Let's see, or try to see what you see: You see a wide gap between "possibility of massive civil war" and "civil war is still likely". I don't. Civil war now, civil war later. Hmmm. Disaster now, disaster later. Blastem now, or Blast 'em later? But then you find yourself running on MT, and you may find yourself, living in a shotgun shack, you may ask yourself, "Do you feel Lucky, Punk?" Do you?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can america leave iraq?
- Thread starter buffys
- Start date
ok, play dumb. I'll break it down into easily digested chunks if you are that intent on missing the point.
First, he started saying there is a conundrum. That implies to me already that he is pointing out that the situation is not as cut and dried as you keep asserting. We have two options, both of them bad. Either leave now and the odds for civil war increase dramatically or stay and the likelyhood of civil war is a bit less.
no but I do see a significant difference between "possibility of a massive civil war grow[ing] exponentially" on one hand and "civil war is still likely" on the other. It's bad or worse, not great options but I choose bad since there are no other choices right now.
undecided said:There’s the conundrum, should the US leave? If she does the possibility of a massive civil war grows exponentially, but if the US stays then not only will she have more deaths, it will cost her more, and civil war is still likely.
First, he started saying there is a conundrum. That implies to me already that he is pointing out that the situation is not as cut and dried as you keep asserting. We have two options, both of them bad. Either leave now and the odds for civil war increase dramatically or stay and the likelyhood of civil war is a bit less.
hypewaders said:Let's see, or try to see what you see: You see a wide gap between "possibility of massive civil war" and "civil war is still likely".
no but I do see a significant difference between "possibility of a massive civil war grow[ing] exponentially" on one hand and "civil war is still likely" on the other. It's bad or worse, not great options but I choose bad since there are no other choices right now.
Like the Old Genrul said, "It's such a bloody leech on yer Privates". Now is bad; later is worse. UC, there won't ever be nice rows of white crosses, like in Flanders or Gettysburg.. just silent dunes, beneath a frozen, hurtling crescent moon, transfixed beside Mars. And another generation will ask "Grandpa, if our War was so great, why is everything more fucked up?"
Another victim of polyannamide contamination.
the precedent.
In 1920, the British tried to introduce an Iraqi government in name only - it looks like a copy of UN Security Council Resolution 1546. Sheikh Mehdi Al-Khalasi had become the grand 'marja' (the leading Shiite scholar) after the death of Mohamed Al-Shiazi and he issued a fatwa telling his followers and all Shiites in Iraq not to participate in elections, not to give legitimacy to a government established by occupation forces.
Not only the Shiites responded to it but the Sunnis and the Jewish, Christian and other minorities as well. The elections failed" (Sheikh Jouwad Mehdi Al-Khalasi/fisk)
conventional wisdom assumes a civil war. i however beg to differ. i really think the iraqis can figure something out that would avert a civil war
my suspicion is that assertions in this vein are yet another attempt at propaganda by the warpigs to justify their continued occupation and plunder of iraq
In 1920, the British tried to introduce an Iraqi government in name only - it looks like a copy of UN Security Council Resolution 1546. Sheikh Mehdi Al-Khalasi had become the grand 'marja' (the leading Shiite scholar) after the death of Mohamed Al-Shiazi and he issued a fatwa telling his followers and all Shiites in Iraq not to participate in elections, not to give legitimacy to a government established by occupation forces.
Not only the Shiites responded to it but the Sunnis and the Jewish, Christian and other minorities as well. The elections failed" (Sheikh Jouwad Mehdi Al-Khalasi/fisk)
conventional wisdom assumes a civil war. i however beg to differ. i really think the iraqis can figure something out that would avert a civil war
my suspicion is that assertions in this vein are yet another attempt at propaganda by the warpigs to justify their continued occupation and plunder of iraq
anu said:the precedent.
In 1920, the British tried to introduce an Iraqi government in name only - it looks like a copy of UN Security Council Resolution 1546. Sheikh Mehdi Al-Khalasi had become the grand 'marja' (the leading Shiite scholar) after the death of Mohamed Al-Shiazi and he issued a fatwa telling his followers and all Shiites in Iraq not to participate in elections, not to give legitimacy to a government established by occupation forces.
