Democracy in Iraq

wiseones2cents

Democracy would be good in Iraq if it was actually fair.

Though it is obvious that America's vision of Democracy in Iraq is far from Democratic.

America's definition of democracy is financing puppet candidates that serve American interest and not Iraq's.

Democracy world wide is manipulated by bribes and media mis-information
by America to finance and influence the elections of American puppet candidates.

And if you do your homework? Most of these candidates have shady histories.

But lets talk about Iraq. The first candidate they supported was Chalabi. This was the guy that apparently defected to America and accused Saddam of having WMD(he was probably paid to say that). This is also the same guy that defrauded the Jordanians out of 300 million.

And they Americans pick him to lead Iraq? Then because of public outrage America picks Allawi, who is a close relative of Chalabi.

How stupid does America think the Iraqi people are? As you can see, they are not stupid. Allawi was chased out of town on an campaign run.

Not to mention what democracy and constitution gives foreign countries 100% control of your economy?

And most of all? I dont understand Sistani supporting the Americans. Do the Shiites(Iranians) not know that they are next? The Iranians should be using their influence to expell American forces and influence from Iraq.

If Sunni's and Shiites join forces. America will think twice in attacking Iran or continuing their occupation in Iraq. Although I am sure patience is the key here. America's military is already overstretched and weakening.

Manic Moran

Without arguing any of the above, are you saying that either

1) This week's elections will be unfair, rigged, or otherwise a sham (And if so, why?)

or

2) If the results come out to have a winning party which the US considers less than ideal for the US's point of view, the US will nullify, overturn or otherwise render the election moot?

I dont understand Sistani supporting the Americans

Why shouldn't they? Given the system currently in place courtesy of the Americans, they stand an excellent chance of ending up in power. If any side is going to benefit out of the imposed democratic process, surely it's them?

NTM

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

Without arguing any of the above, are you saying that either

1) This week's elections will be unfair, rigged, or otherwise a sham (And if so, why?)

Can you explain to me how you can even think about having Elections when a country is at war? These Elections are only for press publicity and consumption of the naive.

Anyone that thinks the last election in Iraq or Afghanistan had any resemblence to a democratic election are clueless. You cant have a fair election excluding 20 million Sunni's. Not to mention how many Kurds came in from Turkey and abroad to vote. How can this election be fair? And the main Candidate is American sponsered(Allawi)?We dont want to talk about a constitution that was written by Foreigners to benefit foreigners do we?

or

2) If the results come out to have a winning party which the US considers less than ideal for the US's point of view, the US will nullify, overturn or otherwise render the election moot?

Chalabi and Allawi were already rejected by the people but Allawi keeps on claiming he will fight his way to the top. They will pull every string they can to get one of their puppets elected. I dont trust the Kurd Leadership either. They have been in kahoots with the Americans from the beginning of the war.
America doesn't need to win the election. The constitution already guarantees them full control of their economy. which is what America was after in the first place. Namely OIL.

I dont understand Sistani supporting the Americans

Why shouldn't they? Given the system currently in place courtesy of the Americans, they stand an excellent chance of ending up in power. If any side is going to benefit out of the imposed democratic process, surely it's them?

You may be right.We know Sistani is power hungry. His only rival was assassinated. Though doesn't he recieve his orders from Iran? What is Iran thinking? America would allow Iran to build a Super Shiite nation? Iran(and possibly Syria) is already marked for Invasion. Wouldn't it make better sense
to tell Sistani to Expell the Americans? America would not have no where to launch an attack from. They would have to re-deploy their military and that would buy Iran more time. And if Sistani is not recieving orders from Iran, I am surprised they haven't assassinated him for dealing with America(the great satan as they refer to them as).

Manic Moran

wiseones2cents wrote:

Can you explain to me how you can even think about having Elections when a country is at war? These Elections are only for press publicity and consumption of the naive.

In all fairness, what other alternatives are there? Up and leave, and let them fight it out between themselves? Granted, there's a good chance that that's going to to happen when the coalition pulls out anyway, but why not at least give them the opportunity to have their government elected instead of simply waiting to see which ethnic group proves to be the more effective at genocide?

Anyone that thinks the last election in Iraq or Afghanistan had any resemblence to a democratic election are clueless. You cant have a fair election excluding 20 million Sunni's.

Sure you can, if they exclude themselves. If they want to complain, they have to at least vote first! There's no policy that states 'Sunnis shall not be allowed vote.'

We dont want to talk about a constitution that was written by Foreigners to benefit foreigners do we?

I admit to ignorance as to who actually drafted the thing, but does my memory fail me if I were to recall that there was a lot of brokering going on between the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shias shortly before the referendum? That seems to imply that they had some say in the matter. That's also notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did pass in the referendum.

America doesn't need to win the election. The constitution already guarantees them full control of their economy. which is what America was after in the first place. Namely OIL.

OK. This one confuses me. How can the Iraqi Constitution give America full control of the economy? Please refer me to the appropriate articles.

For your convenience, here is the English translation:
http://www.iraqidustour.com/english/latest-constitution.htm
(To save you time, Arts 108 and 109 deal with oil)

You may be right.We know Sistani is power hungry. His only rival was assassinated. Though doesn't he recieve his orders from Iran? What is Iran thinking? America would allow Iran to build a Super Shiite nation?

He may receive instructions from Iran. America doesn't really care if Iran is a Shiite nation or not, as long as it leaves other countries alone.

Iran(and possibly Syria) is already marked for Invasion.

With what? The troops in Iraq right now? Can the US do it? Theoretically, yes. If it goes to a full war footing, but that would be politically unacceptable. There's a lot of wagging of fingers, and I'm sure that people are considering airstrikes and raids, but a full-on occupation is just asking for trouble.

Wouldn't it make better sense to tell Sistani to Expell the Americans?

Depends on if Sistani might think that the Americans are of more use to him in Iraq, either to provide security for whatever prospective government he would have (If he won), or as a focus for Sunnis to aim at, instead of himself. America has no great interest in setting up long-term bases in Iraq, it's just far too much trouble than it's worth. Indeed, they'd probably love it if the Iraqi government was to turn around one day and say 'Thank you for your help, we'll take it from here.'

America would not have no where to launch an attack from. They would have to re-deploy their military and that would buy Iran more time.

You underestimate American military capability. Bear in mind that just over 20 years ago, the common consensus was that the British didn't have a hope of recapturing the Falklands, as they didn't have a base within several thousand miles of the place and were drastically outnumbered. Unlike the British, the Americans have multiple supercarriers, and a Marine Corps which is bigger than most countries' armies. That's assuming that the government is politically suicidal enough to order an invasion of Iran without damned good reason.

I think you're working a little too much into conspiracy theories. Some of them, I'll accept. (sistani/Iran), some of them are pushing it.

NTM

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

In all fairness, what other alternatives are there? Up and leave, and let them fight it out between themselves? Granted, there's a good chance that that's going to to happen when the coalition pulls out anyway, but why not at least give them the opportunity to have their government elected instead of simply waiting to see which ethnic group proves to be the more effective at genocide?

That may happen anyways but I doubt it. Most of the resistence is not against the Iraqi people but against American Occupation. They will work out their differences.

Not to mention Reconstruction can finally begin. All the billions that were allocated to reconstruct Iraq has not been spent yet. More than likely they will use oil profits to do that and pocket the money. Haliburton has already been charged with price gauging.

A government elected with a group of people(sunni's) being excluded? And foreign fighters that want America expelled? That election outcome is invalid.
It is just for the presses. It means absolutely nothing. It will not stand as it is when the Americans withdraw.

The reason why the Americans dont want to leave is not because they are afraid of civil war. They are afraid of losing their control of Iraqi oil. They couldn't care less about the Iraqi people.

Sure you can, if they exclude themselves. If they want to complain, they have to at least vote first! There's no policy that states 'Sunnis shall not be allowed vote.'

Thats like excluding blacks from voting in America. They will not recognize the
elected official. And if they have the resources can resist its authority. Which is what is clearly happening oin Iraq.

They will vote once American occupation ends. Until then they will not Vote for American puppets. I dont see democracy(as America invisioned it) happening in Iraq. The people know that most of the candidates are financed by the Americans.

I admit to ignorance as to who actually drafted the thing, but does my memory fail me if I were to recall that there was a lot of brokering going on between the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shias shortly before the referendum? That seems to imply that they had some say in the matter. That's also notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did pass in the referendum.

Brokering over land and resource rights, not constitution or economy. Kurds wanted control of the Northern oil fields.Which would be beneficial to America, since they are American allies.Remember America fed the Kurds throughout the Iraqi sanctions.

They Shiites and Sunnis want a religious rulership. Americans are pushing for secular.

OK. This one confuses me. How can the Iraqi Constitution give America full control of the economy? Please refer me to the appropriate articles.

It opens up the entire economies to foreigners. Do you think those contractors are there building Iraqi establishments or foreign economic infastructer? Not to mention I hear that the oil companies have secured their control of Iraqi oil indefinately.

For your convenience, here is the English translation:
http://www.iraqidustour.com/english/latest-constitution.htm
(To save you time, Arts 108 and 109 deal with oil)

And who is Running thier oil infastructure? How come there was bidding by major oil Companies for Iraqi oil?Exxon Mobile if I am not mistaken has the largest stake.I hear Italy, Britain, Australia, USA,ect.. all have a share of the Iraqi oil market. Funny. These are the ones that are part of the American coalition.

He may receive instructions from Iran. America doesn't really care if Iran is a Shiite nation or not, as long as it leaves other countries alone.

America and Israel see Iran as a threat and vice versa. It is America that doesn't leave countries alone and wants to control global resources.

With what? The troops in Iraq right now? Can the US do it? Theoretically, yes. If it goes to a full war footing, but that would be politically unacceptable. There's a lot of wagging of fingers, and I'm sure that people are considering airstrikes and raids, but a full-on occupation is just asking for trouble.

Rumsfeld thought he would be out of Iraq in what was it? 3 weeks or 2 months?And later would target Iran, but things are not going their way. Yes it is possible to attack Iran but would be unwise. America wouldn't occupy Iran. They would attack Iran's nuclear plants and Iran's military capabilites.Though you are correct. America is being held back by international opinion or they would have already attacked Iran. Also Iraq's resistence has proven to be a big dilemma for America's conquest of the ME.

Americans are itching to strike Iran.Iran has oil and also is a threat to Israel so they would be killing 2 birds with one stone.

Depends on if Sistani might think that the Americans are of more use to him in Iraq, either to provide security for whatever prospective government he would have (If he won), or as a focus for Sunnis to aim at, instead of himself. America has no great interest in setting up long-term bases in Iraq, it's just far too much trouble than it's worth. Indeed, they'd probably love it if the Iraqi government was to turn around one day and say 'Thank you for your help, we'll take it from here.'

Of coarse Sistani sees the Amercians as useful. They expelled his competition from power. The Sunni's.

If Sistani wins? Any religious Shiite that is elected ito power is an extention of Sistani's power. He is running the show right now. He stays out of the elections but is running the show behind the seens.

America would like nothing more than a permanent military base in Iraq. Though its not going to happen. Since it is exactly its presence that is fueling the resistence.

You underestimate American military capability. Bear in mind that just over 20 years ago, the common consensus was that the British didn't have a hope of recapturing the Falklands, as they didn't have a base within several thousand miles of the place and were drastically outnumbered. Unlike the British, the Americans have multiple supercarriers, and a Marine Corps which is bigger than most countries' armies. That's assuming that the government is politically suicidal enough to order an invasion of Iran without damned good reason.

You want to compare Iraqi and Iranian Capability to the falkland islands? How hard would it be to cut supplies of from an Island?

Yes though those carriers take MONEY to deploy. If America is having trouble with Iraq alone? Can you imagine Iraq and Iran? They would never be able to leave the ME. And the cost would climb into the trillions.

I think you're working a little too much into conspiracy theories. Some of them, I'll accept. (sistani/Iran), some of them are pushing it.

I doubt it. This war IS one big conspiracy.

lazydaisy

Well then, would you like to explain this please?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3879839.stm

An Irish oil company has the first three oil contracts with the new Iraqi gov.

Manic Moran

lazydaisy wrote:

Well then, would you like to explain this please?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3879839.stm

An Irish oil company has the first three oil contracts with the new Iraqi gov.

This might be a better link. The BBC article just says they're bidding. Petrel's website says they have the contract.

http://www.petrelresources.com/_latestNews/news.asp

NTM

bonkey

wiseones2cents wrote:

A government elected with a group of people(sunni's) being excluded?

They are not excluded. They have refused to partake. THere is a significant difference.

Thats like excluding blacks from voting in America. They will not recognize the elected official.

No, its not. Its like blacks deciding not to vote and, as a result, refusing to recognize the elected official(s). Clearly, its a flawed analagy, but hey...I didn't pick it.

Manic Moran

wiseones2cents wrote:

That may happen anyways but I doubt it. Most of the resistence is not against the Iraqi people but against American Occupation. They will work out their differences.

We always wondered why the hell they kept trying to bomb us. All they needed to do was just sit tight and do nothing for a year, and all the Americans would leave.

However, there is also little denying that the vast majority of deaths these days are Iraqis killed by insurgents. The implication being that things are a little more complicated than 'Yanks out'

Not to mention Reconstruction can finally begin. All the billions that were allocated to reconstruct Iraq has not been spent yet.

True. A lot has been, and a lot has not. You can't blame them for not wanting to spend loads of money on some facility that has a great chance of being blown up three days after it opens. The fallacy though is the assumption that a lack of American presence will automatically create a nice peaceful situation where such investments can reasonably safely be made. It might happen. Then again, it might also get a lot worse.

More than likely they will use oil profits to do that and pocket the money. Haliburton has already been charged with price gauging.

Good for the judicial system. If they're found guilty, I hope they get appropriate punishments.

A government elected with a group of people(sunni's) being excluded?

They're not excluded. Most simply chose not to participate. Anyway, we're a little ahead of the curve here, we'll see just how much of a sunni representation there is in the government next week.

It is just for the presses. It means absolutely nothing. It will not stand as it is when the Americans withdraw.

You still fail to provide a reasonable alternative. They can either try to have an election, or they can simply let the various sides at it for a while before they either have another dictatorship, or an election. Which is where they'd be earlier anyway if it goes ahead.

The reason why the Americans dont want to leave is not because they are afraid of civil war. They are afraid of losing their control of Iraqi oil. They couldn't care less about the Iraqi people.

That's a yes and no. I don't think most Americans lose sleep over individual Iraqis, but neither do they like the concept of them being worse off than they should be, especially if the US is primarily responsible for their situation. admit, I'm not sufficiently up on my deviousness to figure out how the US will retain control over the oilfields. That they would like access to the oil is a given though.

Thats like excluding blacks from voting in America. They will not recognize the elected official.

Again, we have the 'exclusion' word. i.e. It means that they have been denied the opportunity to vote. This has not happened, what did happen was that they chose not to vote.

They will vote once American occupation ends. Until then they will not Vote for American puppets.

There are 238 political parties on the ballot sheet on the election this week. Are you implying that all 238 are American puppets? Or, since we seem agreed that Al Sistani is going to be an extremely strong power in the government, that he is an American puppet? (Given your arguments about Iranian/American animosity, this seems to be a contradiction)

I dont see democracy(as America invisioned it) happening in Iraq.

Personally, I'd be happy to see democracy as practised by Iraq in pre-Saddam times to happen in Iraq. It was pretty fair. The only problem is that only those who are 50 years old or better have a chance to remember it.

]They Shiites and Sunnis want a religious rulership. Americans are pushing for secular.

Not entirely true. Even Sistani has said that Iraq should not be a theocracy. That said, the Constitution does say that Islam shall be a source of laws, and that no laws contrary to Islam shall be enacted, but you could say the same about the American system and Christianity. The only people advocating a theocracy are the more radical insurgents.

And who is Running thier oil infastructure? How come there was bidding by major oil Companies for Iraqi oil?

That makes no sense. Would you expect a lumber company to bid for Iraqi oil? Perhaps Smurfit Paper Mills?

America and Israel see Iran as a threat and vice versa. It is America that doesn't leave countries alone and wants to control global resources.

Given that Iran is pretty active in the 'Destroy Israel' camp, there's little wonder that Israel/US see Iran as a threat. It's the anti-Israel policy that they object to, not the fact that it's a Shiite country.

