Go ahead and talk about Iraq here.

The whole Iraq deal feels like it's kinda turning into another Vietnam . . . too many dead, too long a conflict, too many political goalposts being moved means it might never be concluded . . .

Can we also have a thread to talk about God/Christianity?

A Tibet topic and an Iraq topic is just asking for a Lord Bemon intervention!

I think as long as it remains civil, we should be able to talk about these issues. We're all adults (I think).

although when it comes to "who the hell outbid me?" discussions. not so civil

John 'Insane' McCain has said he would stay in Iraq 100 years.

The 9/11 Conspiracy thread has me optimistic that we can discuss these issues without Lord Bemon intervening.

Definitely a "quagmire", aka clusterf*ck... We screwed ourselves the day we rolled across their borders. Now we're there, fighting an un-winnable battle against an enemy that too easily blends in with the civilian population...to add to the problem, we don't seem to be in the right country...seems like Afghanistan might be better suited for routing out the terrorists that attacked our country. At least we got Hussein before somebody else could assassinate him. If we pull out of Iraq now, we leave a gaping hole for the power-mad to fight over, and if we stay, they fight us instead...


It certainly doesn't seem morally right to add to an already unstable situation and then leave the mess for others to clean up, but it really sucks that people (OUR people---sons & daughters, brothers & sisters) keep dieing because our own government didn't listen to reason and rushed headlong into a fight they didn't understand...maybe war couldn't have been avoided, but then again...

To add in a bit more cynism, I keep wondering how many people are profiting off of shady government contracts in a region where no real measure of effectiveness can be taken...it is a sickening thought, but I'm way too jaded to think that it isn't happening...

Blackwater- a new all time low of humanity?

Finally, some inteligence about the situation.

If you would read what I wrote again, I never said Saddam had WMD's, I said he violated UN sanctions.To say that I am pro war is another ignorant statement , I never said I was for the war in Iraq,and if I did, please feel free to qoute those words. That fact that you brushed off the fact that Saddam was an evil dictator is crazy, its sounds to me you would rather have Saddam than your countries current leader?The thing that drives me nuts about people like you is you I FART A LOT and complain about your own country, and how evil they are, but Im certain you havent gone to live in Iraq, or Iran, or saudi arabia.If you did, you would find that you wouldnt be able to I FART A LOT about how the government conducts buisness, because if you did, you would be punished severly.

And Vombie-Im sorry your brother has had to go back to Iraq over and over again, Ive been in his position, and it sucks.To be honest though, when I signed up for the military, no one forced me, I knew what I was getting into, it IS the military after all.But the fact that your brother , or any other soldier isnt sure why we're there, isnt such a negative, a soldier is a tool, a weapon, and is pointed in a direction and fired, the person pulling the trigger is the one who has to know why.

Before I get bashed as pro war, trust me, I wish we never would've went into Iraq again, and I wish we could pull all the troops out of there and everything would be okay, but as we learned with Afghanistan( Afghan vs Russia, CIA supported Afghans, and then left them high and dry= 911) the mess that was made should be cleaned up the right way, for the Iraqi peoples sake, and we should have the fortitude to see it through.
Im done posting about this , back to Tibet, FREE TIBET!

Look man- Im not trying to have an argument here, by the sounds of it we are in agreement on a lot of points.

As for similarities between Tibet and Iraq, they were both invaded for natural resources and to expand empire. Thats my only point.

Ofcourse Saddam was an evil dictator- but thats not why we went to war- I mean half the middle east and africia are run by evil dictators, so why pick Iraq? it wasnt to liberate the iraqi people- it was for oil.

The worse thing about iraq now is there is no easy solution- because of the ethnic makeup of iraq there is always gonna be fighting.

My only point in this discussion was that while the whole world is critisising china- they need to have a look at their own forign policy, and that its not that different, its just how you spin it.

we put saddam in power. he just wouldnt play ball with us anymore so he had to go

Ok, I agree that we( west) went into Iraq for the wrong reasons (this time) but that it wasnt just about oil , no one wouldve bought into it if it was.

But thats the past, its happened , we are there, too late.

The thing I disagree with you on is that we cant just drop everything and leave, not because of terrorists( fuck them) but for the Iraqi peoples sake.

Do you suppose that there is any credence in thinking that there was a bit of the legacy of H.W. Bush's campaign (called it Dust Storm, or something like that) that influenced G.W. Bush's ill-advised decision to go back to the Iraqi border? A sort of carrying-out of dear ol'Dad's unfinished business? Dubya has stated a number of times that he believes in what his "gut" (and God) tells him to do---and I don't think anyone can believe that Georgie made it into office on intellect, so we can rule that out right off the bat. If he was smart, he might have listened to any of the number of other heads of state that told him it was not a good idea to go to war.