Not only the Shiites responded to it but the Sunnis and the Jewish, Christian and other minorities as well. The elections failed" (Sheikh Jouwad Mehdi Al-Khalasi/fisk)
fair point, on the other-hand Germany and Japan are completely independent and have become incredibly prosperous. Could the US just install a puppet leader in Iraq? it's possible but this is one of too few areas where america actually has a pretty decent record.
conventional wisdom assumes a civil war. i however beg to differ. i really think the iraqis can figure something out that would avert a civil war
my suspicion is that assertions in this vein are yet another attempt at propaganda by the warpigs to justify their continued occupation and plunder of iraq
It's possible that, if left alone today, iraq could stave off civil war but the cost would certainly be another dictator or the rise of whatever warlord is most powerful at the moment. Is that better?
"on the other-hand Germany and Japan are completely independent and have become incredibly prosperous. Could the US just install a puppet leader in Iraq? "
You are failing to consider Arab pride, and the fact that the Iraqi people were not morally defeated like Germany and Japan in the wake of WW2: In Arab eyes, they do not deserve to have their society re-ordered by Westerners in a matter remotely similar to the occupations of Germany or Japan. From their perspective, the Iraqi people, and the Arab world, did not pick this fight with America through terrorism. On the contrary, the terrorism and civil instability is an unfortunate direct result of unfairness, corporate colonialism, corruption, and the resultant class and cultural warfare, that was not of the common people's doing.
Instead of playing benificent, God-given overlord, from the Arab perspective, the USA is expanding collective punishment just like Israel has been, and if the Arab world accedes to it, it will be equivalent to political, cultural, and in some cases even religious bondage and shame, a fate worse than death. We are speaking of conflicts and puppet governments that deeply insult Arab sentiments (identical to what American sentiments would be in a role reversal) in which there will be no quarter and no surrender if pushed far enough. These powerful sentiments can unflinchingly participate, hand in glove with mourning and despair, and devour tens of thousands of lives year in and year out, for however many generations it might require for the outsiders to clearly understand that "Don't Tread on Me" is not an exclusive American franchise. No armies will come out to meet American ones on the battlefield. Instead, they will fight us improvizationally and ruthlessly, without formal heirarchies, from their own doorsteps, and indefinitely.
"It's possible that, if left alone today, iraq could stave off civil war but the cost would certainly be another dictator or the rise of whatever warlord is most powerful at the moment. Is that better? "
Iraq as formerly defined is no longer viable. But a new strongman on America's payroll? Impossible: This intervention has set the tone- In this sea of instability we are creating, the one thing that will coalesce most prominently is intense anti-Americanism, and America will be the loser for it. Of course Arabs are intelligent people, and many, as individuals, will still like many things and people American, but the collective behavior is going to shift suddenly and dramatically thumbs-down for Uncle Sam. As a result, the first popular (but not likely democratic) new governments after the breakup and shakedown of Iraq and Arabia will be as anti-American as was Iran just after the Shah. As this realization dawns, if America squeezes tighter, then more influence will more rapidly slip through our fingers, and there will be a sea change, as an entire region tells the mighty USA "You suck. Go away". The economic implications of this rejection will be profound, and difficult for Americans to accept gracefully. Arabs and Islamist revolutionaries understand this, and know that their resistance will be strong and that their prosperity can be easily restored with new markets for oil, even as America's economy turns panicked and hobbled. Check, and Checkmate, to the New American Century as the Busheviks envisioned it.
Now, Americans need to wake up, swallow our pride, turn to other more profitable ventures, and abandon reckless obsessions at the urgings of oil barons, religious fundamentalists, and zionists. We must stop this dysfunctional meddling, that is not only causing our rejection, but is inflaming reactionism and fundamentalism at the dire expense of cooperation, democracy, secularism, and our own freedom and prosperity. We don't need this pissing contest.
Mod note: seriously you got to stop deleting your post like that!
You are failing to consider Arab pride, and the fact that the Iraqi people were not morally defeated like Germany and Japan in the wake of WW2: In Arab eyes, they do not deserve to have their society re-ordered by Westerners in a matter remotely similar to the occupations of Germany or Japan. From their perspective, the Iraqi people, and the Arab world, did not pick this fight with America through terrorism. On the contrary, the terrorism and civil instability is an unfortunate direct result of unfairness, corporate colonialism, corruption, and the resultant class and cultural warfare, that was not of the common people's doing.