Also Iraq's resistence has proven to be a big dilemma for America's conquest of the ME.

Conquest... Interesting choice of words. Do you mean in the military/occupation sense of the word, or political leverage? (I'm just curious to know how the practicalities work out)

America would like nothing more than a permanent military base in Iraq. Though its not going to happen. Since it is exactly its presence that is fueling the resistence.

I don't really see why they would need to. They have quite a sizeable presence in Kuwait. Staying in Iraq is more trouble than it's worth, politically, economically, and militarily.

You want to compare Iraqi and Iranian Capability to the falkland islands? How hard would it be to cut supplies of from an Island?

One would have thought not too hard. That said, the British never actually did that. They did shoot down two C-130s doing supply runs, but never kept a naval presence on the West side beyond a couple of subs, but the logistical tail was irrelevant for the Falklands fight: Both sides fought with what they had on hand, it was a short ground war. We're getting a little off-topic here though. The point is that if for some reason the US decided 'to hell with public opinion (Domestic or foreign), let's invade Iran', they could actually do it, even without bases in Iraq. (Or Kuwait)

Yes though those carriers take MONEY to deploy. If America is having trouble with Iraq alone? Can you imagine Iraq and Iran? They would never be able to leave the ME. And the cost would climb into the trillions.

America has shown that if it really wants to do something, it'll do it regardless of cost. Again, however, you are managing to distract me off topic. The question is not if America can invade Iran, it's question of what the benefits or not of the upcoming elections are. Going from elections to invading Iran (Or Syria) is one hell of a stretch.

NTM

wiseones2cents

bonkey wrote:

They are not excluded. They have refused to partake. THere is a significant difference.

Refused because they do not see the legitimacy of the election.

You cannot force a democracy. The notion in itself is ludicous.It defeats the whole purpose of a democracy.

No, its not. Its like blacks deciding not to vote and, as a result, refusing to recognize the elected official(s). Clearly, its a flawed analagy, but hey...I didn't pick it.

The point is a significant portion of the population does not recognize the legitamicy of these elections. NOR DO I. Therefore the elections are meaningless. If 20 million people in a country of 80 million do not recognize the authority of the government? That is not a democracy.

Manic Moran

wiseones2cents wrote:

Refused because they do not see the legitimacy of the election.

Hang on a second... let's try this analogy.

I don't like the American system of elections. I think the single non-transferrable vote system, combined with primary elections in which only party members are eligible to vote sucks in comparison to, say the Irish single transferrable vote system. Reality would dictate that there was no practical chance of my preferred candidate from winning. (Let's say Green party, though I'm not a Green supporter). In effect, I am given a choice between two pretty lousy candidates.

Ergo, I decided not to even bother voting. (Which is true, I didn't vote in the 2004 election.)

So, I don't like the system of the elections, my 'group' (Greens, in this example) are a minority and haven't a hope of winning.. Does that mean that because I elected not to vote that I am now entitled to declare the election illegitimate and wage insurgent warfare against the US government?

I should also point out that a more than 20-million strong contingent of Americans considered the 2000 elections to be illegitimate. Do you suggest that they also should have started an insurgency?

I'm sure that similar arguments can be made for minority parties in the Irish system too.

NTM

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

We always wondered why the hell they kept trying to bomb us. All they needed to do was just sit tight and do nothing for a year, and all the Americans would leave.

Personally? I do not believe America every had any Intention to leave Iraq. They invisioned a quick decisive battle and they would then set up a permanent base. Iraq is a strategic spot in the ME. Now because of resistence the pressure is on America to withdraw.

Though yes that would be an acceptable strategy now. Sit back and let the Americans leave and THEN remove all American influence from their country.
America screwed up in attacking Iraq. There is no way out of this one. They will never secure Iraqi oil and spread thier capitalism in Iraq.

Another reason America will not leave Iraq is bcasue they are still itching to attack Syria and Iran.....

However, there is also little denying that the vast majority of deaths these days are Iraqis killed by insurgents. The implication being that things are a little more complicated than 'Yanks out'

of coarse. They see the Shiites as an extension of American imperialism. Which it clearly was under Allawi.

True. A lot has been, and a lot has not. You can't blame them for not wanting to spend loads of money on some facility that has a great chance of being blown up three days after it opens. The fallacy though is the assumption that a lack of American presence will automatically create a nice peaceful situation where such investments can reasonably safely be made. It might happen. Then again, it might also get a lot worse.

A lot has been? Not much that I have heard of. Except for in the oil sector. I blame them for attacking in the first place first gulf war, placing sanctions, Invading again and prolonging thier stay. That is why Iraq's infastructure is in shambles in the first place.
If the Americans leave, they will work out thier differences. But no oil for America. If America stays? The scenarios are endless and I have already gone over them. This war has a good chance of opening up on a lot more fronts. This could get really, really ugly.

Good for the judicial system. If they're found guilty, I hope they get appropriate punishments.

The judical system in America is a joke. Cheney has nothing to fear. Actually he went duck hunting with the Judge Scalia of the supreme court. They are all in on it together.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-os-bigwigs2mar02,1,1441081.story?coll=la-

They're not excluded. Most simply chose not to participate. Anyway, we're a little ahead of the curve here, we'll see just how much of a sunni representation there is in the government next week.

Wont make a difference. There will still be unrest. The situation runs deeper than Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq.........

You still fail to provide a reasonable alternative. They can either try to have an election, or they can simply let the various sides at it for a while before they either have another dictatorship, or an election. Which is where they'd be earlier anyway if it goes ahead.

America should get out and let them work out their differences without American interference. But America will not allow that. They want to be controlling oil flow and Iraqi markets.

That's a yes and no. I don't think most Americans lose sleep over individual Iraqis, but neither do they like the concept of them being worse off than they should be, especially if the US is primarily responsible for their situation. admit, I'm not sufficiently up on my deviousness to figure out how the US will retain control over the oilfields. That they would like access to the oil is a given though.

There is absolutely no way. If they stay or go at this point? They will lose the oil. Though if they stay? They will lose it the hard way. I just do not think America is willing to risk all the money they have invested to secure those oil fields. So I dont see America leaving Iraq anytime soon. They may reduce troop size but they will always have a military presence their.

Again, we have the 'exclusion' word. i.e. It means that they have been denied the opportunity to vote. This has not happened, what did happen was that they chose not to vote.

Once again.Refused because they do not see the legitimacy of the election.

You cannot force a democracy. The notion in itself is ludicous.It defeats the whole purpose of a democracy.

There are 238 political parties on the ballot sheet on the election this week. Are you implying that all 238 are American puppets? Or, since we seem agreed that Al Sistani is going to be an extremely strong power in the government, that he is an American puppet? (Given your arguments about Iranian/American animosity, this seems to be a contradiction)

How many of those candidates are Iraqi exiles that have returned home? Many from America? Al Sistani's influence is strong right now but wait until the Americans start throwing cash around. I wouldn' be surprised if Sistani already recieved a reward for his support.

Personally, I'd be happy to see democracy as practised by Iraq in pre-Saddam times to happen in Iraq. It was pretty fair. The only problem is that only those who are 50 years old or better have a chance to remember it.

You mean before the CIA supported the coup to install Saddam into power?
I personally do not believe Democracy will work in Iraq now. American money and influence has made its way into elections world wide. I'd like to see a 4 way rule. I like to see kuwait united with Iraq again. I'd like to see 4 provinces.I'd like to see Kuwait, Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis on a joint council making decisions together. With NO ONE ruling over the other. Therfore no president or PM. I'd like to see councillors that are slow to anger and reasonable people in charge. So they cant talk out there differences and come to reasonable conclusions. Unruly people should apologize for mis appropriate behaviour or be voted out and replaced by another representative.

Not entirely true. Even Sistani has said that Iraq should not be a theocracy. That said, the Constitution does say that Islam shall be a source of laws, and that no laws contrary to Islam shall be enacted, but you could say the same about the American system and Christianity. The only people advocating a theocracy are the more radical insurgents.

They may have secular leaders but the Constitution is theocratic in nature.
More than Likely Sistani supports secular leaders so it secures his religious Authority. If he allowed other religious figures into government it would weaken his position of authority.

That makes no sense. Would you expect a lumber company to bid for Iraqi oil? Perhaps Smurfit Paper Mills?

Actually they were dividing the spoils. Shouldn't Iraq have total control of its
Economy?

Given that Iran is pretty active in the 'Destroy Israel' camp, there's little wonder that Israel/US see Iran as a threat. It's the anti-Israel policy that they object to, not the fact that it's a Shiite country.

Why do you think Iran sees Israel as a threat. It's foreign policies that are happening behind the scenes. Israel is not totally blameless in all this.
You leave them alone? They leave you alone. Thats how it usually works.
Someones gonna have to start building bridges for peace.

Conquest... Interesting choice of words. Do you mean in the military/occupation sense of the word, or political leverage?

What do you call an Imperial entity that has been securing resources all over the world? I mean political(instaling puppets) and Military aid(so the puppets can oppress).

I don't really see why they would need to. They have quite a sizeable presence in Kuwait. Staying in Iraq is more trouble than it's worth, politically, economically, and militarily.

To secure the oil of coarse. Why do they have a base in Saudi Arabia? They have bases world wide protecting their interests.Whats one more? Though now because of the resistence, America's plans are cut short. They have invested alot of money into this invasion. If they leave without securing the oil to make up for the lose it will be devistating to the American elites that have invested in this war.

The point is that if for some reason the US decided 'to hell with public opinion (Domestic or foreign), let's invade Iran', they could actually do it, even without bases in Iraq. (Or Kuwait)

They could do it. Doesn't mean they'd win.

America has shown that if it really wants to do something, it'll do it regardless of cost. Again, however, you are managing to distract me off topic. The question is not if America can invade Iran, it's question of what the benefits or not of the upcoming elections are. Going from elections to invading Iran (Or Syria) is one hell of a stretch.

America has bitten off more than it can chew. It doesn't have the troops or Public support to do anything. Recruits are down. Although I have seen the preview of the new brainwashing movie to attract new recruiters. Coming soon to a theater near you.

Anyways back on topic. What benefits do you see? I see benefits if the American military leaves Iraq. And Iraq starts to rebuild. How will an Illegitamite government benefit Iraq when it is at war?

Manic Moran

I think our differences are fundamental enough that we're never going to see each other's point of view.

wiseones2cents wrote:

Personally? I do not believe America every had any Intention to leave Iraq.

I have seen nothing to indicate that they didn't. In early 2004, Balad was described to me as 'When the last American leaves Iraq, it will be from this base', that was barely a year into it and before any of the elections.

They invisioned a quick decisive battle and they would then set up a permanent base. Iraq is a strategic spot in the ME.

There's no denying that Iraq is a fairly strategic spot in the ME, but still, the question is why bother going through the hassle of invading a country when there is already quite a willing base in the form of Kuwait?

Another reason America will not leave Iraq is bcasue they are still itching to attack Syria and Iran.....

I look at it the other way around. As long as the US is occupied in Iraq, there is less likelihood of attacking Syria/Iran. They don't need to do it from Iraq.

They see the Shiites as an extension of American imperialism.

So presumably they also see Sistani et-al as extensions of American imperialism, whereas you see him instead as a potential opponent of the US because of his Iranian links? Why wouldn't Iraqi sunnis also be able to see this?

A lot has been? Not much that I have heard of.

Yes, I know. It's one of my gripes with the media coverage. You really have to look outside of MSM to find the reconstruction stories.

I blame them for attacking in the first place first gulf war

Here is where we really start to diverge. If I understand you correctly, you are blaming the US for attacking Iraq in 1991, and don't believe that Iraq attacking Kuwait had anything to do with it whatsoever?

If the Americans leave, they will work out thier differences.

Probably. Also quite probably at gunpoint. Doesn't strike me as any better than the current situation. Why not give the current round of elections a chance? What's the worst that happens? Can't be any worse than the worst that happens if everyone leaves.

Once again.Refused because they do not see the legitimacy of the election.

Again, we have a major difference of opinion between the two of us. I firmly believe that if they couldn't be arsed to be a part of the electoral process, then they've no right to go around complaining that it's unfair.

You cannot force a democracy. The notion in itself is ludicous.It defeats the whole purpose of a democracy.

I agree. All you can do is set the conditions. If the Iraqis want to pick up the ball and run with it, fantastic. If not, well, so be it, but the Sunnis still aren't going to be happy since they're the minority.

How many of those candidates are Iraqi exiles that have returned home?

I have no idea. Would you care to enlighten me?

You mean before the CIA supported the coup to install Saddam into power?

Yes.

I like to see kuwait united with Iraq again

I'm not entirely convinced that the Kuwaitis are in favour of this concept. There's been some resistance to Iraqi control in Kuwait for several decades.

With NO ONE ruling over the other. Therfore no president or PM.

So what you are advocating then is in effect four separate countries. Even Switzerland, with its independent canton system has a central government. However, it seems that the Iraqi Sunnis are not so in favour of this concept.

I'd like to see councillors that are slow to anger and reasonable people in charge. So they cant talk out there differences and come to reasonable conclusions. Unruly people should apologize for mis appropriate behaviour or be voted out and replaced by another representative.

Fully agreed. But is it your contention that these are the people who will come to the fore if the US pulls out tomorrow? Right now, the guys with the AKs seem to be the lead contenders.

If he allowed other religious figures into government it would weaken his position of authority.

The Iranians don't seem to have any great issue with theologians in positions of authority. Why should Sistani, assuming similar outlooks?

Actually they were dividing the spoils. Shouldn't Iraq have total control of its Economy?

Yes, and I believe the Iraqi Constitution says just that. Unless my reading comprehension has gone shot to hell. Nothing says they can't subcontract out if they choose to do so.

Why do you think Iran sees Israel as a threat.

That is one of the Great Questions of the Modern Age. Israel has been a bit of a sore point in the Middle East since the country was created in 1946. I might as well try to understand the Balkans.

You leave them alone? They leave you alone. Thats how it usually works.

The Israelis would say that that is exactly their policy.

Although I have seen the preview of the new brainwashing movie to attract new recruiters. Coming soon to a theater near you.

Cool. What's it called? I must go check it out. I could do with a bit of brainwashing, been a while. (Not that I'd want to be a recruiter). Seriously, I've not heard of anything in the pipeline.

What benefits do you see?

Maybe I've simply been brainwashed, but near as I can tell, the best case scenario is that Iraq gets an elected government, and the US gets out of Iraq. With the US out, and a government in place that can sustain itself, the place gets a lot less volatile, with dual benefits that oil production remains safe for the world economy, and Iraq might become more hostile to any terrorists that might be happening through. No guarantee on the latter, mind.

I see benefits if the American military leaves Iraq.

So does the American military. It's only a matter of when and how.

And Iraq starts to rebuild. How will an Illegitamite government benefit Iraq when it is at war?

Again, our fundamental disagreement over legitimacy.

NTM

bonkey

wiseones2cents wrote:

The point is a significant portion of the population does not recognize the legitamicy of these elections. NOR DO I. Therefore the elections are meaningless.

I take it back. While it was only Iraqi's who weren't being given their unreasonable demands who were refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy, I thought there wasn't really a case to say the elections were meaningless.

Now that you've added your weight to theirs, its clear. Obviously, your sidnig with them makes all the difference.

So tell me...if you can't force a democracy...what do you do? Let them fight it out? Decide by force of arms what system of govern.....wait a minute....that would mean one group forcing some other system of government on the rest of hte country.

Looks like Iraw is fux0red then. No way to get any government out of the current system without someone forcing it on someone else....and you can't do that in your book.

I say we should just dust off and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

jc

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

I have seen nothing to indicate that they didn't. In early 2004, Balad was described to me as 'When the last American leaves Iraq, it will be from this base', that was barely a year into it and before any of the elections.

The war started way before 2004 and the plans were even way before that.I doubt the Americans would leave those oil fields unguarded. Here's a link you might find interesting.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm

There's no denying that Iraq is a fairly strategic spot in the ME, but still, the question is why bother going through the hassle of invading a country when there is already quite a willing base in the form of Kuwait?

They do have a small airbase in Kuwait. Though I am sure they would like to be up and close to Iraqi oil also.

