Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 127

President Bush gave his second major foreign policy speech in a week. Pertinent portions:

National security of United States in danger if we fail in Iraq

America must show it is a steady friend

Congress should stop looking for excuses to get out and help Iraq.

Domino effect: win now and we continue to win. Fail now and we fail later.

If Congress can't even pass a budget with 200 years of experience, how can we expect Iraq to quickly pass reforms in a newborn democracy?

https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...&show_article=1

Excellent points in my view.

Edited: tortdog on 28th Aug, 2007 - 7:51pm

Iraq War Post

Tortdog makes a good point about the Japanese not attacking their own. My point is that the U.S. clearly "won" that war, where in Iraq those lines are not so clearly drawn. The U.S. didn't cause a "regime change" against a dictator, and there were not other forces from other countries infiltrating and wreaking havoc with the process of recovering and rebuilding. Partly because Japan is an island unto itself, whereas Iraq sits surrounded by other countries, easily accessible to those wishing to take advantage of the opportunity to fulfill their own agenda.

Rather off topic, but... I could also argue that the "world society" itself was different then. But that may be another topic.

Edited: FarSeer on 29th Aug, 2007 - 1:33pm

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

Excellent point. Yesterday's report on NPR highlighted the problem America is faced with in the Middle East and Iraq in particular:

* the Middle East is HUGELY significant to America's strategic interests
* Iraq has neighboring Iran and Syria who will NOT be going away
* Iraq is headed by those who are religiously linked to Iran, and not Saudi Arabia or Kuwait (two strong Arab allies)
* the American Congress has signaled that America will be leaving - the question is only when

So if you are Iraq's government, what do you do? Stay linked up with America whom you know to be leaving soon? Or try to make peace with Iran, the strongest military in the region and right on your border, and with whom you have religious ties?

In short, Iraq would be a fool to try to stay close to America in the long term, when Iran is sitting next door, not going anywhere, and Iran's enemy, America, has signaled it's desire to leave soon.

The WORST thing that we did was blast to the world that we're out of there - and fast. It's only made it worse for America in the long term.

Page 127 Iraq War Post

I think the Japanese correlation was brought up much earlier in the thread, but going through like 127 pages is pretty rough, I must admit. However, the victory and entire regime change (which is what it was) to democracy was and will be significantly different if it happens. First of all, if you remember we had a deck of playing cards that got a lot of press. These were our targets of the Iraq government and military of old. These were the guys we must get... In Japan, they did it for us, but the numbers were quite different. A deck of cards has only 52. The Japanese military and leaders killed themselves or were executed to the tune of over 2000 people or about 38 decks of cards. Again, I am more convinced now more than ever, if you want to achieve a regime change and a change in government that last...you will need to kill many or have them kill themselves. This is a level of blood that not many countries are willing to spill. Secondly, the US actually has never left Japan, but basically it was given back to the Japanese after 5 years of occupation. We want out in significantly less time without having gotten rid of all the bad seeds from the previous government. The other points of Japan being isolated and none of the neighbors having interest in invading Japan are excellent and quite valid. Plus, most of Japan's neighbors hate them and they did take a few islands away from Japan (flat out just taking it or by the stroke of a pen from the victors of the war), but they are pretty insignificant.

Iraq War Post

This is what I was saying, it is a mindset, and only from cleansing can there effect a real change. No one is going to do that, so there is going to be no change. You can change an entire culture just because you influence the more elite in society. War in the Middle East has been going on since the beginning of time, it is not going to change now.

Post War Iraq

Rather off topic, but... Well, we do have peace with Egypt, Jordan and Israel. Even Saudi Arabia has begun to make overtures. I'm not so sure "never" is the right word.

With a democratic country, that has freedoms to allow information in, I believe Iraq would stand a decent chance of being different.

Post War Iraq - Page 127

For starters, if the War on Terror included the chief sponsor of terrorism, the US would be fighting itself. Secondly, there is no such thing as a war on terror, you cannot declare war on an act, you must declare it on people. What is a terrorist? Who determines what a terrorist is? Basically this is an open ended term that includes anyone the US wants it to. Therefore, the whole concept of a War on Terror is flawed. You cannot win this war because you cannot define what it is or who it is you are fighting.

If the US were to say let's have a war on Al Queda or on Hezbollah that's fine. They are defined groups. A war on terror isn't. Its link to Iraq is hilarious. The US and its allies have already removed Iraq's biggest terrorist (Saddam), over a decade too late. His removal, rather ironically, has created an environment where other groups have now been able to terrorise each other. This war will never end because you cannot defeat terrorism, especially when you are one of the largest sponsors of it through countless dictatorships and oppressive regimes around the world.