Instead of playing benificent, God-given overlord, from the Arab perspective, the USA is expanding collective punishment just like Israel has been, and if the Arab world accedes to it, it will be equivalent to political, cultural, and in some cases even religious bondage and shame, a fate worse than death. We are speaking of conflicts and puppet governments that deeply insult Arab sentiments (identical to what American sentiments would be in a role reversal) in which there will be no quarter and no surrender if pushed far enough. These powerful sentiments can unflinchingly participate, hand in glove with mourning and despair, and devour tens of thousands of lives year in and year out, for however many generations it might require for the outsiders to clearly understand that "Don't Tread on Me" is not an exclusive American franchise. No armies will come out to meet American ones on the battlefield. Instead, they will fight us improvizationally and ruthlessly, without formal heirarchies, from their own doorsteps, and indefinitely.
"It's possible that, if left alone today, iraq could stave off civil war but the cost would certainly be another dictator or the rise of whatever warlord is most powerful at the moment. Is that better? "
Iraq as formerly defined is no longer viable. But a new strongman on America's payroll? Impossible: This intervention has set the tone- In this sea of instability we are creating, the one thing that will coalesce most prominently is intense anti-Americanism, and America will be the loser for it. Of course Arabs are intelligent people, and many, as individuals, will still like many things and people American, but the collective behavior is going to shift suddenly and dramatically thumbs-down for Uncle Sam. As a result, the first popular (but not likely democratic) new governments after the breakup and shakedown of Iraq and Arabia will be as anti-American as was Iran just after the Shah. As this realization dawns, if America squeezes tighter, then more influence will more rapidly slip through our fingers, and there will be a sea change, as an entire region tells the mighty USA "You suck. Go away". The economic implications of this rejection will be profound, and difficult for Americans to accept gracefully. Arabs and Islamist revolutionaries understand this, and know that their resistance will be strong and that their prosperity can be easily restored with new markets for oil, even as America's economy turns panicked and hobbled. Check, and Checkmate, to the New American Century as the Busheviks envisioned it.
Now, Americans need to wake up, swallow our pride, turn to other more profitable ventures, and abandon reckless obsessions at the urgings of oil barons, religious fundamentalists, and zionists. We must stop this dysfunctional meddling, that is not only causing our rejection, but is inflaming reactionism and fundamentalism at the dire expense of cooperation, democracy, secularism, and our own freedom and prosperity. We don't need this pissing contest.
Mod note: seriously you got to stop deleting your post like that!
Last edited by a moderator:
buffys said:fair point, on the other-hand Germany and Japan are completely independent and have become incredibly prosperous. Could the US just install a puppet leader in Iraq? it's possible but this is one of too few areas where america actually has a pretty decent record.
It's possible that, if left alone today, iraq could stave off civil war but the cost would certainly be another dictator or the rise of whatever warlord is most powerful at the moment. Is that better?
the arrogance is mind numbing.
i urge my arabs brothers to take heed and cede no ground. there can be no negotiating with this kind of mentality. fight until the last warpig is dead. justice and honor demands it.
yeah, thats right! lay off killing rape victims and fight the good fight!
hypewaders said:Mod note: seriously you got to stop deleting your post like that! (Last edited by WellCookedFetus : Today at 05:54 AM. )
what? you sound hysterical. understand this! a poster owns his post. he can create/edit/delete as he see fit! if he wants to shit on it, that is his prerogative. kapeesh?
when is it against the goddamn law to delete a post?
There is a great song from the B-52’s that is ironically named, Mesopotamia:
I heard this song and I the first thing that struck me was the historical irony of it all. As the song insinuated you shouldn’t say things before knowing what you are saying:
Before I talk
I should read a book.
Indeed, much of the mess in Iraq is a result of ignorance of Iraqi/Arab culture by the American elites in power. They didn’t seem to look at the disaster of the 20’s when 17,000 Brits were killed in the “liberation” of Iraq then, they also didn’t seem to notice that “democracy” in Iraq back then failed as well; they also didn’t see that there was a insurgency in Iraq. Also I suspect that like the Brits if things get bad enough we could see a “strongman” come into power, let’s not forget there is an Iraqi throne. Now the question in Mesopotamia is Who is going to laid down the law?