I look at it the other way around. As long as the US is occupied in Iraq, there is less likelihood of attacking Syria/Iran. They don't need to do it from Iraq.

Yes but once they deal with Iraq, they will be in a perfect position to strike Syria or Iran. They dont need to be in Iraq but it makes more economical sense. Than to go back and redeploy their military that is already there.

So presumably they also see Sistani et-al as extensions of American imperialism, whereas you see him instead as a potential opponent of the US because of his Iranian links? Why wouldn't Iraqi sunnis also be able to see this?

The Sunnis see him as an opponent to Sunnis period. As do I. Although I am sure the Iranians have a hand in Sistani's decisions. They are hoping for a super Shiite state. Though that will never happen. America will not allow it. Especially now that Iran is pursuing Nuclear capability.

Yes, I know. It's one of my gripes with the media coverage. You really have to look outside of MSM to find the reconstruction stories.

ALl I have heard is construction of oil facilities. So Iraqi oil can flow to American Coalition allies.

Here is where we really start to diverge. If I understand you correctly, you are blaming the US for attacking Iraq in 1991, and don't believe that Iraq attacking Kuwait had anything to do with it whatsoever?

Wasn't it on this thread I explained why Kuwait was attacked?And how America set Iraq up?

Probably. Also quite probably at gunpoint. Doesn't strike me as any better than the current situation. Why not give the current round of elections a chance? What's the worst that happens? Can't be any worse than the worst that happens if everyone leaves.

I guess you prefer forced democracy under occupation(at gunpoint).
Why not America get out and see what happens?We have seen what has happened with American presence there.
Whats the worst that can happen? Just be thankful there are people behind the scenes restraining the Insurgents for now. Or you would see what the worse is that can happen. Bloodbath.

Again, we have a major difference of opinion between the two of us. I firmly believe that if they couldn't be arsed to be a part of the electoral process, then they've no right to go around complaining that it's unfair.

How many democracies do you know of are conducted under occupation?
They election is a farce as I explained before. They are mostly American puppets. If Sistani did not hold so much influence, the consitution would have been totally foreign. How many countries is America willing to invade and innocent people killed to impose these democracies?How many will openly accept them?

I agree. All you can do is set the conditions. If the Iraqis want to pick up the ball and run with it, fantastic. If not, well, so be it, but the Sunnis still aren't going to be happy since they're the minority.

Of coarse not. They were forced from power so they will do whatever it takes to regain that power. Thats human nature.

You dont start democracies by force but by compromises. This is more of an American conquest than a Democracy.

I have no idea. Would you care to enlighten me?

Here is a link.http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/666/1/77/

The ICP(Iraqi Communist Party) seem to have the right Idea. Iraq does not need foreign economic help. They have all the economic aid they need. Their oil fields.

I'm not entirely convinced that the Kuwaitis are in favour of this concept. There's been some resistance to Iraqi control in Kuwait for several decades.

Kuwait is origionally part of Iraq. Why should a small population of people sit on all that wealth?While Iraq's are facing rough times?

So what you are advocating then is in effect four separate countries. Even Switzerland, with its independent canton system has a central government. However, it seems that the Iraqi Sunnis are not so in favour of this concept.

I am suggesting what I suggested. I am not familiar with the Swiss system. Although what I have heard of is favourable.

The Sunni's are not in favour of this because a) they weren't asked nicely and b) they want the dictators that used force, out of their country.

Fully agreed. But is it your contention that these are the people who will come to the fore if the US pulls out tomorrow? Right now, the guys with the AKs seem to be the lead contenders.

If the US pulls out, the foreign fighters for one, will leave Iraq. 2) The Insurgency will subside. Remember. American presence is one of the main things fueling the insurgency. Not to mention the fact that the Americans
went and held elections in THIER country without THIER approval. That just added to the flames.

Its like me playing football on a court for years and along comes a bigger group. Moves me off(BY FORCE) the court and says we are now playing baseball. You either play by our rules or cannot play at all. Football is no longer played here. If I want to play football, you cant force me to play baseball by force can you?So now you have conflict. People wanting to play football and baseball on the same field = Chaos. If they would have asked NICELY(DIPLOMACY) they may have played baseball.War is NEVER the answer.

The Iranians don't seem to have any great issue with theologians in positions of authority. Why should Sistani, assuming similar outlooks?

Like I said. To secure his authority in Iraq.

Yes, and I believe the Iraqi Constitution says just that. Unless my reading comprehension has gone shot to hell. Nothing says they can't subcontract out if they choose to do so.

Incorrect. Iraq has been Capitalised by foreign companies. That is why the ICP(Iraqi communist party) wants to retake their resources. Read the above link I already submitted.

That is one of the Great Questions of the Modern Age. Israel has been a bit of a sore point in the Middle East since the country was created in 1946. I might as well try to understand the Balkans.

The Israelis would say that that is exactly their policy.

All I can say is, little do you know what goes on behind the scenes. If Israel would have spent half the money on building better relations with its neighbours and not weapons. There would have been peace today. I can say the same about America. They could have fed the entire earth with their military spending.

Cool. What's it called? I must go check it out. I could do with a bit of brainwashing, been a while. (Not that I'd want to be a recruiter). Seriously, I've not heard of anything in the pipeline.

I didn't catch the title. It was a preview. I went to go see Aeon Flux. That movie was AMAZING!

Maybe I've simply been brainwashed, but near as I can tell, the best case scenario is that Iraq gets an elected government, and the US gets out of Iraq. With the US out, and a government in place that can sustain itself, the place gets a lot less volatile, with dual benefits that oil production remains safe for the world economy, and Iraq might become more hostile to any terrorists that might be happening through. No guarantee on the latter, mind.

Well since the Americans aren't planning to leave anytime soon, the period inbetween is quite gray. Dont you think? Americans need to leave now but they wont leave until they are sure they have secured the oil. That is why people are dying and this war and is all about. Will America ever secure those oil fields?

So does the American military. It's only a matter of when and how.

Exactly. Though I do not see America leaving any time soon.

wiseones2cents

bonkey wrote:

So tell me...if you can't force a democracy...what do you do? Let them fight it out? Decide by force of arms what system of govern.....wait a minute....that would mean one group forcing some other system of government on the rest of hte country.

Its a new concept in some countries. It is called DIPLOMACY.;)

I say we should just dust off and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

:rolleyes: How long until someone gets a nuke and returns the favour?Violence only breeds violence. Its not a very hard concept to understand.When will we learn?

We have learned from History and the Bible that if you put your trust in tanks and bombs, and mountains and crags to protect you. In the end it will not.

If America invested in helping build infastructures of the poor to help them be self sustaining. Rather than investing in and spreading weapons world wide, this world would be better off. Though why would Imperialist nations help the poor? When they could strip them of their resources for themselves.

bonkey

wiseones2cents wrote:

Its a new concept in some countries. It is called DIPLOMACY.;)

But diplomacy can only occur when people are willing to talk. I don't believe that is the case, nor that it can be even solidly argued that it is the case. I'm open to correction, especially on the latter, of course. And the situation can change. It will change. Its just a question of how that change occurs.

:rolleyes: How long until someone gets a nuke and returns the favour?

Its a (mis)quote from Aliens. I was jokingly referring to the notion that the current options seem to be simply a question of who's involved in the fighting and to what end, and that there's no real solution to suddenly end the fighting. Other than (in poor taste - I restropectively admit) dusting off and nuking the site from orbit.

I'll try and find where I read this (if it wasn't on CNN), so I admit that at the moment, the following is not supportable with linkage, but recent figures - even from the US military - suggest that the number of foreign "insurgents" is only a very small (<10%), though not insignificant, fraction of the total number of forces arrayed against them. That means the majority are Iraqi and they're of all three major groups (Shiite, Sunni, Kurd) and by no means acting in concert with each other. Indeed, even within each of those three groups there are currently a myriad of smaller factions, each aligned to their own purposes.

Should we believe that each and every one of these groups will lay down their arms and peacefully discuss and decide the future of the nation?

Ever since the US invaded (an action I was opposed to), the issue should only be and ever have been the question of what is the path of least damage. It may offend your sensibilities that the US is there, but that doesn't change that they're there. I do not believe the current question is how to get them out as quickly as possible, but rather how to minimise the damage, and maximise the benefit to the Iraqi people from this point on.

If you believe that a civil war is preferable to the US remaining any longer, then we'll just have to fundamentally disagree. The potential consequences of which, needless to say, are truly epic should (for example) the Turkish Kurds or the Iranians decide to 'lend a hand' to their brethren in any conflict.

Unpalatable as it may be to some, the US presence is now necessary in Iraq. How they manage that presence is a different matter, as it doesn't guarantee success by any means. It simply forestalls failure and allows for success. There is probably no perfect solution, but currently I'd say the US are not headed down the path to any sort of close-to-perfect solution. I often opined from before the invasion that the biggest reason I was opposed to the entire venture was because ultimately I feared the US would not stay the course. I still hold to that.

A quick exit, at best, benefits only the Americans. Unless, of course, one were to be of the opinion that a potential open-ended redrawing of the political map of the Middle East would be a good thing, even if through force of (local) arms.

jc

Manic Moran

wiseones2cents wrote:

The war started way before 2004 and the plans were even way before that.I doubt the Americans would leave those oil fields unguarded. Here's a link you might find interesting.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm

They shouldn't need to. The Iraqi security forces should take over the job. There already is an oil protection service in existance controlled by the Iraqi government. I can't remember its official title offhand.

The link about the basing details doesn't say a whole hell of a lot. The Americans were building the bases to become more livable. OK, can't blame them for that. A company working out of a tent with no air conditioning is pretty lousy conditions. Morale shot up when the two-man portakabins showed up. It is acknowledged that the more permanent structures being created are going to be gifted to the Iraqis forces.

They do have a small airbase in Kuwait. Though I am sure they would like to be up and close to Iraqi oil also.

A 'small airbase'...

You're telling me that the US military staged a land assault from Kuwait with the use of a simple 'small airbase'? I know what I saw, it didn't seem like small airbases to me. I know of at least three permanent land facilities there to start with, not counting pre-positioned storage facilities.

The Sunnis see him as an opponent to Sunnis period. As do I. Although I am sure the Iranians have a hand in Sistani's decisions. They are hoping for a super Shiite state. Though that will never happen. America will not allow it. Especially now that Iran is pursuing Nuclear capability.

Again, I believe the Americans are capable of distinguishing between nuclear ambitions and forms of government.

ALl I have heard is construction of oil facilities. So Iraqi oil can flow to American Coalition allies.

I rest my case. You are neither exposed to, or motivated to look for, other stories. Positive news does come out of the country, the problem is that generally it is only reported by agencies with a political axe to grind or otherwise seen as biased, so people ignore it.

Wasn't it on this thread I explained why Kuwait was attacked?And how America set Iraq up?

Not that I noticed. Please enlighten me, this should be entertaining.

I guess you prefer forced democracy under occupation(at gunpoint).
Why not America get out and see what happens?We have seen what has happened with American presence there.
Whats the worst that can happen? Just be thankful there are people behind the scenes restraining the Insurgents for now. Or you would see what the worse is that can happen. Bloodbath.

If they are restrained right now, there must be a reason for it. Are they perhaps waiting until after the coalition leaves before being totally released?
I say let the American plan run its course. Have the elections, see what the end result is. If it doesn't work, so be it. They can try again under their own terms if they want. Or they can just fight it out. If the Coalition pulls out this second, the current elections would never be given the chance in the first place.

How many democracies do you know of are conducted under occupation?

I'm told that the Germans and Japanese turned into quite reasonable democracies under occupation after WWII. I've not lived in either location, mind. The Italians are still working on it, though their parliament fights are quite entertaining.

If Sistani did not hold so much influence, the consitution would have been totally foreign.

OK. So you acknowledge that the coalition allowed others to have input? They appear to have been under no obligation to, by your standards.

Of coarse not. They were forced from power so they will do whatever it takes to regain that power. Thats human nature.

It is indeed. On that, if nothing else, you have my full agreement. Whether or not they should be entitled to do whatever it takes to regain that power is another issue.

You dont start democracies by force but by compromises.

It seemed to me that Saddam didn't seem particularly willing to compromise in any way shape or form. Either with electoral systems, or with weapons inspectors. A compromise requires that all parties be willing to meet in the middle. If not, then a compromise is not possible, regardless of how ideal it might be.

Here is a link.http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/666/1/77/

OK... I've read the link. Doesn't seem to address the question of foreign candidates. (Except to point out in the first paragraph that the Iraqi elections were apparently free enough that the American favourites were soundly rejected.. in which case, what's your problem?)

The ICP(Iraqi Communist Party) seem to have the right Idea. Iraq does not need foreign economic help. They have all the economic aid they need. Their oil fields.

Agreed. I believe their oil fields will be the primary source of revenue, it seems to make sense. For that to happen though, they have to be producing oil again. Until then, they -need- economic help to get started.

Kuwait is origionally part of Iraq. Why should a small population of people sit on all that wealth?While Iraq's are facing rough times?

The Kuwaitis might differ with you on that one. To say simply 'it was once part of Iraq' is a bit of a misleading statement. At one point, much of the world was part of tha Abbasid Caliphate. This empire stretched from Spain in the West through Pakistan in the East with the capital in Baghdad. By such arguments, surely all those currently existing countries in that empire should now be controlled by Iraq and also have access to the oil money? Not that Portugal and Kazakhstan would object to the money, but they might object to the foreign rule which would also be a pre-requisite.

The Sunni's are not in favour of this because a) they weren't asked nicely and b) they want the dictators that used force, out of their country.

Well, to a point, they were asked nicely. Or at least, the prominent member of their group was. When he declined to co-operate in small matters like inspections, then force was used. The Sunnis didn't seem to object to force when they were in charge, by the way. Whilst acknowledging that two wrongs don't make a right, it's a bit of a stretch to make the link.

If the US pulls out, the foreign fighters for one, will leave Iraq.

Depends on their motiviation. If they just want to kill Americans, you're right. If they are determined on a theocracy regardless of who's pulling the strings, I see no cause for them to leave until they are either defeated or win.

Not to mention the fact that the Americans went and held elections in THIER country without THIER approval. That just added to the flames.

And other than those who called for Sharia, who actually objected? Even Saddam held elections, even if he made sure he was the only candidate and that anyone who voted 'no' would be seen to. (Iraqi election victory margins of the time are equalled only by North Korea)

War is NEVER the answer.

Not the ideal one, certainly. It's awfully messy, violent and expensive. Tends to kill people too. But it certainly can finalise a few issues if nothing else works.

Incorrect. Iraq has been Capitalised by foreign companies. That is why the ICP(Iraqi communist party) wants to retake their resources.

I'm sure that if the good people of Iraq wish that to happen, then they will vote the ICP into power.

If Israel would have spent half the money on building better relations with its neighbours and not weapons.

I find that idea mildly amusing.. Let's see, quick review of Israel's history.
May 14 1948: State of Israel created.
May 15 1948: State of Israel invaded by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. Given that Israel had had all of one day to buy weapons instead of building better relations with its neighbours, I'm not entirely convinced I can consider them at fault. That rather set the tone for the rest of the century. At least they're at peace with Egypt and Jordan now. It's an improvement.

There would have been peace today. I can say the same about America. They could have fed the entire earth with their military spending.

Possibly, but we'd have so much less to talk about. A lot of people might not be in a position to talk at all, mind.

I didn't catch the title. It was a preview. I went to go see Aeon Flux. That movie was AMAZING!

Oh, you talking about Jarhead? It may not have opened in Europe yet. Believe me, whatever you may consider it, it's not a recruiting movie for the military. Indeed, the book it's based on is a 200-page gripe session.

NTM

Manic Moran

Its a (mis)quote from Aliens

I believe the quote is accurate.

Did you ever get the email about 'Rules I will follow when being in an armed response team to a scientific facility?'

NTM

Manic Moran

It seems the legitimacy issue may not be such a factor tomorrow. They had CNN on in the chow hall for lunch today, according to the news, a bunch of Sunni insurgent groups have apparently decided to try a new tack. Contrary to previous elections which they wanted boycotted, they have announced that on this occasion they will not attack voters or polling places. (Though American soldiers are still fair game)

NTM

wiseones2cents

bonkey wrote:

But diplomacy can only occur when people are willing to talk. I don't believe that is the case, nor that it can be even solidly argued that it is the case. I'm open to correction, especially on the latter, of course. And the situation can change. It will change. Its just a question of how that change occurs.

