fact, U.S. "allies" other than Britain have never provided anything but symbolic numbers of troops, and even that minimal level of participation is quickly dissipating. Allies are dropping like flies. Following the Spanish primer minister-elect’s announced commitment to withdraw troops, Norway and Khazakhstan announced they will pull out as well. Bulgaria demanded military protection for their troops, while South Korea, Bulgaria and Poland suspended all military operations by their contingents and pulled back to their bases. Japan announced it would not send any additional troops.

The defeat of Jose Maria Aznar in the Spanish elections just days after the horrific terror attack on the Madrid subways, has provided a new model for countries around the world whose governments backed Bush’s war against massive public opposition. In Italy, Australia, perhaps even the UK itself, Bush’s allies are finding their approval ratings dropping precipitously as they struggle to justify their unpopular – and now sometimes deadly—decisions to deploy troops.

"The United Nations will support our transfer of power, and UN endorsement of the new interim Iraqi government after June 30th will pave the way for the UN to return to Iraq." In fact, the UN so far remains reticent to return to Iraq at all while the U.S. occupation continues. Even if UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and his team are able to find some way of selecting an interim government for the U.S. to "transfer power" to, and find Iraqi agreement on an election strategy for that "government," it is far from clear that there will be enough security for a significant UN team to work in Iraq. There is certainly a danger that U.S. pressure in the Security Council could result in a new resolution endorsing the June 30th "transition," embracing the U.S. occupation force as a UN-legitimized multi-national coalition, and calling for the UN to send in election or other staff while the U.S. occupation remains in place. But it is more likely now, especially in the context of the new upsurge in violence, that the UN Secretary General will refuse to send his people back to pay the price for scaffolding the U.S. occupation. And more significantly, there is a great likelihood that the Council itself will refuse U.S. demands to endorse Washington’s war, and instead will, as it did from September 2002 until May 2003, place the UN on the side of the global opposition to war. It could even make clear its intention to refuse to go back to Iraq until the U.S. has ended its occupation and withdrawn its forces. Such a move would significantly strengthen international support for the United Nations.

Such a scenario may be particularly likely given the lessons of the 2002-2003 Security Council defiance. Despite major U.S. threats against Chile, Mexico, Cameroon, Guinea and the others, the "Uncommitted Six" who said ‘no’ to U.S. demands to endorse the war largely got away without punishment. The lesson was taken up soon after in Cancun, when the largest countries of the global South, including South Africa, India, Brazil, Argentina and more, created the Group of 21 to successfully challenge U.S. and European efforts to expand the power of the World Trade Organization.

"Our liberation of Iraq is only the first step in a broad campaign to bring democracy to the Middle East." Instead, the Middle East region is enraged at the destruction brought to Iraq. Israel’s occupation of Palestine has taken a newly brutal turn with the assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, and the adoption of Israeli-style tactics by U.S. troops has brought the U.S.-Israeli links back to center stage. Television footage from Fallujah and Ramadi looks indistinguishable, except in degree, from similar tape from Rafah and Jenin. The planned April 14 visit of Ariel Sharon to the White House is likely to result in a U.S. agreement (some of which will not be made public) that Israel’s pull-out from Gaza will be answered with a U.S. guarantee of Israel’s refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders, its annexation of major Israeli settlement blocs inside Palestine, and its rejection of the right of return. Governments throughout the region, most of them long-time clients of sequential U.S. administrations, are scrambling to find some distance between them and their Washington patrons to at least tamp down popular anger. The Bush administration’s "Greater Middle East Initiative," ostensibly aimed at encouraging reform in the Arab world, is in shambles. It is expected to be launched at the G-8 Summit in Georgia in early June, but Arab governments are already rejecting it as meddling in internal Arab affairs while ignoring the Israeli occupation of Palestine and its destabilizing effect on the region.

"The overthrow of Saddam Hussein makes America and the whole world safer." In fact, U.S. government authorities themselves have made clear that the danger of terrorist attacks has never been greater since September 11, 2001. Iraq under U.S. occupation has apparently become what Iraq never was before: a focal point of international terrorist organizations. Internationally, citizens of countries whose governments are supporting Washington’s war are at greater risk. And the constant repetition of the claim that the U.S. itself is the best, the oldest, the biggest…democracy leads to a global view that Americans, unlike people in many other parts of the world, actually have the capacity to change their government’s policies if they don’t like them. If they don’t change those policies, the logic goes, it must be because the American people agree with those policies. And that belief puts Americans at much greater risk as well.

Go to the United for Peace and Justice website (www.unitedforpeace.org) for Emergency Action calls.

 

[ShiningIce]

You need only look at what President Mugabe is doing to his people in Zimbabwe

Mugabe is taking BACK land that was STOLEN by European colonists. God bless him.

 

[Haltickling]

Mugabe is taking BACK land that was STOLEN by European colonists. God bless him.

And that entitles him to commit mass murder and throw his country into anarchy? Oh come on, Shining, you're disappointing me.

Besides, the topic is Iraq, not Zimbabwe, although that would certainly be worth its own thread.

 

[Deleted member 2452]

*tipping my hat*

bravo gentleman, i am impressed with the responses so far.
and even more amazing i agree with most of them. you're all in trouble now! lol.

a couple thoughts though; first, les aspin resigned because he presonally refused the request for tanks, and apc's by the comanders in somalia. his action was directly responsible for the losses suffered in the "black hawk down" incident. it was aspin that ordered a small force to be sent after the head of the samali rebels.

we do seem to be getting stuck in a quagmire. as a result of our allowing more personal freedom, ownership of firearms, religious freedom, and politicaly motivated military restraint, we now are in a mess. we need to come down on theses "terrorists" like the terrible right hand of god. carpet bomb fallujah. during the last 48hrs of cease-fire, more than half of the cities population has evacuated. it is believed that those left are radicle insurgents, and fighters. so why not fight? we have the place surounded, let's bomb it flat.
i know, that's cruel right? but it will work! these people over there don't think the same way we do, they don't place the same value of life that we do. if we "leave no 2 stones standing" the rest of the country will fall in line faster than a cat jumping off a hot tin roof. i want nothing more than to bring home our troops, safe and sound. the worry about outside interferance is well placed fear. the area is lousy with cowards waiting to pick the carcase of their neighbors. it's a mess, but one we can set right, and not be stuck in for a long time. but it will take action, and resolve, not hand wringing.

steve
p.s. if we went into rhodesia we would be called the biggest racists of all time! ha! like we aren't already. lol but seriously, that is what's keeping us from doing what's right in there.

 

[Haltickling]

Re: *tipping my hat*

we have the place surounded, let's bomb it flat. i know, that's cruel right? but it will work! these people over there don't think the same way we do, they don't place the same value of life that we do. if we "leave no 2 stones standing" the rest of the country will fall in line faster than a cat jumping off a hot tin roof.

Fall in line with the terrorists, you mean? Because that's what they'll do. Their new battle cry will be "revenge for Fallujah!" You're right, these people think differently. After a possible bombing of Fallujah, the terrorists will take shelter in the holy Shiite cities of Nadjaf and Kerbala, and bombing these places would be tantamount to bombing Mecca. And then?

But I can agree with almost everything else you said in your post.

 

[ShiningIce]

And that entitles him to commit mass murder and throw his country into anarchy? Oh come on, Shining, you're disappointing me.

Please. Those colonists have no business being there in the first place. Mass murder??? You think that wasnt committed when the land was STOLEN??