Turn your watch, turn your watch back,
about a hundred thousand years.
A hundred thousand years.
I'll meet you by the third pyramid
I'll meet you by the third pyramid
Ah come on, that's what I want, we'll meet
in Mesopotamia. oh oh oh
(We're goin' down to meet) I ain't no student,
(Feel those vibrations) of ancient culture
(I know a neat excavation) Before I talk
I should read a book.
But there's one thing I do know,
There's a lot of ruins in Mesopotamia.
Six or eight thousand years ago
They laid down the law. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haa
Six or eight thousand years ago
They laid down the law. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haa
I'll meet you by the third pyramid
I'll meet you by the third pyramid
Ah come on, that's what I want, we'll meet
in Mesopotamia. oh oh oh
(We're goin' down to meet) Now I ain't no student,
(Feel those vibrations) of ancient culture
(I know a neat excavation) Before I talk
I should read a book. (Mesopotamia, that's where I wanna go)
But there's one thing that I do know, (Mesopotamia, that's where I wanna go)
There's a lot of ruins in Mesopotamia.
Six or eight thousand years ago
They laid down the law. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haa
Six or eight thousand years ago
They laid down the law. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haa
In Mesopotamia. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haa
They laid down the law. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haa
In Mesopotamia. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haa
I heard this song and I the first thing that struck me was the historical irony of it all. As the song insinuated you shouldn’t say things before knowing what you are saying:
Before I talk
I should read a book.
Indeed, much of the mess in Iraq is a result of ignorance of Iraqi/Arab culture by the American elites in power. They didn’t seem to look at the disaster of the 20’s when 17,000 Brits were killed in the “liberation” of Iraq then, they also didn’t seem to notice that “democracy” in Iraq back then failed as well; they also didn’t see that there was a insurgency in Iraq. Also I suspect that like the Brits if things get bad enough we could see a “strongman” come into power, let’s not forget there is an Iraqi throne. Now the question in Mesopotamia is Who is going to laid down the law?
anu said:the arrogance is mind numbing.
arrogance is certainly a factor as well, THE factor really. It's hard to get out of that mentality. I take issue with the idea that the arrogance is limited to our side of the conflict though, there's plenty of self importance to go around.
The single biggest problem I find is the seeming utter incompatability between the ways the east and west look at the world. Both sides are essentially saying "this world isn't big enough for the both of us". Live and let live doesn't appear to be acceptable by either side. How do you propose getting around this?
Undecided said:Indeed, much of the mess in Iraq is a result of ignorance of Iraqi/Arab culture by the American elites in power.
I couldn't agree more.
Last edited:
arrogance is certainly a factor as well, THE factor really. It's hard to get out of that mentality.
thats ok. a little bit of beheading here and there would fix that right up in a jiffy
I take issue with the idea that the arrogance is limited to our side of the conflict though, there's plenty of self importance to go around.
what fun. in what ways does iraqi arrogance manifest itself vis a vis the us?
The single biggest problem I find is the seeming utter incompatability between the ways the east and west look at the world.
elaborate
How do you propose getting around this?
well, hmmm, how about.....invading and beating into submission, those that oppose us?
thats ok. a little bit of beheading here and there would fix that right up in a jiffy
I take issue with the idea that the arrogance is limited to our side of the conflict though, there's plenty of self importance to go around.
what fun. in what ways does iraqi arrogance manifest itself vis a vis the us?
The single biggest problem I find is the seeming utter incompatability between the ways the east and west look at the world.
elaborate
How do you propose getting around this?
well, hmmm, how about.....invading and beating into submission, those that oppose us?
anu said:what fun. in what ways does iraqi arrogance manifest itself vis a vis the us?
you miss understand, I mean that on the larger east/west conflict (real or imagined) of ideals. On the world stage there is plenty of arrogance for everyone with almost no attempts to get a better understanding of the other. Regarding iraq specifically, I don't think think the US had any right to go in at all. The concept of preemptive war goes against everything the west supposedly stands for. The rest of the us (the international community) didn't just disagree with the US to be contrarian, it was clearly wrong and they didn't have a leg to stand on.
elaborate
incompatability was the wrong word, it's more of a dramatic lack of cultural understanding on both sides. Beyond the superficial we know very little about each other.
well, hmmm, how about.....invading and beating into submission, those that oppose us?
in otherwords you don't have any suggestions either.
anu said:i mean, who needs enemies when america wants to be your friend in order to save you and bring you frikkin freedom.