Americans talk? Americans dont negotiate. What did the Muslims say About the American administration? Oh ya. The only language they understand is violence. Which leads me to the conclusion that they did try to reason with the Americans.

Also I was monitoring this whole event(Iraq war) unfold, very closely. Saddam WAS co-operating with the weapons inspectors and diplomacy. bush was quick to shed blood. bush knew he only had 4 years in office to execute his agenda, which was to attack Iraq all along. Therefore bush did not want to
take the diplomatic road. It is clear he rushed the war.

Its a (mis)quote from Aliens. I was jokingly referring to the notion that the current options seem to be simply a question of who's involved in the fighting and to what end, and that there's no real solution to suddenly end the fighting. Other than (in poor taste - I restropectively admit) dusting off and nuking the site from orbit.

Heres a far out suggestion. Why doesn't American withdraw its troops, to stop the violence? Oh ya. They have to make sure they secure thier conquered interst. Iraqi oil.

Like I said Nuking them would make things worse. America already started an arms race by attacking Iraq. A nuke would be responded with a nuke.

I'll try and find where I read this (if it wasn't on CNN), so I admit that at the moment, the following is not supportable with linkage, but recent figures - even from the US military - suggest that the number of foreign "insurgents" is only a very small (<10%), though not insignificant, fraction of the total number of forces arrayed against them. That means the majority are Iraqi and they're of all three major groups (Shiite, Sunni, Kurd) and by no means acting in concert with each other. Indeed, even within each of those three groups there are currently a myriad of smaller factions, each aligned to their own purposes.

Should we believe that each and every one of these groups will lay down their arms and peacefully discuss and decide the future of the nation?

yes. I have already explained the reason for the Majoity of the violence. American presence is fueling it.

Ever since the US invaded (an action I was opposed to), the issue should only be and ever have been the question of what is the path of least damage. It may offend your sensibilities that the US is there, but that doesn't change that they're there. I do not believe the current question is how to get them out as quickly as possible, but rather how to minimise the damage, and maximise the benefit to the Iraqi people from this point on.

The sooner America leaves the better it will be for Iraq though not for America and they know it.

If you believe that a civil war is preferable to the US remaining any longer, then we'll just have to fundamentally disagree. The potential consequences of which, needless to say, are truly epic should (for example) the Turkish Kurds or the Iranians decide to 'lend a hand' to their brethren in any conflict.

If the Sunnis are not threatened by the Shiites they will not target them.

Turkish Kurds interfering would bring in Turkey. Iranian interference would bring in Sunni Nations.

Turkey and Iran are more likely to join Iraq in expelling America.

Unpalatable as it may be to some, the US presence is now necessary in Iraq. How they manage that presence is a different matter, as it doesn't guarantee success by any means. It simply forestalls failure and allows for success. There is probably no perfect solution, but currently I'd say the US are not headed down the path to any sort of close-to-perfect solution. I often opined from before the invasion that the biggest reason I was opposed to the entire venture was because ultimately I feared the US would not stay the course. I still hold to that.

A quick exit, at best, benefits only the Americans. Unless, of course, one were to be of the opinion that a potential open-ended redrawing of the political map of the Middle East would be a good thing, even if through force of (local) arms.[/QUOTE]

I think it is unnecessary for America to remain in Iraq. The Americans are worried more about losing control of their oil than the Iraqi people.

The main reason I opposed the war is because I knew INNOCENT people would DIE and that it would breed more violence. War is never the answer.

A quick exit of America and its dictating influence and foreign policies would benefiit the entire world.

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

They shouldn't need to. The Iraqi security forces should take over the job. There already is an oil protection service in existance controlled by the Iraqi government. I can't remember its official title offhand.

The link about the basing details doesn't say a whole hell of a lot. The Americans were building the bases to become more livable. OK, can't blame them for that. A company working out of a tent with no air conditioning is pretty lousy conditions. Morale shot up when the two-man portakabins showed up. It is acknowledged that the more permanent structures being created are going to be gifted to the Iraqis forces.

And how long will it take for them to be ready, if ever? Not to mention I have heard of them being just as bad as Saddam and his henchmen.

They article does not suggest temporary bases but PERMANENT BASES.

A 'small airbase'...

You're telling me that the US military staged a land assault from Kuwait with the use of a simple 'small airbase'? I know what I saw, it didn't seem like small airbases to me. I know of at least three permanent land facilities there to start with, not counting pre-positioned storage facilities.

Yes a small Airbase. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/ali-al-salem.htm

Though they must have set up another one. Like I said, they would rather be closer to Iraqi oil. Whats one more base to America? They have what now? over 700 bases world wide?

Again, I believe the Americans are capable of distinguishing between nuclear ambitions and forms of government.

Americans are only capable of distinuishing between what is in their best interest and what is not. That is about it.

I rest my case. You are neither exposed to, or motivated to look for, other stories. Positive news does come out of the country, the problem is that generally it is only reported by agencies with a political axe to grind or otherwise seen as biased, so people ignore it.

How much of the country is still without electricity?How much of Iraq have clean drinking water? I have already researched much of the stories regarding Iraqi reconstruction and I find the American efforts lacking. They are too busy building capitalist structures.

Not that I noticed. Please enlighten me, this should be entertaining.

Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil through slant drilling using American(texan to be exact) technology. Why? After Saddam was backstabbed by America in the Iraq/Iran war. Saddam cut America out of Iraqi oil Profits.

Saddam found out the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil at the border and called the American Ambassador to Iraq. April Gilespie. She replied America doesnt
get involved in border Disputes. So Saddam Attcked Kuwait. April Gilespie was demoted.

Therefore Iraq got the green light from America to attack. When they did and they were told to withdraw they did. And as they were withdrawing, the American war planes slaughtered thousands of Iraqi soldiers retreating

If they are restrained right now, there must be a reason for it. Are they perhaps waiting until after the coalition leaves before being totally released?
I say let the American plan run its course. Have the elections, see what the end result is. If it doesn't work, so be it. They can try again under their own terms if they want. Or they can just fight it out. If the Coalition pulls out this second, the current elections would never be given the chance in the first place.

It has nothing to do with America. They are restrained by their leaders,for religious reasons.

If the Americans stay, violence will continue for sure. If they leave their might be a chance they can work out their differences.

I'm told that the Germans and Japanese turned into quite reasonable democracies under occupation after WWII. I've not lived in either location, mind. The Italians are still working on it, though their parliament fights are quite entertaining.

First of all, did Germany and Japan have groups of resistence? What happened in Vietnam?Second, Muslims are a different breed of people. Once you stir the beehive they do not forget very easily. Their is alot of faith behind their objectives and if there purpose is to get back at America? Believe me, eventually they willfind a way. Italians are still working on what? Democracy? This from a country that's president won 2 elections through election fraud.:rolleyes:

OK. So you acknowledge that the coalition allowed others to have input? They appear to have been under no obligation to, by your standards.

America had no choice. Sistani wasn't willing to sway on the religious law.
Its more the new economy of Iraq that is more foreign than Iraqi.

It seemed to me that Saddam didn't seem particularly willing to compromise in any way shape or form. Either with electoral systems, or with weapons inspectors. A compromise requires that all parties be willing to meet in the middle. If not, then a compromise is not possible, regardless of how ideal it might be.

It seems to me he was. And Hans blix agreed. Though America effectively removed all voices of dissent, didn't they.....

When 9/11 happened i weas glued to the TV 24/7 and also to every international news feed. I also participated on an America political board, that was also later shut down. So I know what I am talking about. Saddam was co-operating. bush was quick to go to war as I explained already.

OK... I've read the link. Doesn't seem to address the question of foreign candidates. (Except to point out in the first paragraph that the Iraqi elections were apparently free enough that the American favourites were soundly rejected.. in which case, what's your problem?)

You missed it then. It said Allawi was an American puppet and was hand picking selected candidates. Read the first paragraph again.

Agreed. I believe their oil fields will be the primary source of revenue, it seems to make sense. For that to happen though, they have to be producing oil again. Until then, they -need- economic help to get started.

I'm sure every country on this planet would be happy to give them a hand.

The Kuwaitis might differ with you on that one. To say simply 'it was once part of Iraq' is a bit of a misleading statement. but they might object to the foreign rule which would also be a pre-requisite.

Its up to them. They are already sacrificing wealth for security. The only thing is that wealth is going to America when it could be going to the Iraqi poor. Plus Kuwaits get to invest their money in Iraq rather than the Americans. Kuwait would not have foreign rule like I said. I suggested a joint council of rulership. Kuwait would still have sole control of its state/province.

wiseones2cents

Well, to a point, they were asked nicely. Or at least, the prominent member of their group was. When he declined to co-operate in small matters like inspections, then force was used. The Sunnis didn't seem to object to force when they were in charge, by the way. Whilst acknowledging that two wrongs don't make a right, it's a bit of a stretch to make the link.

This is far from the truth. Since Hans Blix repeatedly said that they were co-operating and that they wanted to continue their inspections. American told the inspectors to get out of Iraq. So I know your accusation is 100% false.
They may have had some disagreements but Saddam was co-operating.

Americans kept saying they know Iraq have weapons and they know where they are. yet they couldn't find them.

Depends on their motiviation. If they just want to kill Americans, you're right. If they are determined on a theocracy regardless of who's pulling the strings, I see no cause for them to leave until they are either defeated or win.

Did the Sunnis run a theorocracy or a secular government? So your notion does not apply.

And other than those who called for Sharia, who actually objected? Even Saddam held elections, even if he made sure he was the only candidate and that anyone who voted 'no' would be seen to. (Iraqi election victory margins of the time are equalled only by North Korea)

Who objected? 20 million Sunnis objected.

Not the ideal one, certainly. It's awfully messy, violent and expensive. Tends to kill people too. But it certainly can finalise a few issues if nothing else works.

Maybe if you are on the defensive. Not on the offensive. Sooner or later you get overthrown. Violence breeds violence.

I'm sure that if the good people of Iraq wish that to happen, then they will vote the ICP into power.

Only time will tell



I find that idea mildly amusing.. Let's see, quick review of Israel's history.
May 14 1948: State of Israel created.
May 15 1948: State of Israel invaded by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. Given that Israel had had all of one day to buy weapons instead of building better relations with its neighbours, I'm not entirely convinced I can consider them at fault. That rather set the tone for the rest of the century. At least they're at peace with Egypt and Jordan now. It's an improvement.

Lets see.Along come the Israelis. Set up a little town then start illegal immigration by the millions and then declare a State in Palestine. Of coarse they will get mad.Egypt was bribed to make peace. 2-3 billion dollars in arms aid a year. Jordan made a deal with Israel to keep the west bank during the war. See? Money makes peace.

Possibly, but we'd have so much less to talk about. A lot of people might not be in a position to talk at all, mind.

Do you think America's free speech came by nuclear weapons? Or by Diplomacy. Not to mention America has enough arms to destroy the earth 100 times over. When will the spending end?

Oh, you talking about Jarhead? It may not have opened in Europe yet. Believe me, whatever you may consider it, it's not a recruiting movie for the military. Indeed, the book it's based on is a 200-page gripe session.

I dont know if thats the movie. Ita about a kid that wants to be an officer in the military and wont let anyone stop him. And he keeps failing but doesnt give up and the drill sargents are hard on him but see his potential. To me thats brainwashing. There setting a role model up. So the kids think military is cool.

Manic Moran

wiseones2cents wrote:

They article does not suggest temporary bases but PERMANENT BASES.

Which will be gifted to the Iraqi forces after the Americans leave.

Yes a small Airbase. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/ali-al-salem.htm

I wasn't doubting the existance of Ali Al Salem. I've been through there a few times. I was saying that your knowledge of American facilities in Kuwait is a little lacking. They've been using Doha for over ten years, for example. Arifjan has also been in use for a while, together with Udari and its satellite camps.

Americans are only capable of distinuishing between what is in their best interest and what is not. That is about it.

I might submit that trying to make sure they don't get nuked is in their best interests.

How much of the country is still without electricity?

Very little, actually. I went over this in another thread. The power grid does not supply anywhere near enough to meet demand. (I think it's running at about 50% if I recall correctly). This is the fact that is most usually bandied about. What people tend to omit is that demand for electricity has also shot up, with people buying electrical goodies left, right and center in the past couple of years, contributing to this shortfall despite increases in power production, and the fact that for when the grid is offline in their area, they have community-owned generators that start up within a few minutes of the grid blackout. Ergo, contary to common belief, they don't usually sit in candlelight trying to rub two sticks together to make fire to keep warm. Unless they're the nomadic type, in which case they do do that by choice.

How much of Iraq have clean drinking water?

Quite likely a lot more than was the case three years ago. I don't have the figures, but I was aware of several programmes in place in the farmland areas around Ad Dujayl, where I spent a lot of time. I see no reason to believe it's not representative of nationwide programmes.

They are too busy building capitalist structures.

You really aren't a great fan of private corporate enterprise, are you?

Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil through slant drilling using American(texan to be exact) technology.

I spent a little while researching that one, and have found no greater evidence that that claim was true than there was evidence that it was a manufactured pretext to enable Iraq to invade Kuwait and steal Kuwaiti oil. Any 'official' sites I've found, from gulfstatelink through government ones are all careful to use the word 'alleged' or 'accused'

Saddam found out the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil at the border and called the American Ambassador to Iraq. April Gilespie. She replied America doesnt get involved in border Disputes. So Saddam Attcked Kuwait.

Perhaps Gillespie should have been a bit clearer, but it's a bit of a stretch to go from 'We don't want to get involved in border disputes' to 'We hereby authorise you to invade, occupy and control Kuwait and all its assets'

Therefore Iraq got the green light from America to attack. When they did and they were told to withdraw they did. And as they were withdrawing, the American war planes slaughtered thousands of Iraqi soldiers retreating

Is there a 'stunned shock' smiley? I can excuse you some excessive idealism, but comments like that completely remove any form of legitimacy you may have.

Try this as an alternative. After 40 days of bombing, they still hadn't gotten the message and had to be kicked out with a land campaign. Presumably their little foray in the into Saudi Arabia with a couple of battalions was just a bit of a mapreading error? (Gee.. Home is North, Saudi is South. Let's go the way the sun is at the highest) (The video capture of the Iraqis crossing the Saudi border has a voiceover with probably the best understatement of that war: As the first PC crossed the border, you hear the Marine observer "Oooh, the King's gonna be pissed!" (He wanted the Al Khafji levelled immediately instead of allowing it to be retained in Iraqi hands!)). Try reading a few books on the war. ("Probability levels are Infinity to the power of 72 and falling...We will soon be returning to normality, once we figure out what is normal anyway" (Cool points for quote identification))
If, incidently, by 'thousands of Iraqi soldiers slaughtered' you mean the infamous Highway of Death towards the end of the conflict, the actual toll was a couple of hundred, and as uniformed members of the enemy force who were not attempting to surrender, they were quite legitimate targets.

If the Americans stay, violence will continue for sure. If they leave their might be a chance they can work out their differences.

Agreed. Hence the Americans want out as well. Nobody likes getting shot at. (Though it is a bit of a rush, truth be told. I see why they say combat is addictive) That said, the American policy is that 'we're not going to leave until they have demonstrated that they can work out their differences peacefully'

First of all, did Germany and Japan have groups of resistence?

Not many. Americans in Germany suffered attacks for about two months before things petered out. Japan was even less. Both were pretty homogonous societies, few disputing groups in them.

What happened in Vietnam?

American politics. The US decided to quit, stopped supporting South Vietnam, the result was a forgone conclusion.

It seems to me he was. And Hans blix agreed.

They did in 2002 when Saddam said he was going to let inspectors back in. In January 2003, the same inspectors were complaining that Iraq was not co-operating. Seems more like he was playing games.

When 9/11 happened i weas glued to the TV 24/7 and also to every international news feed.

Hmm. I just threw a uniform and pistol in my car and went to work.

You missed it then. It said Allawi was an American puppet and was hand picking selected candidates. Read the first paragraph again.

We appear to be at odds over the important part of that article. Your argument earlier was that America was hand-picking candidates and using economic or military clout in order to ensure that they won. The 86% rejection figure in that first paragraph appears to rather handily shoot down that argument and enhances the concept that the Iraqis are quite permitted to choose whoever they want, American-supported or otherwise.

