Your HOP Plan for Iraq

The United States military is not capable of quashing the centuries of religious and ethnic tension in Iraq which is causing this mess.

1) There is no evidence that any religious and ethnic tension existed in Iraq prior to the invasion. The current strife is only as old as the Baathist regime which tried to subjegate the Shiite majority in favor of the minority Sunnis.

2) The military is not capable of securing the country. But they could be. If the rules of engagement were made less restricitve and they were allowed to do what it really takes to truly subjegate the country, they could. In my view we have a choice. Either we leave the country and let the people decide through genocide or we use our strength to clamp down and pacify the country in the tradition of geniune conquest.

If we were really interested in Iraq's resources then we wouldn't be EXPORTING oil to them.

There's a valid reason we are "EXPORTING" oil to them. Most of the Middle East lacks the capacity to "REFINE" the oil they produce. It comes out of their ground, goes to our refineries and is shipped back for their markets. It's a pretty shady arrangement, frankly. But then, I guess that's what we're fighting over.
 
Werbung:
Id turn the whole God damned place into a sheet of glass

Another prime example of why most people in the world now hate Americans. The perception of this kind of callous arrogance combined with glaring stupidity. The majority of people in countries that are supposed to be our allies despise us because of this kind of attitude. As if we have the right to decide the fate of millions of people in other countries. I wonder what allies will follow us into the next war?
 
Another prime example of why most people in the world now hate Americans. The perception of this kind of callous arrogance combined with glaring stupidity. The majority of people in countries that are supposed to be our allies despise us because of this kind of attitude. As if we have the right to decide the fate of millions of people in other countries. I wonder what allies will follow us into the next war?

Hm. So when a guy who's obviously on the fringe of American society makes a stupid statement, it's a ringing condemnation of all Americana -- whereas when an Islamic terrorist blows himself up in an Israeli market, he's just a fringe outsider whose actions are in no way representative of the "religion of peace" he claims to represent. (Either that or it's another ringing condemnation of all Americana).

It's stuff like this that always causes the left's hard-on for "moral credibility" to get a chuckle out of me.
 
Bunz, so you pretty much exactly agree with me?

Well I won't say I exactly agree with you, but yeah you have some worthy ideas on the issue, and I think most would or could work. Ill say I agree with you on those issues if you will agree with me, that the difficulties were are experiencing over there is not media hype, that so many want to blame this on.
 
Well I won't say I exactly agree with you, but yeah you have some worthy ideas on the issue, and I think most would or could work. Ill say I agree with you on those issues if you will agree with me, that the difficulties were are experiencing over there is not media hype, that so many want to blame this on.

Well the media is certainly not helping and I think it would be helpful to remove easy opportunities for our enemies. At any rate, I don't think censoring the media will accomplish much, which is why I didn't mention it in my original post.
 
Hm. So when a guy who's obviously on the fringe of American society makes a stupid statement, it's a ringing condemnation of all Americana -- whereas when an Islamic terrorist blows himself up in an Israeli market, he's just a fringe outsider whose actions are in no way representative of the "religion of peace" he claims to represent. (Either that or it's another ringing condemnation of all Americana).

It's stuff like this that always causes the left's hard-on for "moral credibility" to get a chuckle out of me.

Far from a "fringe" opinion. Many supposedly reasonable people have publically suggested that we need to be more aggressive in Iraq. That we shouldn't be so concerned about civilian casualties. Are you going to pretend that you haven't heard plenty of people say we should just "nuke" countries that we think support terrorism? Oh and by the way. If this country appears to lack "moral credibility", on what basis do we lead? Military and economic power alone doesn't inspire anyone to follow us. American credibility in the world is at it's lowest ebb since Vietnam.
 
While American credibility is probably at its lowest since Vietnam, what gives America that good will, at least in my humble opinion is the liberties that are often taken for granted by Americans. Assuming the far majority of us are American, for one the freedom of speech we are exercising right now and allowing the transfer of ideas no matter how ridiculous they seem to others. Plus the ability to directly and openly criticize the government is a huge place on the world stage.