Excellent post.
buffys said:I guess I was wondering if others that opposed the war - like myself - think pulling out now would be disasterous, no matter how against it you might have been initially. Or do you think withdrawl should occur regardless of the consequences?
Pulling out now would be detrimental to them. The US should switch gears and be there to help them, especially those it injured and the families of those it killed. I agree with anu that this should be done in UN uniform. I think a viable democracy can be quickly established there, especially since any would-be dictator knows that their days would be shortly numbered.
Unfortunately, the UN has no teeth to stop a civil war just approaching critical mass, and further, has been severely weakened for this particular task by US railroading and unilateralism within the UN. Nobody really wants to pick up this mess for Uncle Sam, as horrific as the aftermath is sure to become. Iraq is too keyed up, and too armed up, for a democratic consensus and compromise to reverse the civil war and insurrection that is spooling up.
The thirst for settling scores and carving up spoils will tragically outstrip the thirst for democracy in the near term. Even though an Iraqi majority desperately wants normalcy, stability, peace, and national integrity, too many pressures have sadly been already brought to bear, for Iraq to remain intact under anything other than an extremely hard-line Arab police state, which is also now out of reach in the near term. The US used an occupation sledgehammer, when coup tweezers would have done the job much better and more safely, and no less illegally. Now, there are not enough King's Horses or Men to put this Humpty Together Again.
The thirst for settling scores and carving up spoils will tragically outstrip the thirst for democracy in the near term. Even though an Iraqi majority desperately wants normalcy, stability, peace, and national integrity, too many pressures have sadly been already brought to bear, for Iraq to remain intact under anything other than an extremely hard-line Arab police state, which is also now out of reach in the near term. The US used an occupation sledgehammer, when coup tweezers would have done the job much better and more safely, and no less illegally. Now, there are not enough King's Horses or Men to put this Humpty Together Again.
zanket said:Pulling out now would be detrimental to them. The US should switch gears and be there to help them, especially those it injured and the families of those it killed.
Since 9/11 I find myself scrambling to catch up on the history of east/west interactions so I'm far from an expert but from what I've learned so far, your quote pretty much describes how I see the situation.
But your vision won't work: US presence in Iraq, day by day, makes the outcome worse. And worse... And worse.
Yes, the UN needs to be the force there and not the US but that appears nonviable as much of the UN is corrupt (food for oil compadre?). I think it is.
anu, when you meet an obstacle on your path to life and liberty should you put up an obstacle of your own, meet a wall by becoming frozen in your ideology, by becoming a wall yourself? Many of your expressed desires to kill the enemy is exactly what is wrong with the enemy, they've just been doing it longer than you by circumstance alone. Kill the killers! Murder the murderers! Bring suffering upon those who bring suffering! Can't say I can not thoroughly empathize but playing the same game doesn't work. You sound like George W. Bush.
I believe we need a world around comprehensive anticipatory design science revolution and we're going to need it pretty quick. I suspect some momentus new understanding will come along to act as the catalyst and then things will begin to fall into place for increasing mutual rewarding tolerant coexisting intelligent life. There must be a key somewhere to avoiding self annihilation.
anu, when you meet an obstacle on your path to life and liberty should you put up an obstacle of your own, meet a wall by becoming frozen in your ideology, by becoming a wall yourself? Many of your expressed desires to kill the enemy is exactly what is wrong with the enemy, they've just been doing it longer than you by circumstance alone. Kill the killers! Murder the murderers! Bring suffering upon those who bring suffering! Can't say I can not thoroughly empathize but playing the same game doesn't work. You sound like George W. Bush.
I believe we need a world around comprehensive anticipatory design science revolution and we're going to need it pretty quick. I suspect some momentus new understanding will come along to act as the catalyst and then things will begin to fall into place for increasing mutual rewarding tolerant coexisting intelligent life. There must be a key somewhere to avoiding self annihilation.