Kuwait would not have foreign rule like I said. I suggested a joint council of rulership. Kuwait would still have sole control of its state/province.

How can you have a joint council of rulership and still retain sovereignty? Even the EU doesn't go to the extents that you propose.

NTM

Manic Moran

wiseones2cents wrote:

This is far from the truth. Since Hans Blix repeatedly said that they were co-operating and that they wanted to continue their inspections. American told the inspectors to get out of Iraq. So I know your accusation is 100% false.

Hmm...

January 18 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN inspector team:
"We are making a last-ditch effort before the 27th of January to impress upon them: 'This is an opportunity, don't lose that opportunity. Give us what we need to be able to report positively to the Security Council." "If we continue to say we are not able to exclude that you have weapons of mass destruction, that's not sufficient for the Security Council, and that is the beginning of what the Security Council talked about -- serious consequences."

Doesn't sound like they were getting full co-operation to me.

If, however, you will only accept Hans Blix quotes, this is from his report Jan 27 2003:
"Inspection is not a game of 'catch as catch can.'"
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.""
"Any further sign of concealment of documents would be serious,"

This basically indicates that he wasn't overjoyed and reporting full compliance, doesn't it?

Did the Sunnis run a theorocracy or a secular government? So your notion does not apply.

Given that some of the public statements coming out of insurgent groups such as the famous Al Qaeda have outright stated that elections are contrary to the will of God, it seems that it applies to some people.

Lets see.Along come the Israelis. Set up a little town then start illegal immigration by the millions and then declare a State in Palestine.

So your more fundamental issue is with the existance of Israel as a whole, not just its relationships with its neighbours?

Do you think America's free speech came by nuclear weapons? Or by Diplomacy.

Obviously not nuclear weapons, but the American Constitution which guarantees the rights of Americans to free speech was enabled by a bunch of guys with rifles and cannons back in the 1700s who objected somewhat to the British rule. The difference between that point and the Iraq situation is that the British denied the Americans any say in their own running of affairs. (Taxation without representation, as the phrase went at the time). Here, the Coalition leave the doors open for the Sunnis, and many have chosen not to say anything except with violence.

I dont know if thats the movie. Ita about a kid that wants to be an officer in the military and wont let anyone stop him.

Ah. Different movie then, I don't know that one. But yes, the military can be cool, in addition to allowing one to fulfill socio-moral responsibilities. The Irish Defense Forces recruiting slogan is 'A Life Less Ordinary', for example.

NTM

folk_smith

wiseones2cents wrote:

And who is Running thier oil infastructure? How come there was bidding by major oil Companies for Iraqi oil?Exxon Mobile if I am not mistaken has the largest stake.I hear Italy, Britain, Australia, USA,ect.. all have a share of the Iraqi oil market. Funny. These are the ones that are part of the American coalition.

ummmm - those companies are bidding on Iraqi oil .... that they will have to pay the Iraqis for just like any other oil company buying oil from any other oil producing nation. Those countries you listed are home to the largest oil companies in the world - it would make sense that they would have the most buying power. Maybe you should cut out reading Nostradamus for a while ...

folk_smith

Manic Moran wrote:

Obviously not nuclear weapons, but the American Constitution which guarantees the rights of Americans to free speech was enabled by a bunch of guys with rifles and cannons back in the 1700s who objected somewhat to the British rule. The difference between that point and the Iraq situation is that the British denied the Americans any say in their own running of affairs. (Taxation without representation, as the phrase went at the time). Here, the Coalition leave the doors open for the Sunnis, and many have chosen not to say anything except with violence.

The constitution does not "guarantee" anyone anything - it protects the basic rights of mankind - all men - from tyrannical governments and leaders. That's what we all need to remember - the people of Iraq and countries like Iraq will never have peace or be peaceful until the people of those nations are allowed to live like human beings.

bonkey

wiseones2cents wrote:

Americans talk? Americans dont negotiate.

Who, exactly, will be on the other side of this diplomacy? The people who chose to take up arms against hte Americans because they were in Iraq? That doesn't make sense.

Or, if we go with the point I was making in the first place...if the Americans pull out like you suggest....who is going to talk? It sure as sh1t isn't the Americans, cause they'll be gone.

Seriously....at this stage all you're doing is twisting in the wind, and not making coherent sense. You want the fighting to stop. You want the Americans out. You see this being done by the Americans leaving and now by them also not leaving and starting diplomatic relationships with the people who decided to try and kill their soldiers to make them leave.

Rather than issuing just another tired old tirade against the USA, maybe you could outline how we get from where we are to where you suggest we should be going. How does this diplomacy start? Who is involved? Who is chosen to represent the (myriad) of factions within each of the three main cultural groupings and why?

if you can't offer meaningful answers to such questions, then face facts - all you're doing is armchair-quarterbacking, whilst simultaneously demonstrating that you don't fully grasp either the game, nor the players.

We've gotten that you're indignant. We don't need more spittle-spraying vehemence. You think you know how its done right, then offer more than a shiny wrapper marked "McSolution" and actually get into some detail.

Also I was monitoring this whole event(Iraq war) unfold, very closely.

Who cares. The question is not how we got here, nor what should have been done 4 years ago. It doesn't matter a cr@p. It changes absolutely nothing. You can rant on and on and on about how wrong the Americans were to invade (ignoring that I've already said I opposed the invasion), but until you get over yourself and start addressing where to go from here, all you're doing is pulpitting empty rhetoric.

Heres a far out suggestion. Why doesn't American withdraw its troops, to stop the violence? Oh ya. They have to make sure they secure thier conquered interst. Iraqi oil.

Lets not forget the other reasons:

Civil war. Potential splitting of Iraq into three. Invasion of the resultant Kurdish state by Turkey (who have already said they would do so should a Kurdish state ensue from the American invasion of Iraq). Possible invasion of other parts by Iran, seeking to subsume more oilfields and believers to its own. Potential invasion by Kuwait, seeking revenge for the events of 15 years ago, a "reunification" on their (rather than on Iraqi) terms, and an increase in wealth. Any or all of the above could lead to utter and total destabilisation fo the Middle East.

Lets also not lose sight of the fact that right now, the only people keeping the majority of foreign fighters out of Iraq is...you guessed it...the US army.

Invading was a bad idea. I've never questioned that. I've never questioned that oil was a major factor. And yet you feel the need to bring this up again and again and again and again and again as if it somehow justifies the other (unrelated) points you're making. It doesn't. None of this historical "why they've done what they've done" matters when it comes to deciding what is the best path to go on from here.

If you cannot argue for an American pullout (or any other action) based on the facts of the moment, and a reasonable projection of likelihoods, but instead remain mired in the events of several years ago as your justification, then your "solution" is doomed from the outset.

Like I said Nuking them would make things worse.

I've explained the etymology of the comment. Get over yourself.

yes. I have already explained the reason for the Majoity of the violence. American presence is fueling it.

So Shia is killing Sunni is killing Kurd because there's Americans about?
Please....stop and listen to what you're saying. You might realise how ridiculous it is then. American presence may have started it (in fact, its almost beyond question), but either which way, there's no shortage of factions currently making power plays. They want power. They can't get it while the Americans are there, but once the Americans are gone....they still need to beat off all the other native factions who also want power. American presence is not fuelling that fighting....its dampening it. Whether it can dampen it enough, and how....thats what we should be discussing....but I hold little hope that you can distance yourself from the tirades against what is now history in order to discuss the present and future instead.

The sooner America leaves the better it will be for Iraq though not for America and they know it.

The don't know it. This is exactly what I said I have yet to hear a strong argument in favour of, and what have you offered me? "It will be better".

Maybe your definition of a strong argument is different to mine, but where I come from, "coz I said so" is generally only considered a strong argument while one's age is in single digits.

If the Sunnis are not threatened by the Shiites they will not target them.

And neither of them are Americans. And they are attacking. hence, Sunni are threatened by Shia....and a lack of American presence isn't going to change that....other than give violence a freer hand.

I mean...who's gonna keep the peace? the Shia- and Sunni- members of the Iraqi armed forces? The Kurds, so we make it a triple-header? The Iranians? The Turks?

Turkish Kurds interfering would bring in Turkey. Iranian interference would bring in Sunni Nations.

Yes. Exactly my point. Destabillisation.

You followed the war closely, you say...so you'll well remember the frequent statements that Turkey made that they would only support US action if given assurances that no Kurdish state would ensue from these actions, and that they would be obligated to interfere in the creation of any such state. Yes? No?

Turkey and Iran are more likely to join Iraq in expelling America.

Thats as credible as suggesting that Al Qaeda and Iraq would work together to bring about the downfall of the Great Satan.

I think it is unnecessary for America to remain in Iraq.

I know. You've said so time and time and time again. And your reasoning for this is either cause you've said so time and time and time and time again, or its because its ALL ABOUT THE OIL AND AMERICA SHOULD NEVER HAVE INVADED or some other capitalised historical-and-irrelevant point.

War is never the answer.

Initiating war is never the answer. Once war is initiated, the question changes to how one can end the war most effectively. Pulling out and allowing the nation (and potentially the region) to collapse into a war of its own isn't ending anything. Its simply changing the cast-list.

A quick exit of America and its dictating influence and foreign policies would benefiit the entire world.

And once more with the "I offer no reason, just state an empty belief that I'm unwilling or unable to back up" rhetoric.

Are you trying to copy the US Administration in the tactic of "if I repeat it often enough it will become believed to be true"?

jc

Manic Moran

Well, it seems that the legitimacy question is pretty well settled on this particular election: The Sunnis have turned out in large numbers as well.

I guess they figured out that if you boycott an election, you don't really end up getting much of a say in things.

NTM

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

Which will be gifted to the Iraqi forces after the Americans leave.

Of coarse. Now that they see they are not wanted.

I wasn't doubting the existance of Ali Al Salem. I've been through there a few times. I was saying that your knowledge of American facilities in Kuwait is a little lacking. They've been using Doha for over ten years, for example. Arifjan has also been in use for a while, together with Udari and its satellite camps.

And what I am saying is that how long would it take them to mobilize an attack on Iraqi oil from there? The answer? too long. That is why they needed another base in Iraq. America has many multi bases in certain regions.

I might submit that trying to make sure they don't get nuked is in their best interests.

They should then get their nose out of other people's business. Thier foreign policies and Imperial Agenda is to blame.

Very little, actually. I went over this in another thread. The power grid does not supply anywhere near enough to meet demand. (I think it's running at about 50% if I recall correctly). This is the fact that is most usually bandied about. What people tend to omit is that demand for electricity has also shot up, with people buying electrical goodies left, right and center in the past couple of years, contributing to this shortfall despite increases in power production, and the fact that for when the grid is offline in their area, they have community-owned generators that start up within a few minutes of the grid blackout. Ergo, contary to common belief, they don't usually sit in candlelight trying to rub two sticks together to make fire to keep warm. Unless they're the nomadic type, in which case they do do that by choice.

Very little? Thats not what I am hearing.They were buying much electrical goodies before the Iraq/Iran war also. They had plenty of electricity back then. Though who decapacitated the Iraqi electrical systems and sanitations in the first gulf war? America. So dont tell me there is lack of power because of people buying electrical goodies.

Quite likely a lot more than was the case three years ago. I don't have the figures, but I was aware of several programmes in place in the farmland areas around Ad Dujayl, where I spent a lot of time. I see no reason to believe it's not representative of nationwide programmes.

Since the sewer system wasn't fixed the last time I checked. I'd say that some Iraqi's do not have easy access to clean water.

You really aren't a great fan of private corporate enterprise, are you?

Not really. Especially when they have to bomb people to open up markets.

I spent a little while researching that one, and have found no greater evidence that that claim was true than there was evidence that it was a manufactured pretext to enable Iraq to invade Kuwait and steal Kuwaiti oil. Any 'official' sites I've found, from gulfstatelink through government ones are all careful to use the word 'alleged' or 'accused'

Well I have done more then a year of research on that subject. Since the slant technology was from Texas. And the Texans must have known they were going to use it to tap Iraqi oil. I'd its safe to say the Americans(Maybe Texans only) instigated the war.

Perhaps Gillespie should have been a bit clearer, but it's a bit of a stretch to go from 'We don't want to get involved in border disputes' to 'We hereby authorise you to invade, occupy and control Kuwait and all its assets'

Yes she should have done more. That is why she was quickly demoted because of her error.


Is there a 'stunned shock' smiley? I can excuse you some excessive idealism, but comments like that completely remove any form of legitimacy you may have.

If, incidently, by 'thousands of Iraqi soldiers slaughtered' you mean the infamous Highway of Death towards the end of the conflict, the actual toll was a couple of hundred, and as uniformed members of the enemy force who were not attempting to surrender, they were quite legitimate targets.

Really?I find that hard to believe. Its more in the thousands.Try this one on for size.http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8ap2.html

What kind of a so called Christian army would slaughter people as they were retreating? I find it Barbaric. Do you not agree?

Agreed. Hence the Americans want out as well. Nobody likes getting shot at. (Though it is a bit of a rush, truth be told. I see why they say combat is addictive) That said, the American policy is that 'we're not going to leave until they have demonstrated that they can work out their differences peacefully'

Its a rush till you get an arm or leg blown off or lose an eye. The fact that you would even make such a comment is disturbing.

And they will keep chipping away at America little by little.

Not many. Americans in Germany suffered attacks for about two months before things petered out. Japan was even less. Both were pretty homogonous societies, few disputing groups in them.

Exactly. You cannot compare it to ME nations.

American politics. The US decided to quit, stopped supporting South Vietnam, the result was a forgone conclusion.

The US decided to quit because the cost of the war was too high. In regards to money and human lives. Americans, North and South Vietnamese were being slaughtered.

I dont even want to get into what the war was about in the first place.

They did in 2002 when Saddam said he was going to let inspectors back in. In January 2003, the same inspectors were complaining that Iraq was not co-operating. Seems more like he was playing games.

Their was MINOR unco-operation. FOr the most part Saddam co-operated.

Hmm. I just threw a uniform and pistol in my car and went to work.

Went to work? I hope you dont mean went to war. If so, that is nothing to be proud of. Especially a war against a non aggressive nation.

We appear to be at odds over the important part of that article. Your argument earlier was that America was hand-picking candidates and using economic or military clout in order to ensure that they won. The 86% rejection figure in that first paragraph appears to rather handily shoot down that argument and enhances the concept that the Iraqis are quite permitted to choose whoever they want, American-supported or otherwise.

Actually it says that the Americans were stacking the deck but the Iraqis caught on.

How can you have a joint council of rulership and still retain sovereignty? Even the EU doesn't go to the extents that you propose.

Each ruler is sovereign leader of its province and reins supreme(In its province)Also encouraging economic intertwining. Encouraging co-operation among them. Though they will all be responsible for the poor. Regardless of which province they dwell.

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

Hmm...

January 18 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN inspector team:
"We are making a last-ditch effort before the 27th of January to impress upon them: 'This is an opportunity, don't lose that opportunity. Give us what we need to be able to report positively to the Security Council." "If we continue to say we are not able to exclude that you have weapons of mass destruction, that's not sufficient for the Security Council, and that is the beginning of what the Security Council talked about -- serious consequences."

Doesn't sound like they were getting full co-operation to me.

Iraq was co-operating for the most part. Scroll down to The 7 march El baradei Statement:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7765

They were fully co-operating and had access to ever facility the Inspectors asked to view. Also they had already given an account of all the weapons they possessed and destroyed. America chose not to believe it. Thats where it all stemmed from.Read Hans Blix's report:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7765

If, however, you will only accept Hans Blix quotes, this is from his report Jan 27 2003:
"Inspection is not a game of 'catch as catch can.'"
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.""
"Any further sign of concealment of documents would be serious,"

This basically indicates that he wasn't overjoyed and reporting full compliance, doesn't it?

See above. I'd also like to Add this. Scroll down to the title:KEY REMAINING DISARMAMENT TASKS:http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7765

They were under alot of pressure to come up with evidence of WMD. Even though the American knew full well there weren't any. ANd then rushed the war.

ElBaradei resisted the pressure and won the Nobel peace prize. Hans Blix also resisted the pressure. As did Annan.