In the idea of keeping the discussion going, Id like to read some posts on where you think or hope Iraq will be 2013, 10 years after Bush led us on this adventure.
For me it is like this, despite the incompatent leadership that has been displayed since this began, I hope that 10 years after it all started that Iraq will be a flagbearer of liberties among the corruption that is currently and has historically gone on in the middle east. I hope we can begin buying Iraqi oil on large scale rather than continuing to prop up a horrible monarchy in KSA, through our need for petroleum.
That all being said, I think what is most likely to happen is that there will only be a small token force of troops on the ground after the next President is inagurated in January 2009. By Jan.1 2010, there will probably be less than 40K troops.
I often wonder though, how long the Iraqis would continue in thier civil war if the Americans pulled out tomorrow? Is thier mere presence there alone causing a good chunk of this violence through the perception that one side is helping the Americans at the cost of another side.
 
The best case scenario for Iraq in 2013 would be for it to be like the U.S. was in 1786 -- in the so-called "Critical Period" where we were under the Articles amidst a healthy debate over where we wanted our government to go.

More likely it will be like Germany in 1955, though.
 
Interesting there Jarhead, OK, we got your best case scenario, care to give us what you think will play out in reality. I hope you take the term jarhead as a term of endearment because it is meant that way.
 
Interesting there Jarhead, OK, we got your best case scenario, care to give us what you think will play out in reality. I hope you take the term jarhead as a term of endearment because it is meant that way.

Haven't you heard? Cheney's office has alreadu come up with a recipe for a new, finger-lickin' good Middle East.

Their idea is pretty simple: you just admit that Iraq has blown up into a mess, claim you always meant to do it that way, and then smile at the camera and say, "Just look what a great set of ingredients we've now got scattered all over the kitchen! Gosh-golly, let's make something great out of all this! Grab those intestines off the ceiling, gimme that hunk of thigh off the wall-clock, and toss that gob of smoking skull off the sink! Let's get cookin'!"

Step one is chopping up Iraq into three pieces, the P-word, "partition." It's got a kind of sense to it: if the Sunni, Shia and Kurds can't stop killing each other, let's just give each group its own little tribal homeland.

The reason Bush's people haven't latched onto this idea sooner is that they're supposed to be creating a free, democratic Iraq and it doesn't look good to break the place down into tribal homelands when you've gone around promising to make Iraq the Jeffersonian Democracy of the Middle East. But things are so bad now that nobody in the administration can afford to worry about PR problems like that any more. Torture killings are now officially the national sport of Iraq. When somebody gets out a power drill in Baghdad, nobody thinks Home Improvement. Instead, I hear Black & Decker is getting its own volume in the next edition of Jane's Weapons Systems.

But, there's just one little problem with splitting Iraq into three nice little homelands: Iran.

If you smash Saddam Hussein's united Iraq, you've destroyed the one army in the region that could have held the Iranians in check. If you go in after that and replace a united Iraq with three little ethnic states, you've just made a big sandbox for the Persians to play in. They can easily destabilize all three of the Iraqi statelets; in fact, the biggest, the Shia Iraqi statelet, won't even need to be stabilized. It'll side with Iran every time against the Sunnis. It won't have a choice.

Anyways, Cheney's plan doesnt stop with just Iraq though. The idea is to divide up every state in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia gets split into a Shia state on the Persian Gulf (where all the oil is), a "Sacred State" with Mecca and Medina, and someplace that ought to be called The Republic of Leftover Sand, with Riyadh and not much else. Lebanon turns into teeny, ethnically pure neighborhood states for Christians, Sunni, Shia and maybe Mormons. Yep, turns out all that Lebanese unity was a danger to the region, we've gotta go in there and break the place up a little more.

Are you beginning to understand why popping out a few nukes is a much more reasonable proposition?

Cheney is bat**** insane.
 