I was wondering on my way home if the best solution to Iraq might not be similar to that of Korea or Vietnam and divide it up into Sunni/Shiite territories and carve off a little Palestine-like chunk up north for the Kurds...they clearly can't get along with each other, so putting one in power over the other would seem foolish. Obviously, peace and harmony across the country would be a better solution, however, a tense co-existence in separate parts of the country might be more realistic.

"Go to your corners, and come out fighting (when we're gone!)"

Wolfowitz had a plan written up on the occupation of Iraq when he was low man in the totem, in the Bush Sr. administration. It's well documented that as soon as Jr. came into power, they were really trying to find a way to dust it off and put it into play. So the "unfinished business" aspect can't be ignored.

If this war is for oil, though....where is my cheap gas, then?

This speculation isn't entirely without merit but isn't sufficient to explain everything. Consider: GWHB saw the Iraq/Hussein threat differently than GWB. As a former DoI GWHB had a better understanding of the role of raw intel and was less beholden to his handlers, who in the case of Bush II's cabinet most significantly included Cheney, Rumsfeld, and "neocons" including Wolfowitz and Bremer who were extremely unrealistic about taking action on their agendas.

I don't believe the "revenge for Daddy" aspect was particularly significant. If this cedes undue credit to W, so be it, but despite the overly flippant sound of it, I honestly do believe that "the neocon agenda" and the unfortunate deafness to what solid intel there actually was is more to blame for W's "Vietnam quagmire" than personal vendettas.

you see, samba, if the US stays in Iraq for a hundred years, the US and much of the 'civilized' world will be able to suck out a whole lot of crude. If we monopolize Iraq's oil production for a hundred years, it just might be enough fossil fuels in order to continue living the way we have been (efficient shipping of goods, airplane rides whenever we want, hummers, etc.). In this timespan of a hundred years, it is reasonable to think that the science behind alternative energies would blossom due to continued excess use of oil (as opposed to sudden deprivation of oil). Solar power, windmill power, and oceanflow generator technology will definitely be better after a century of focused research. So, by the end of the US occupation of Iraq in a hundred years, WE WON'T EVER NEED OIL AGAIN.

(please read with some amount of ironic intent. I am being silly and serious at the same time here. no, I don't support the war.)

The oil is a perk for those that are smart enough and unscrupulous enough to work out ways to make money off of it...and you know they are all over it...
If you can get $3.50/gal for gas, they know that you'll pay $4 or more for it if gradually bumped up...the Chinese will always buy the oil (see other thread for China bashing)...

Read this on CNN just a minute ago:

...a leading Democratic senator Tuesday downplayed the extent of U.S. progress in Iraq.

"We have gone from drowning to treading water," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"We are still spending $3 billion every week, and we are still losing ... 30 to 40 American lives every month. We can't keep treading water without exhausting ourselves, and that is what the president seems to be asking us to do."

And once Dubya is gone, Barack or John or Hillary is still going to have to figure out what to do, and what to do with the black hole of debt that this war has accrued. Read that line above again...$3 billion weekly...where is the money coming from? I heard on NPR (or other equally liberal, yet believable, source) that if every American was to share an equal part of our country's debt, every citizen would owe over $400 thousand dollars...the math makes my head hurt...

Thank goodness for alcohol and pills to make it all seem okay...

<cues up the Stones' Sympathy for the Devil>

Speaking of , whatever has happened to Donald Rumsfeld? One of the top architects of the war has virtually disappeared from the public eye...must be off plotting the "Next Big Move"!

<and now Sabbath...>

"war machine keeps turning"...

It's disconcerting to think that the foundation for the "Great Neocon Plan" was being set back during the late '80's (with Rumsfeld and Cheney, further back even), but I think this was the case. You're right...some in Sr. admin wanted to remove Hussein from power, but he had an idea of what would happen. Jr's administration saw the chance to shape things a certain way, and finish things undone. The danger arose when those who were unrealistic about taking actions on their agendas, eventually had the power to take those actions. You're right about it having less to do with Bush Jr., and more to do with the "Neocon Authority".

Perhaps but I suspect he's truly retired. He had a long and unduly influential career, which ended on an anticlimactic note. As hillsy suggested, his public service goes way back. He and Darth Cheney were pals during the Nixon admin.

If anyone is interested in reading up on this stuff I can recommend some excellent books.

I belive this idea of dividing up Iraq into ethnic or religious territories was talked about before, and it seems possible. The problem is people wouldnt stay on their own side of the line.Isnt Turkey having problems with the Kurds attacking from across the border?

The other problem with dividing the area is that people don't want to relocate. It'd be like going down to LA and telling all the vegetarians to move to Reno and all the non-smokers to move to Tempe.