Given that some of the public statements coming out of insurgent groups such as the famous Al Qaeda have outright stated that elections are contrary to the will of God, it seems that it applies to some people.

These that are claiming this are a very small minority.

Al-qaeda did not exist in Iraq until AFTER America attacked.And American presence is fueling it. So the more America stays. The faster Al-Qaeda will evolve in Iraq and the Middle East.

Though it is true. Democracy is not a biblical concept. Actually the Bible supports theoracracy.

I too am against American style democracy in the middle east. Where American money buys candidates.

So your more fundamental issue is with the existance of Israel as a whole, not just its relationships with its neighbours?

I accept the existence of Israel. I am opposed to the manner they achieved it.

Obviously not nuclear weapons, but the American Constitution which guarantees the rights of Americans to free speech was enabled by a bunch of guys with rifles and cannons back in the 1700s who objected somewhat to the British rule. The difference between that point and the Iraq situation is that the British denied the Americans any say in their own running of affairs. (Taxation without representation, as the phrase went at the time). Here, the Coalition leave the doors open for the Sunnis, and many have chosen not to say anything except with violence.

Yes but as I said. It is caused within. Democracy is not imposed by another country by force. Democracy comes about by Diplomacy and compromises.

Manic Moran

wiseones2cents wrote:

Of coarse. Now that they see they are not wanted.

'course'

If one were to work on the assumption that the Americans have only recently figured out that they aren't welcome for a long stay (An assumption I would dispute), then surely that would preclude any further work by them on permanent facilities which are to be gifted to Iraq, no? Yet such work continues. Ergo, it would seem to be a reasonable conclusion that the construction of such facilities has nothing to do with how long they intend to stay.

And what I am saying is that how long would it take them to mobilize an attack on Iraqi oil from there? The answer? too long. That is why they needed another base in Iraq. America has many multi bases in certain regions.

You are showing an evident ignorance of American power-projection capabilities. I assume that you will advocate that if there's any one thing that America is good at it's warfare? (I happen to believe that the US is good at other things as well, but that's not at issue here)

Very little? Thats not what I am hearing.They were buying much electrical goodies before the Iraq/Iran war also. They had plenty of electricity back then. Though who decapacitated the Iraqi electrical systems and sanitations in the first gulf war? America. So dont tell me there is lack of power because of people buying electrical goodies.

Then you're not listening to the right people. Please research the figures on both supply and demand, prior to and after the conflict.

The figures at
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050304-050628-7922r.htm indicate that demand has gone up by some 60% since the 2003 war. This, in turn, would indicate that people are obtaining more electrical goodies resulting in creating that demand. This would be in line with the government report I linked to in another thread a week or two ago.

The Iraqis themselves claimed to have restored power back to pre 1991-war levels within 5 months. The reason being that when the Americans attacked power stations, they didn't do it using explosives but instead warheads containing conductive-carbon filaments, which shorted out the system without blowing anything up. This would indicate that it is disingenuous to claim that the current Iraqi shortfalls are the result of American attacks in 1991.

Since the sewer system wasn't fixed the last time I checked. I'd say that some Iraqi's do not have easy access to clean water.

Quite true. I saw many towns that took their untreated water from the local rivers and canals. That's not contrary to any claims that a large number of programmes are in place to rectify those situations. After all, if the system was satisfactory, why have programmes to fix them?

Well I have done more then a year of research on that subject. Since the slant technology was from Texas. And the Texans must have known they were going to use it to tap Iraqi oil. I'd its safe to say the Americans(Maybe Texans only) instigated the war.

I will stipulate that slant drilling technology exists. I will stipulate that it originated in Texas. I will stipulate that if the US sold such information to other powers, that American will likely have known about it. This still leaves open the question of if the Iraqi accusations which led to the 1991 invasion were true or fabricated.

Really?I find that hard to believe. Its more in the thousands.Try this one on for size.http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8ap2.html

That article indicates that the -top- end for the Highway of Death is one thousand. In my line of work, I tend to encounter people who were there, and their estimates are actually a little lower than that. But regardless of if you believe your article's source or mine, the 'thousands' claim appears spurious.

What kind of a so called Christian army would slaughter people as they were retreating? I find it Barbaric. Do you not agree?

No, I would not agree. There are simple rules in war. You can choose to surrender, or you can choose not to surrender. Anyone who has expressed an indication or desire to surrender is entitled to quarter, and a refusal to accept a surrender is both bad practise for practical reasons, and a war crime for political reasons. Retreating/withdrawing/running-away is not an indication of surrender, it's an indication that the troops are going from A to B for purposes unknown. If they were not intending to be a threat, they could have laid down their arms and surrendered like many thousands of other Iraqi troops did.

Its a rush till you get an arm or leg blown off or lose an eye. The fact that you would even make such a comment is disturbing.

I know, it is a bit odd. I think it's a similar reason people like bungee jumping or parachuting. The thrill of skirting death, and it's also a challenge. The odd thing is, I will never bungee jump, and while I tried parachuting, it's not for me.

Went to work? I hope you dont mean went to war. If so, that is nothing to be proud of. Especially a war against a non aggressive nation.

At the time I was an IT technician in an outsourcing company.

Actually it says that the Americans were stacking the deck but the Iraqis caught on.

Which thus means that any arguments to the extent that the Americans are a threat to the fair conduct of elections are rendered toothless, no?

Each ruler is sovereign leader of its province and reins supreme(In its province)Also encouraging economic intertwining. Encouraging co-operation among them. Though they will all be responsible for the poor. Regardless of which province they dwell.

Encouraging economic co-operation is one thing. EU, NAFTA, PTA, and so on. That's a far different argument for allowing territory A to rely on territory B's resources.

NTM

wiseones2cents

bonkey wrote:

Who, exactly, will be on the other side of this diplomacy? The people who chose to take up arms against hte Americans because they were in Iraq? That doesn't make sense.

Or, if we go with the point I was making in the first place...if the Americans pull out like you suggest....who is going to talk? It sure as sh1t isn't the Americans, cause they'll be gone.

Can you tell me the Purpose of the United Nations?If the Americans let them do thier job, We wouldn't be in this bind and many people would be still alive and America would be half a trillion dollars richer.

Seriously....at this stage all you're doing is twisting in the wind, and not making coherent sense. You want the fighting to stop. You want the Americans out. You see this being done by the Americans leaving and now by them also not leaving and starting diplomatic relationships with the people who decided to try and kill their soldiers to make them leave.

Two words. UNITED NATIONS.

Rather than issuing just another tired old tirade against the USA, maybe you could outline how we get from where we are to where you suggest we should be going. How does this diplomacy start? Who is involved? Who is chosen to represent the (myriad) of factions within each of the three main cultural groupings and why?

Obviously neighbouring Arabic countries will play a vital role.Everything else I have already outlined on this thread.

if you can't offer meaningful answers to such questions, then face facts - all you're doing is armchair-quarterbacking, whilst simultaneously demonstrating that you don't fully grasp either the game, nor the players.

Actually I am more like an armchair diplomate for peace. I actually sit on a red armchair at my computer.lol

And I am well aware of the game, the players and the stakes. I am also aware of many end-resulti scenarios.

We've gotten that you're indignant. We don't need more spittle-spraying vehemence. You think you know how its done right, then offer more than a shiny wrapper marked "McSolution" and actually get into some detail.

I have outlined many solutions for the last few years. The first step is for the Americans to withdraw.

Who cares. The question is not how we got here, nor what should have been done 4 years ago. It doesn't matter a cr@p. It changes absolutely nothing. You can rant on and on and on about how wrong the Americans were to invade (ignoring that I've already said I opposed the invasion), but until you get over yourself and start addressing where to go from here, all you're doing is pulpitting empty rhetoric.

If we dont make a big deal about it. Whats to stop the Americans from repeating this enormous blunder? War is never the answer.

Civil war. Potential splitting of Iraq into three. Invasion of the resultant Kurdish state by Turkey (who have already said they would do so should a Kurdish state ensue from the American invasion of Iraq). Possible invasion of other parts by Iran, seeking to subsume more oilfields and believers to its own. Potential invasion by Kuwait, seeking revenge for the events of 15 years ago, a "reunification" on their (rather than on Iraqi) terms, and an increase in wealth. Any or all of the above could lead to utter and total destabilisation fo the Middle East.

Oh I see. Pre-emptive occupation.:rolleyes: If that is the case, Americans will never be able to leave.

American presence is the cause of total ME destability. Most of your scenarios are nonsense. If Kurds are foolish enough to set up a state and
claim Kirkuk? They will be attacked. With or without American presence.

Lets also not lose sight of the fact that right now, the only people keeping the majority of foreign fighters out of Iraq is...you guessed it...the US army.

I didn't guess the us army. The foreign fighters that want to make it in Iraq are having absolutely no problem doing so. There is no physical way American can secure the Iraqi borders. So you guessed wrong.

Invading was a bad idea. I've never questioned that. I've never questioned that oil was a major factor. And yet you feel the need to bring this up again and again and again and again and again as if it somehow justifies the other (unrelated) points you're making. It doesn't. None of this historical "why they've done what they've done" matters when it comes to deciding what is the best path to go on from here.

The more people say its not about Oil, the more I will say ITS ABOUT OIL.
They wont leave until they have secured the oil. So the oil does still matter.

If you cannot argue for an American pullout (or any other action) based on the facts of the moment, and a reasonable projection of likelihoods, but instead remain mired in the events of several years ago as your justification, then your "solution" is doomed from the outset.

Please. I warned the Americans before they even went into Iraq they wouldn't be able to leave. So my projections are not as far off as you think.

I've explained the etymology of the comment. Get over yourself.

Some things shouldn't be joked about. Some people(Maybe not me) may take your comments seriously and make things worse.

wiseones2cents

So Shia is killing Sunni is killing Kurd because there's Americans about?
Please....stop and listen to what you're saying. You might realise how ridiculous it is then. American presence may have started it (in fact, its almost beyond question), but either which way, there's no shortage of factions currently making power plays. They want power. They can't get it while the Americans are there, but once the Americans are gone....they still need to beat off all the other native factions who also want power. American presence is not fuelling that fighting....its dampening it. Whether it can dampen it enough, and how....thats what we should be discussing....but I hold little hope that you can distance yourself from the tirades against what is now history in order to discuss the present and future instead.

Sunni's are killing Shiites because they see them as an extention of American Imperialsim. Shiites are killing Sunnis in retaliation. Kurds are not being targetted though they are trying to expel Arabs from Kirkuk.

Therefore the main cause of the fighting is American influence and presence. You find this notion ridiculous? I find your notions ridiculous also. There is something called Diplomacy. Neither group has the strength to take the country over by force. War would be a bloodbath. Though when it comes to American influence and presence? They see it as an abomination and will do whatever it takes to remove them.

The don't know it. This is exactly what I said I have yet to hear a strong argument in favour of, and what have you offered me? "It will be better".

Maybe your definition of a strong argument is different to mine, but where I come from, "coz I said so" is generally only considered a strong argument while one's age is in single digits.

I have offered many scenarios. Maybe your not listening?

And neither of them are Americans. And they are attacking. hence, Sunni are threatened by Shia....and a lack of American presence isn't going to change that....other than give violence a freer hand.

I have already explained this above. It is American presence. If they form a government. The SUnni's will not lose their power. the Only difference is they will be sharing it with Shiites and Kurds. Though there must be EQUAL POWER
for it to work. That is why I propose a United council(Preferable relisious in nature). No Single Prime minister.

I mean...who's gonna keep the peace? the Shia- and Sunni- members of the Iraqi armed forces? The Kurds, so we make it a triple-header? The Iranians? The Turks?

See above

Yes. Exactly my point. Destabillisation.

And who caused that destabilization. The American Invasion. What can destabilize the situation? DIPLOMACY.

You followed the war closely, you say...so you'll well remember the frequent statements that Turkey made that they would only support US action if given assurances that no Kurdish state would ensue from these actions, and that they would be obligated to interfere in the creation of any such state. Yes? No?

EXACTLY. And Americans agreed. Though many Kurds are still considering it.Though the Kurds would have to be foolish to try it with or without any foreign help.

Thats as credible as suggesting that Al Qaeda and Iraq would work together to bring about the downfall of the Great Satan.

Isn't that what is happening?lol Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Sunni's have joined forces.

Initiating war is never the answer. Once war is initiated, the question changes to how one can end the war most effectively. Pulling out and allowing the nation (and potentially the region) to collapse into a war of its own isn't ending anything. Its simply changing the cast-list.

Well can America stay there indefinately? The new Iraqi government will never be able to protect itself from the new type of warfare that has evolved.
And Whats to say after America withdraws the Kurds wont ask for thier own state?Diplomacy is, was, and always has been the only answer.

This is a useless argument because the reason for the instability is American presence.

And once more with the "I offer no reason, just state an empty belief that I'm unwilling or unable to back up" rhetoric.

If what I am saying is rhetoric? You can classify george bush's comments as rhetoric also can you not? You could propably classify everything be said as rhetoric because we will never know until America withdraws no?

Are you trying to copy the US Administration in the tactic of "if I repeat it often enough it will become believed to be true"?

You keep on asking the same questions and I'll keep on giving the same responses.

bonkey

wiseones2cents wrote:

Can you tell me the Purpose of the United Nations?If the Americans let them do thier job, We wouldn't be in this bind and many people would be still alive and America would be half a trillion dollars richer.

Two words. UNITED NATIONS.

Look...hang on a sec.

I put it to you that at the moment there is fighting. If the US pull out there will be fighting. I said there is no forseeable path to stop the fighting. You suggested that this thing called "diplomacy" be tried, and now you're trying to avoid explaining who will discuss what with whom, and how we will get them all to put their guns down in the first place....both those included in this diplopmatic process you advocate and those who are not.

The UN can have nothing to do with it unless the Americans are involved, as otherwise it is an internal affair - which is outside the remit of the UN. You are the one suggesting the Americans neither want diplomacy nor are interested in carrying it out.

So now you want the UN involved. And yet again, your vision of how things should be done is utterly devoid of content. Its about as detailed as "why don't they all just make peace, and then everything will be solved".

And I am well aware of the game, the players and the stakes. I am also aware of many end-resulti scenarios.

then qwhy are you ignoring them? Why aren't you explaining why your chosen outcomes are the one which should occur?

this is becomign a well-established pattern. You insist you know and understand the issues, but you still cannot exlpain why your outcomes will/should be the ones that come about...you just insist that they will.

I have outlined many solutions for the last few years. The first step is for the Americans to withdraw.

Thats not a solution....it is, as you say...a first step. Then what? Once the Americans withdraw, its an Iraqi-only internal affair? I thought you wanted the UN involved (as you mentioned at the top of this post I'm replying to)? How will you get the Iraqi factions to stop fighting each other?

Whats to stop the Americans from repeating this enormous blunder?

Nothing, other than the fact that further destabilisation of Iraq doesn't actually benefit the Americans.

But pulling out and allowing the country to devolve into full-on civil war with or without neighbourly intervention is just as equally likely to be an enormous blunder.....but apparently one you're fully in support of.

War is never the answer.

So you also recognise that civil war in Iraq is not the answer? So you can coherently argue why civil war will not occur subsequent to an American withdrawal? Then please do....

Oh I see. Pre-emptive occupation.:rolleyes: If that is the case, Americans will never be able to leave.

Roll your eyes all you like. As I said....Turkey has staked its position clearly since before the initial invasion. You, as a self-professed follower of the events of the time must be aware of this. So who, exactly, are you rollnig your eyes at? The Turks for making this statement? Me for believing them? SHould I just decide that any nation or faction making comments which contradict your world-view are just lying?

Most of your scenarios are nonsense.

They're not mine. Over recent months, there's been huge amounts of discussion about what the potential impacts of a premature American withdrawal would be. You, as someone who claims to be closely following the events cannot but be aware of this.

But thank you for the detailed and comprehensive refutation of the points. Its in line with the well-reasoned "because I say so" arguments you've posted hithertofore.

The more people say its not about Oil, the more I will say ITS ABOUT OIL.
They wont leave until they have secured the oil. So the oil does still matter.

Where the **** did I even suggest its not about oil. This is yet another one of your "I'll answer your comments with a totally unrelated point" moments, from what I can see.