Far from a "fringe" opinion. Many supposedly reasonable people have publically suggested that we need to be more aggressive in Iraq. That we shouldn't be so concerned about civilian casualties. Are you going to pretend that you haven't heard plenty of people say we should just "nuke" countries that we think support terrorism? Oh and by the way. If this country appears to lack "moral credibility", on what basis do we lead? Military and economic power alone doesn't inspire anyone to follow us. American credibility in the world is at it's lowest ebb since Vietnam.

A supermajority of Americans don't even support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, and I'm expected to believe they're now warlike enough to demand its nuclear annihilation?

"Plenty" of people may well say such things (though how many are serious?). But "plenty" in this country amounts to zip in the big picture. You're forgetting that a fringe that makes up just 1% of the population of the population is still a whopping three million people.

Again, if vitriol such as yours were directed at Muslims and not Americans, you would be chastizing the poster and not his victims. That you can post drivel like that straight-facedly and then complain about other people's lack of "moral credibility" is astounding.

As for your BTW, we don't need to "lead" anyone. They've contributed minimally to the war on terror anyway, despite the fact that we still largely rubber-stamp their national security checks. They have as much stake in this as anyone; if they don't like the way we run things, they can go it alone.

And I have a hard time believing the leaders of other nations are so uninterested in their own country's well-being that they will follow some worthless philosophical abstraction ("moral credibility," the meaning of which I still don't understand because no one ever actually says what they're talking about here) rather than real, tangible interests (like money, power, and their own security).
 
Interesting there Jarhead, OK, we got your best case scenario, care to give us what you think will play out in reality. I hope you take the term jarhead as a term of endearment because it is meant that way.

In reality -- I think that the troop level will be cut in half by next spring. I don't think it's right, but that's what I believe is going to happen. With this withdrawl, you'll see the level of violence in Iraq stay about the same. With the next President, you'll probably see an immediate surge of troops in an attempt to win the war quickly and when they don't see the lightning fast results that they are looking for, then the virtually everyone will be pulled out.

Iraq will degenerate into a real civil war and Iran will ultimately move in and seize control.
 
So if I can assume, you are suggesting we will lose this war...and if we do, whose fault would you lay blame one just as a matter of curiousity?
I also wonder if the level of violence might actually go down if US troops are pulled. I say this because it appears to me that a fair amount of the violence between Iraqis has to do with retaliation for working with the coalition forces. Sure they are drawn on sectarian differences, but what has triggered the latest round of it, is that the Shia in a very loose general term are working with the coalition and the Sunni's dont like that.
Although Iran is a concern no doubt, I think(or hope) similar to the Iran-Iraq war that Iraqis will largely put aside thier sectarian differences and fight against the Iranians.
 
Werbung:
A supermajority of Americans don't even support the ongoing occupation of Iraq, and I'm expected to believe they're now warlike enough to demand its nuclear annihilation?

"Plenty" of people may well say such things (though how many are serious?). But "plenty" in this country amounts to zip in the big picture. You're forgetting that a fringe that makes up just 1% of the population of the population is still a whopping three million people.

Again, if vitriol such as yours were directed at Muslims and not Americans, you would be chastizing the poster and not his victims. That you can post drivel like that straight-facedly and then complain about other people's lack of "moral credibility" is astounding.

As for your BTW, we don't need to "lead" anyone. They've contributed minimally to the war on terror anyway, despite the fact that we still largely rubber-stamp their national security checks. They have as much stake in this as anyone; if they don't like the way we run things, they can go it alone.

And I have a hard time believing the leaders of other nations are so uninterested in their own country's well-being that they will follow some worthless philosophical abstraction ("moral credibility," the meaning of which I still don't understand because no one ever actually says what they're talking about here) rather than real, tangible interests (like money, power, and their own security).

The vapid ranting of a relativist. Just goes to show that you have no idea what this country is supposed to be about. Clearly only a superficial comprehension of history. And talk about philisophical abstraction. It pretty well defines your concept of this country's strategic international and military policies. Morality becomes more relative every day. The fact that you don't get the concept of "moral credibility" is not at all surprising. People often choose not to understand something when it suites their purpose.
 
Back
Top