Bin Laden is a religious fanatic, Saddam is a secularist. The two hate each other. This is on publi record. Saddam oppressed religious fundamentalism, and there is no evidence he supported Al Queda. Just like there was never any evidence he had WMDs at the time Coalition leaders were accusing him of such. It is not in Iraq's interest to team up with Bin Laden. Bin Laden is irrelevant anyway, do we even know if he is alive?

I agree that the presence of Coalition troops in Iraq is encouraging some terrorists to enter the country. However, most of the terrorism is not aimed at the US, it is secular warfare between Sunni and Shiite tribes. I think you might find if the US left the Middle East and sorted out Palestine they would not be the target of terrorism. These groups aren't targeting the US because they think its fun or they are jealous of US values. This is rather off-topic and should be discussed in a separate forum.

That really depends on what you define as success. I agree with you in part, however, I don't view the overall conflict as a success simply because it has led to far worse violence and living conditions than was the case under Saddam.

Almost every time Bush speaks he utters the words Iraq and terrorism and also Sept 11. I fail to see how he isn't trying to use Iraq as a political tool. Also, can you please show me the evidence that the troop surge is working? Something more than what a US or Iraqi muppet says.

I think your last point really is the bottom line of this whole conflict. It isn't about terrorism, rather it's more about securing the price and flow of vital resources. Iraq is a very weak enemy of Israel and I don't believe they were every seriously scared of Saddam's depleted military. To be honest, peace in the Middle East will only benefit the US at the bowser. Can you tell me how it will do otherwise?

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 127

You seem, arvhic, to be coming from a position that America is solely in Iraq for it's own benefit, and to retain it's position as the lone (questionable) superpower. If I am wrong, then advise.

This is a ridiculous charge, and completely off topic. If you want to discuss this, then please start a thread and I will heartily join you.

Again off topic. And you err. I will gladly provide you with legal definitions of "terrorism" and examples of wars declared in the past against subjects, as opposed to a country. Merely create the topic and let's discuss.

You are restating your position.

Correction. He did this when it was CONVENIENT. He USED it when it was also convenient. You err. The world (and Saddam) are not that simple.

Again off topic. There was evidence, and both France and Russia intelligence services opined that Iraq likely retained stockpiles of WMDs and had programs to reconstitute WMDs. Further, the evidence found after the war confirms that Iraq had in place plans to reconstitute WMDs as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

We need to discuss this in a relevant thread, but not here. Just hard for me to watch as you continue to throw out unsubstantiated charges.

Off topic, but sure it is.

Where is your support for this. And even if its true, don't we need to stay there to protect the Iraqis from themselves (until their government is up to the task)? Remember Colin Powell's advice?

I agree. It is off topic. It is also simplistic. The United States was the country that got Egypt and Israel to make peace. It helped Jordan strike peace with Israel. And it is U.S. dollars that are continuing to pay to maintain that peace (direct payments to Egypt).

Fact is that there are quite a few Palestinians who aren't willing to make peace with Israel at ANY price (and they are supported by Iranian financing and arms).

Well, sounds like we are saying the same thing. However, I disagree with you that violence and living conditions are worse than under Saddam. Have you read the accounts from Iraqis on what that life was like? One prominent Iraqi characterized it as being that EVERYONE was always in prison. The whole country was a prison.

Whereas before the government oppressed the people, now it is gangs or private groups. That is better than state oppression, in my book.

Yeah. Because Iraq has been named as a state sponsor of terrorism for decades (under both Republican and Democrat administrations). He is being consistent. That's good.

Off topic, but he has been holding to Iraq and it has HURT his political power. So why is that a "tool"? If he wanted to play politics, he would remove the soldiers. But he won't. He's a man of his word.

Who would you expect that we turn to in determining if the troop surge is working, since you will not listen to the Iraqi or U.S. governments (the ones who are running the operations).

I wonder. Do you "listen" to Iraqi or American sources when they say something that you agree with?

No, that is ONE reason. There were several given by the U.S. Congress for this war. The cynics just like to make it simplistic. I'd call that the politicization of the war.

Off topic again. But answering, because America and its allies destroyed them. So tell me why it's okay for Iraq to violate the cease fire and expect for war operations to remain silent?

Not sure what you mean. But peace in the Middle East will benefit the entire world. I would think that is obvious. War in the Middle East benefits Russia and Iran (and possibly China having sidled up next to Russia and Iran).