Please. I warned the Americans

lol. Sure you did. Got a hotline to Bush, do you? Or was it a full-page ad in the NYT?

before they even went into Iraq they wouldn't be able to leave. So my projections are not as far off as you think.

Woah there. A moment ago you drew an eye-rolling conclusion that my argument must be wrong because the conclusion would be that the Americans would never be able to leave. Now you're saying that you've forseen exactly that since the start.

So which is it? I was right above, and your dismissal of my point was complete misdirection? Or are you wrong here? Or are you just shifting position whilst hoping no-one will notice?

You warned them they'd never be able to leave....but want them to get out???? Well thats sensible.

Some things shouldn't be joked about. Some people(Maybe not me) may take your comments seriously and make things worse.

Make things worse? What? Do you think "The Americans" that you warned are closely reading this and basing international nuclear policy on my words, or something?

It was a flippant use of a movie-quote, and I've already acknowledged that it was in poor taste. Like I said...get over yourself.

wiseones2cents wrote:

Sunni's are killing Shiites because they see them as an extention of American Imperialsim. Shiites are killing Sunnis in retaliation. Kurds are not being targetted though they are trying to expel Arabs from Kirkuk.

Shiia Muslims - who incidentally are the predominant faction in Iran - are an extension of American imperialism???? Please....I thought you said you knew the players?

And the Kurds are trying to kick Arabs from Kirkuk? A while ago you were dismissing my scenario of Kurdish independance as nonsense, and commented that if they were foolish enough to try and take Kirkuk they'd be attacked. Now you're saying that this is exactly what they're doing.....

So my "ridiculous" theories would seem to be a match to whats happening up around Kirkuk....but they're still wrong? How can they be wrong if they match whats happening? Or, more importantly, what are the Kurds trying to do by kicking Arabs out if they're not trying to establish their own region?

Therefore the main cause of the fighting is American influence and presence. You find this notion ridiculous?

Yes, I do.

The Americans caused the fighting to begin. Just like the guy who lets two cocks into the ring causes the cock-fight to begin. However, just like with said ringmaster, walking away will not cause the resultant fighting to stop....no matter how many times you insist its so.

Why, for example, will the Kurds stop trying to kick Arabs out of Kirkuk if Americans pull out, given that you've already said that American presence or the lack thereof won't protect them from attack for such actions???

I find your notions ridiculous also.

Yes. I know. Like most of your other "arguments" you've stated this more than once. And like most of your other arguments, you've failed to offer an argument for it, but have instead just restated your position....the "I'm right because I say so" approach.

There is something called Diplomacy.

Who will be involved? What will happen to those factions who aren't involved? Why should anyone accept less then they can secure with force of arms? How will the diplomacy start? Why do I have to ask these questions more than once?

You have none of these answers. All you have is an oft-repeated idealistic mantra that if the Americans leave, peace will somehow break out and everyone will just sit down and chat about their new country....all of which is based on what so far looks like a completely fabricated "understanding" of the motives and alignments of the major players:

So far, you've claimed...
1) Shia are aligned with america, despite the indications that the enxt government could be led by a Shia, religious (as opposed to sectarian), Iran-friendly faction who are not enamoured to the US.

2) Kurds are not trying to establish their own independance, but are trying to kick out Arabs from Kirkuk, but would stop if the Americans pulled out, even though American presence.

3) The correct solution is a religious triumverate with each having an equal share, despite the huge imbalance in population numbers and the fact that Kurdish isn't a religion. This internal solution will be achieved with help from the UN which does not get involved in internal affairs, once the US pulls out and peace just magically breaks out throughout Iraq. Lets not forget that the US is the most significant player in the UN while we're here....this won't be a problem at all.

Neither group has the strength to take the country over by force.

Which is why the possibility of a partitioning is so real. The various major groups each have enough force to hold their own territories, but lack the force to oust the others.

I have offered many scenarios. Maybe your not listening?

I find it hard to listen to typed words, but other than that, I'm following you fine. You seem to be failing to grasp that supplying a scenario isn't worth a damn if you're just saying "it will be like this" and not explaining why it will be like that, or why that scenario will come about....

...other than some misty-eyed belief that its all because everyone hates America, and is only fighting each other cause the Americans are on the sidelines, and that once America is gone they'll all put their guns down and find a peaceful solution by treating with (Americans in) the UN to find a solution....even though its clear that the Americans aren't interested in diplomacy.

<split>

bonkey

Though there must be EQUAL POWER for it to work.

So you believe that the minorities should be given equal power with the majority? Gosh...if I was in the majority, I wouldn't see that as a very equitable solution. Why should split something equally three ways when my faction makes up far more than 1/3 of the population?

If I was one of the 60% Shiite population, I'd be dead happy seeing the 10% Kurdish population get the same amount of power, influence, access to cash/oilfields/etc. It would only mean that per-capita they were getting 6 times more than me....which is clearly nothing to complain about.

Isn't that what is happening?lol Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Sunni's have joined forces.

Considering that you've such a low opinion of the American occupation, you buy in to their propaganda real easy.

You keep on asking the same questions and I'll keep on giving the same responses.

Yes. I've noticed this. I ask you to explain the reasoning behind your position, and you offer a restatement of the position.....

"Why is it this way?"
"Its this way".
"But why?"
"Its this way"
But can you explain why?
"Its this way"
But can you explain why?
"Its this way"
But can you explain why?
"Its this way"
But can you explain why?
"Its this way"
"Why won't you explain why?"
"Because if you keep asking the same question, I'll keep giving the same answer".

Did you ever see that Paxman interview, where he asked the same question 12 times, because the guy wouldn't answer it? Guess what...the guest tried more-or-less the same tactic as you...suggesting that he didn't need to offer another answer because the question hadn't changed, ignoring the fact that he never answered the question in the first place.

But I guess you're of the opinion that, unlike Michael Howard, you're somehow fooling people into thinking that you've presented the explanation you're being asked for.

jc

Jimboo_Jones

On a good note - at least things seem to be going a hell of a lot better this time, maybe, just maybe things are starting to get better there.

bonkey

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

On a good note - at least things seem to be going a hell of a lot better this time, maybe, just maybe things are starting to get better there.

I agree.

This "invalid" (in wo2c's eyes at least) election, in which the "excluded" (in wo2c's eyes at least) Sunni's are taking part in significant numbers, appears to have gone off quite well thus far.

Obviously though, with "only" 70% of eligible voters being content/able to cast a vote, we can't take this as any sort of indication that the Iraqi's want to follow this democratic path at all and are having democracy "forced" upon them (in wo2c's eyes at least)...which will never work.

At least the various insurgents seem to have by-and-large abided by their stated intent not to interfere with this US-run, US-controlled, unacceptable, invalid election. I can't imagine why they'd do that, given that its all an American plot of some sort, and the only reason they're fighting each other in the first place is because the Americans are there.....but I'm sure wo2c can explain all of that to us by restating something or other that we should take on blind faith.

While he's at it, maybe he'll explain how so many not-friendly-to-American factions got elected in a US-controlled, fixed, false election.....or whatever its being billed as this week.

jc

Hobbes

They did in 2002 when Saddam said he was going to let inspectors back in. In January 2003, the same inspectors were complaining that Iraq was not co-operating. Seems more like he was playing games.

As far as I recall they were not blocking inspectors in anyway during that time. The inspectors themselves just said they needed more time to confirm there were no weapons and had found no weapons to that date. The US just gave unrealistic deadlines it knew that Saddam couldn't keep to.

The only time I know of when Saddam was blocking inspectors was when the US+UK got caught having spies in the inspection teams and that was years before the Iraq invasion.

While I do recall Hans comments regarding Saddam I also remember him clearly stating that it was not a justification for a war.

wiseones2cents

folk_smith wrote:

ummmm - those companies are bidding on Iraqi oil .... that they will have to pay the Iraqis for just like any other oil company buying oil from any other oil producing nation. Those countries you listed are home to the largest oil companies in the world - it would make sense that they would have the most buying power. Maybe you should cut out reading Nostradamus for a while ...

Those companies are bidding on Iraqi oil because America gave them a slice of the pie to participate in the war. These are spoils of conquest. Though America will never gain absolute control of those oil fields.

Americans and allies are building the oil infastructure and will be the ones running the show. Which will allow them to control Iraqi oil and skim from profits.

Shouldn't Iraq decide who the oil should flow to? You dont go to a country and take over its Economy. Which is exactly what America has done.

As far as your Nostra damus comment? I would like to respond in the same ignorant manner but I will refrain.

Also Living as human beings? They lived like human beings for years until the Iraq/Iran war which was probably an America Idea. And the Unhumane Sanctions imposed by America.

Therefore if they want peace? They have to get American influence out of their country.

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

Well, it seems that the legitimacy question is pretty well settled on this particular election: The Sunnis have turned out in large numbers as well.

I guess they figured out that if you boycott an election, you don't really end up getting much of a say in things.

NTM

I will say this. From the Beginning I was for Democracy in Iraq. I also knew if you could make it work anywhere in the ME, it would be Iraq. Since Iraq under Saddam's rule was the most westernized country in the Middle east.
Women had freedom, people were literate,ect...

So I supported Democracy even when Al-Qaeda was against it during the First election.

HOWEVER, I did NOT agree with the CONDITIONS these elections and so called democracies were forced under.

I did not see the legitimacy of an Election when a significant population of the country is showing opposition to it.

And although they had elections back then. Its legitimacy was more for the Presses than anything else. It had no real legitimacy. Which further fueled the Insurgency.

They should have negotiated BEFORE they thought about running elections.

Though Now I am concerned with American campaign funding jeopordizing the integrity of these elections. Example: Installing American puppet candidates.

Therefore the Sunni's now figure that the best way to route out American influence in Iraq is to run themselves. They want to purge the government of American Influence.

I'd also like to comment on Palestinian Elections.I am against continued aggression in Israel. It is unproductive for now. Israel is making an effort to make peace with the Palestinians. How serious Sharon is? Only time will tell. He has given them Gaza back though is still building ILLEGALLY in the West bank.

I want Palestinian pressure on the International community to Intervene. NOT Palestinian aggression.If the International community fails to act, and Sharon fails to reasonably compensate the Palestinians, then they will have to consider aggression.

Since Senior Fatah does not have a good tract record(Corupt), And Since other groups are failing to abide by the cease fire and continue aggression. The most fit to run Palestine is Junior members of Fatah. If they are for Peace and change and advancement of Palestine and for ALL of Palestines citizens.

bonkey

wiseones2cents wrote:

So I supported Democracy even when Al-Qaeda was against it during the First election.

Even when Al Qaeda was against it?????

Does this mean you normally side with Al Qaeda and their line of thinking, but made an exception in this case, or something?

I did not see the legitimacy of an Election when a significant population of the country is showing opposition to it.

The election was only ever as a precursor to enable negotiations on a provisional constitution to begin and to subsequently enable the current election to take place. That was made clear by all parties at the time. The population is not showing significant opposition to this election, so clearly they - at least retrospectively - acknowledge that the previous election has served its intended purpose.

And although they had elections back then. Its legitimacy was more for the Presses than anything else. It had no real legitimacy. Which further fueled the Insurgency.

The previous elections elected an interim government, with vastly restricted powers. Its main functions were to begin negotiations on a constitution, and to pave the way for real elections (which have just occurred).

That was its stated purpose from the outset, and the purpose that was carried out. The participation levels in the current elections, as well as the progress thus far on the provisional constitution show that the provisional government lived up to its remit, and didn't exceed it.

Indeed, all of these oil contracts that you're foaming about....none of them are actually legally binding until such time as a freely elected government (i.e. not the interim one) ratify them. So the Iraqis remain in control of their oil, despite all your claims otherwise.

They should have negotiated BEFORE they thought about running elections.

I thought you said you followed evets closely? They did negotiate before. Indeed, the interim government was really nothing but a "proof of concept" to show that the negotiated structures of government could in fact work. The arrival at an incomplete, provisional constitution showed that it does work - no side can steam-roller the others, and they are capable of making progress together. Now, having proven the fundamental viability of the basic structure, they can go now step further and actuall implement it. The Sunni acceptance of the elections is testament to this. They held back initially because they didn't like the negotiated system and felt it disadvantaged them. Now they've seen how it can work, they're willing to partake.

Though Now I am concerned with American campaign funding jeopordizing the integrity of these elections. Example: Installing American puppet candidates.

Same tired, contentless old argument that was presented in the interim elections. The results then showed that its contentless. You can install "puppet candidates" all you like, but you still can't make the population choose them over the people they want in power.

Therefore the Sunni's now figure that the best way to route out American influence in Iraq is to run themselves.

Three days ago you were ridiculing anyone who suggested the Sunni's weren't excluded. Now all of a sudden, you expect us to believe that you somehow understand their motives because you were shown to be about as wrong as you could possibly be on your previous stance????

They want to purge the government of American Influence.

What American influence? Can you name a single power-faction in the interim government which was "American influence"?

I am against continued aggression in Israel. It is unproductive for now.

For now? FOR NOW????

You've been repeating yourself ad nauseum over the past few posts about how violence and war are not the answer, and now you're saying that aggression is only unproductive for now?????

Could these arguments be any more hypocritical with respect to each other?

If the International community fails to act, and Sharon fails to reasonably compensate the Palestinians, then they will have to consider aggression.

What happened to war never being the answer?

jc

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

wiseones2cents wrote:

Of coarse. Now that they see they are not wanted.

'course'

If one were to work on the assumption that the Americans have only recently figured out that they aren't welcome for a long stay (An assumption I would dispute), then surely that would preclude any further work by them on permanent facilities which are to be gifted to Iraq, no? Yet such work continues. Ergo, it would seem to be a reasonable conclusion that the construction of such facilities has nothing to do with how long they intend to stay.

Did they know they would not be accepted by Iraq before they invaded? They thought they would be welcomed with open Arms. Which is clearly not what happened.

You are showing an evident ignorance of American power-projection capabilities. I assume that you will advocate that if there's any one thing that America is good at it's warfare? (I happen to believe that the US is good at other things as well, but that's not at issue here)

Or are you over estimating American Military capability? America good at warfare?Apparently not as good as they thought. What did they say? It would take 3 weeks to Invade iraq?lol

Then you're not listening to the right people. Please research the figures on both supply and demand, prior to and after the conflict

The figures at
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050304-050628-7922r.htm indicate that demand has gone up by some 60% since the 2003 war. This, in turn, would indicate that people are obtaining more electrical goodies resulting in creating that demand. This would be in line with the government report I linked to in another thread a week or two ago.

There is no doubt Americans spread much Mis-information.
Do you want to hear the real facts? Before the American Invasion thwe Iraq
Power Capacity was at close to 10,000 Mega watts.(this is even after the Iraq/Iran war.)They are now producing 4000-5000 Mega watts. SO again, you are talking nonsense. ALl mis-information. Bye the way. Mine is a government source.http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

The Iraqis themselves claimed to have restored power back to pre 1991-war levels within 5 months. The reason being that when the Americans attacked power stations, they didn't do it using explosives but instead warheads containing conductive-carbon filaments, which shorted out the system without blowing anything up. This would indicate that it is disingenuous to claim that the current Iraqi shortfalls are the result of American attacks in 1991.

B.S. Look above. Actually it was up after 3 months but not anywhere near full capacity.

Quite true. I saw many towns that took their untreated water from the local rivers and canals. That's not contrary to any claims that a large number of programmes are in place to rectify those situations. After all, if the system was satisfactory, why have programmes to fix them?

Since the majority of its sanitation services are run by electricity. It is electrical power they should be working on. Which they have FAILED to reach projected goals. As It is stated in the link I provided above.

I will stipulate that slant drilling technology exists. I will stipulate that it originated in Texas. I will stipulate that if the US sold such information to other powers, that American will likely have known about it. This still leaves open the question of if the Iraqi accusations which led to the 1991 invasion were true or fabricated.

If they were stealing Iraqi oil? Who runs the show in the Kuwaiti oil economy? American and British oil companies.

Just curious.What would America do if it caught anyone stealing its resources. hmmmmmmm. You can bet it would prepare for war.

That article indicates that the -top- end for the Highway of Death is one thousand. In my line of work, I tend to encounter people who were there, and their estimates are actually a little lower than that. But regardless of if you believe your article's source or mine, the 'thousands' claim appears spurious.

It does? You didnt read all of it did you? It still higher than your claim 200-300 were killed. If you have bombs dropping on minimum 10,000 people I would think the casualties would be higher than 200-300 hundred. More than likely in the thousands.

No, I would not agree. There are simple rules in war. You can choose to surrender, or you can choose not to surrender. Anyone who has expressed an indication or desire to surrender is entitled to quarter, and a refusal to accept a surrender is both bad practise for practical reasons, and a war crime for political reasons. Retreating/withdrawing/running-away is not an indication of surrender, it's an indication that the troops are going from A to B for purposes unknown. If they were not intending to be a threat, they could have laid down their arms and surrendered like many thousands of other Iraqi troops did.

retreating is an Indication of a cease fire. Which opens up channels for diplomacy. Its not like Iraq was a international threat and you couldn't take a chance on them regrouping. Thats like a protest in the streets and you disperse them and shoot them dead as they are dispersing,just incase they plan to come back. Ridiculous argument.

I know, it is a bit odd. I think it's a similar reason people like bungee jumping or parachuting. The thrill of skirting death, and it's also a challenge. The odd thing is, I will never bungee jump, and while I tried parachuting, it's not for me.

Your comparing war (where probability of death or Injury is higher) to Bungee jumping and parachuting? I suggest you quit trying to justify your ridiculous statement.

At the time I was an IT technician in an outsourcing company.

They let IT technicians carry pistols? You must also be a military personnel. And as I said before, it is nothing to be proud of, to go to war against a small unaggressive and defenseless country.

Which thus means that any arguments to the extent that the Americans are a threat to the fair conduct of elections are rendered toothless, no?

It shows that they are interferring. You call that toothless? Your arguments in this thread of become particularly weak.

Encouraging economic co-operation is one thing. EU, NAFTA, PTA, and so on. That's a far different argument for allowing territory A to rely on territory B's resources.

NAFTA? Its a failure.

Why? Is that not what Countries do? You have province/state money that help the weaker states. The only difference is that there will be NO biased president, Taking other money to hand out to his supporters and neglecting others.

Each one will have rule over their province, though the more healthy economies are obligated to help the weaker ones.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

However, there is also little denying that the vast majority of deaths these days are Iraqis killed by insurgents.

The only comprehensive report on deaths in Iraq done by the Lancet goes a long way to debunking that assertion.

The implication being that things are a little more complicated than 'Yanks out'

A little bit more...but not much.

sovtek

Manic Moran wrote:

True. A lot has been, and a lot has not. You can't blame them for not wanting to spend loads of money on some facility that has a great chance of being blown up three days after it opens.

But u can blame for misappropriating, mismanaging and loosing billions.

The fallacy though is the assumption that a lack of American presence will automatically create a nice peaceful situation where such investments can reasonably safely be made.

It's not a "fallacy". It's an assumption well based in reality and the facts on the ground.

Then again, it might also get a lot worse.

How much worse could it be.

Good for the judicial system. If they're found guilty, I hope they get appropriate punishments.

Not so good...considering their history of overcharging and breaking US law...especially with respect to Iraq and Iran.

wiseones2cents

bonkey wrote:

Look...hang on a sec.

I put it to you that at the moment there is fighting. If the US pull out there will be fighting. I said there is no forseeable path to stop the fighting. You suggested that this thing called "diplomacy" be tried, and now you're trying to avoid explaining who will discuss what with whom, and how we will get them all to put their guns down in the first place....both those included in this diplopmatic process you advocate and those who are not.

The UN can have nothing to do with it unless the Americans are involved, as otherwise it is an internal affair - which is outside the remit of the UN. You are the one suggesting the Americans neither want diplomacy nor are interested in carrying it out.

So now you want the UN involved. And yet again, your vision of how things should be done is utterly devoid of content. Its about as detailed as "why don't they all just make peace, and then everything will be solved".

:rolleyes: I dont know if you are aware of this but the UN consists of Diplomats from every country. So who would do the negotiating?hmmmm:rolleyes: That was one weak argument.

then qwhy are you ignoring them? Why aren't you explaining why your chosen outcomes are the one which should occur?

I have explained. Maybe your not understanding.

this is becomign a well-established pattern. You insist you know and understand the issues, but you still cannot exlpain why your outcomes will/should be the ones that come about...you just insist that they will.

I'll tell you why. Most of my projections have been failry accurate. Americas projections have been all off. Mostly because of miscalculations and because they make high goals to appease the public. There is no way they can reach their projections and they know it. Its just to make the public feel like they are actually accomplishing something.

Thats not a solution....it is, as you say...a first step. Then what? Once the Americans withdraw, its an Iraqi-only internal affair? I thought you wanted the UN involved (as you mentioned at the top of this post I'm replying to)? How will you get the Iraqi factions to stop fighting each other?

Are you paying Attention? The UN takes over,together with Arab nations,together with Iraqi leaders(Sunni,Shiites and Kurds) and we get diplomacy going. American presence is the main thing feuling the insurgency.
American withdrawl will calm the flames considerably.

Nothing, other than the fact that further destabilisation of Iraq doesn't actually benefit the Americans.

America does not want to see distabilization that would oust American influence and Investments in Iraq. America couldn't care less about Iraqi lives.

But pulling out and allowing the country to devolve into full-on civil war with or without neighbourly intervention is just as equally likely to be an enormous blunder.....but apparently one you're fully in support of.

It is Highley unlikely. But you would prefer the Americans staying and new fronts opening up and causing a world war?

Woah there. A moment ago you drew an eye-rolling conclusion that my argument must be wrong because the conclusion would be that the Americans would never be able to leave. Now you're saying that you've forseen exactly that since the start.

Actually let me correct myself.My conclusion was that America would not leave. Now they have no choice but they dont want to leave without making sure they have secured Iraqi oil. I'm sure they were planning a permanent base in Iraq though. They did not anticipate this reaction from the Sunnis.

So which is it? I was right above, and your dismissal of my point was complete misdirection? Or are you wrong here? Or are you just shifting position whilst hoping no-one will notice?

Make things worse? What? Do you think "The Americans" that you warned are closely reading this and basing international nuclear policy on my words, or something?

Not the Americans but the Muslims might hear your unappropriate comment.

It was a flippant use of a movie-quote, and I've already acknowledged that it was in poor taste. Like I said...get over yourself.

I just pointed out the error of your statement. It doesn't bother me but it can bother others. So I have no need to get over anything. You keep on continuing to be defensive because you know it was not the smartest thing to say.

Shiia Muslims - who incidentally are the predominant faction in Iran - are an extension of American imperialism???? Please....I thought you said you knew the players?

I do know the players.

And the Kurds are trying to kick Arabs from Kirkuk? A while ago you were dismissing my scenario of Kurdish independance as nonsense, and commented that if they were foolish enough to try and take Kirkuk they'd be attacked. Now you're saying that this is exactly what they're doing.....

I'm sure some Kurds are thinking about it, but the chances of it happening are highly unlikely. With or without American support.

So my "ridiculous" theories would seem to be a match to whats happening up around Kirkuk....but they're still wrong? How can they be wrong if they match whats happening? Or, more importantly, what are the Kurds trying to do by kicking Arabs out if they're not trying to establish their own region?

I am well aware of that scenario. And so Is America. They are also aware of the consequences. The Kurds would be attacked on every side.Therefore the chances of that happening are slim.

Yes I do.

The fact that you do not see the connection between American presence and its negative affect(Fueling the Insurgency), shows that you do not understand the situation.

Yes. I know. Like most of your other "arguments" you've stated this more than once. And like most of your other arguments, you've failed to offer an argument for it, but have instead just restated your position....the "I'm right because I say so" approach.

I have proven my self on other boards to have insight. What do you offer besides I say so approach?

So far, you've claimed...
1) Shia are aligned with america, despite the indications that the enxt government could be led by a Shia, religious (as opposed to sectarian), Iran-friendly faction who are not enamoured to the US.

Shia's are not aligned with America. Though certain Shia candidates are.

2) Kurds are not trying to establish their own independance, but are trying to kick out Arabs from Kirkuk, but would stop if the Americans pulled out, even though American presence.

The fact that they have absolutely no chance of reaching their objectives through force.

3) The correct solution is a religious triumverate with each having an equal share, despite the huge imbalance in population numbers and the fact that Kurdish isn't a religion. This internal solution will be achieved with help from the UN which does not get involved in internal affairs, once the US pulls out and peace just magically breaks out throughout Iraq. Lets not forget that the US is the most significant player in the UN while we're here....this won't be a problem at all.

Kurds may not be a religion but there are many Muslim Kurds. After this debacle, America has lost all respect in the global community and its influences are diminuishing.

Which is why the possibility of a partitioning is so real. The various major groups each have enough force to hold their own territories, but lack the force to oust the others.

I am for partition. Though NOT SEPERATION FROM IRAQ. The Kurds do NOT have enough force to hold thier own territory if they choose to take it by force. They will be attacked from all sides.

p.s. 50% of your post was repitition that I chose not to answer.

wiseones2cents

bonkey wrote:

So you believe that the minorities should be given equal power with the majority? Gosh...if I was in the majority, I wouldn't see that as a very equitable solution. Why should split something equally three ways when my faction makes up far more than 1/3 of the population?

If I was one of the 60% Shiite population, I'd be dead happy seeing the 10% Kurdish population get the same amount of power, influence, access to cash/oilfields/etc. It would only mean that per-capita they were getting 6 times more than me....which is clearly nothing to complain about.

Actually its about 60% Shiites. 20%Kurds and 20% Sunnis. That give the Shiites over 50% of the population. Even though they are the largest group, they are far from the Strongest. Therefore in the name of peace. Compromises have to be made. Also My Idea would Leave the Sunni's and the Kurd's responsible for the well being of the Shiites also. Therefore balance.
And remember their economies will be intertwined so Shiites have an advantage right off the bat due to advantage in Population there for the largest markets.

Considering that you've such a low opinion of the American occupation, you buy in to their propaganda real easy.

Buying into their propaganda?Now your really talking nonsense. Everyone knows the American Invasion brought together Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgents.

Yes. I've noticed this. I ask you to explain the reasoning behind your position, and you offer a restatement of the position.....

P.S. the rest is repetitive and not worth answering.

jc[/QUOTE]

wiseones2cents

Hobbes wrote:

As far as I recall they were not blocking inspectors in anyway during that time. The inspectors themselves just said they needed more time to confirm there were no weapons and had found no weapons to that date. The US just gave unrealistic deadlines it knew that Saddam couldn't keep to.

The only time I know of when Saddam was blocking inspectors was when the US+UK got caught having spies in the inspection teams and that was years before the Iraq invasion.

While I do recall Hans comments regarding Saddam I also remember him clearly stating that it was not a justification for a war.

Exactly. And I have even supplied links to back our position. They are just ignoring the facts. America rushed this war, Did not give diplomacy a chance,
And this war is ILLEGAL. Might does nopt make right!

Jimboo_Jones

I think most of the people you are arguing with wiseones2cents would actualy agree with you that the war was, if not illegal, then stated on very shakey ground. We could talk forever about the rights and wrongs about going to war, but that would probably be better suited to another topic.

What the topic is about is democracy in Iraq.

I personaly doubt it will work in the long term, short term I think that there will be a period of quiet which will enable the US and UK to bring out their troops. Long term I can see Iraq splitting up into three parts.

It will also be interesting if a very religious party ever gets voted into power. It could turn out that as a result of democracy Iraq ends up with a less secular government and women end up with fewer rights.

wiseones2cents

bonkey wrote:

Even when Al Qaeda was against it?????

Does this mean you normally side with Al Qaeda and their line of thinking, but made an exception in this case, or something?

That is correct. I recognize the legitimacy of their resistence to American occupation and Imperial influence in Iraq and abroad.

Although I disagreed with beheadings, I disagreed with their stance against Democracy, I did not want innocent civilians dragged into this, and I did not want Mosques targetting of innocent civilians praying.

The election was only ever as a precursor to enable negotiations on a provisional constitution to begin and to subsequently enable the current election to take place. That was made clear by all parties at the time. The population is not showing significant opposition to this election, so clearly they - at least retrospectively - acknowledge that the previous election has served its intended purpose.

Many are participating in elections just to speed up American withdrawl.
We know the Sunni's dont want America there. We know a very Influencial Shiite Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers wants America out.

The previous elections elected an interim government, with vastly restricted powers. Its main functions were to begin negotiations on a constitution, and to pave the way for real elections (which have just occurred).

Of coarse. There was constant infighting.They could not come to an agreement. I dont think they have yet. How can it be taken seriously?

Indeed, all of these oil contracts that you're foaming about....none of them are actually legally binding until such time as a freely elected government (i.e. not the interim one) ratify them. So the Iraqis remain in control of their oil, despite all your claims otherwise.

Its part of the Constitution isnt it? I hope its reversable. America doesn't deserve a hand in Iraqi oil for its aggression. They could have done it without
war. In the Gilespie conversations. Saddam was more than willing to negotiate with America.

I thought you said you followed evets closely? They did negotiate before. Indeed, the interim government was really nothing but a "proof of concept" to show that the negotiated structures of government could in fact work. The arrival at an incomplete, provisional constitution showed that it does work - no side can steam-roller the others, and they are capable of making progress together. Now, having proven the fundamental viability of the basic structure, they can go now step further and actuall implement it. The Sunni acceptance of the elections is testament to this. They held back initially because they didn't like the negotiated system and felt it disadvantaged them. Now they've seen how it can work, they're willing to partake.

A constitution is only valid if All the leaders of the nation agree to it. Other wise it is Invalid. That hasn't happened yet. The Suunis are willing to partake to hurry American withdrawl. They didnt want to participate because they did not see the legitimacy of a democracy under American occupation.

Same tired, contentless old argument that was presented in the interim elections. The results then showed that its contentless. You can install "puppet candidates" all you like, but you still can't make the population choose them over the people they want in power.

And how do they know who are conspiring with the Americans behind the scenes may I ask? Most people do have a price.

Three days ago you were ridiculing anyone who suggested the Sunni's weren't excluded. Now all of a sudden, you expect us to believe that you somehow understand their motives because you were shown to be about as wrong as you could possibly be on your previous stance????

I will repeat myself in this case. I said the Sunni's did not recognize the Legitimacy of Elections under American occupation. Nor did I recognize the legitimacy of the elections.

What American influence? Can you name a single power-faction in the interim government which was "American influence"?

Allawi is the most obvious.

For now? FOR NOW????

yes for NOW. If Israel continues to violate international law it must be held accountable for it. Either through International means or other.

You've been repeating yourself ad nauseum over the past few posts about how violence and war are not the answer, and now you're saying that aggression is only unproductive for now?????

Could these arguments be any more hypocritical with respect to each other?

Wars of aggression are unproductive. Though internal resistence to remove oppressors or occupation is valid.

Which is the case in Iraq against American Aggression.

And which WAS valid in Palestinian aggression due to Israel's Aggressive/provoking policies and actions.

Though If Israel is willing to negotiate reasonably,Palestinian aggression is no longer valid.

What happened to war never being the answer?

I never mentioned war. There are other ways to punish a nation. Especially a nation that survives solely on International aid. Though if the International community fails to act? I can see the Israelis being forced out. Lets hope it doesnt come to that.

If you invite someone to your house to stay a few days and then he stays longer and then starts to take over your house and invite his friends to live with him and you repeatedly tell him to respect the rules of your house and he refuses. What will you do? Put up with him until there is no room for you to live there?

wiseones2cents

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I think most of the people you are arguing with wiseones2cents would actualy agree with you that the war was, if not illegal, then stated on very shakey ground. We could talk forever about the rights and wrongs about going to war, but that would probably be better suited to another topic.

What the topic is about is democracy in Iraq.

I personaly doubt it will work in the long term, short term I think that there will be a period of quiet which will enable the US and UK to bring out their troops. Long term I can see Iraq splitting up into three parts.

It will also be interesting if a very religious party ever gets voted into power. It could turn out that as a result of democracy Iraq ends up with a less secular government and women end up with fewer rights.

Whether it works or not is yet to be seen. Though I do not think America's vision of democracy will work out. American influence will be routed out.

A very religious party is already voted into power. Regardless of which Shiite is elected. Al-Sistani (for now) is running the show. Americans will try to increase their influence.