NationStates Jolt Archive

Suggesting that it is cowardly to "cut and run", does your troops in Iraq a huge dis-service. It is this kind of attitude that may keep your troops longer in Iraq then they need to be. The use of the term "coward" removes from their mind that there is no dignified exit, if they end up in a no win situation. Personally speaking, I already see the US in a no win situation in Iraq.

Which the media has created, just like they did in Vietnam.

Maybe you should read up on the DPRK more before you say they are a great nation.
Don't overstep the mark, my friend.

And most of Iraq is secure.
That might be because most of Iraq is pretty empty. Except perhaps for the Kurdish areas, there have been explosions, ambushes, militia attacks, sectarian violence, riots and scandals in pretty much every major city.

Maybe you should read up on the DPRK more before you say they are a great nation.

He never said that. Don't put words in people's mouths.


And most of Iraq is secure.

Your definition of 'secure' is obviously vastly different from most other peoples.

And most of Iraq is secure.


Thats only what america says. Brtish media (BBC, etc.) says differently. Every foriegn paper I've read on the subject says differently. I don't trust the government so why should I believ what they say?

He never said that. Don't put words in people's mouths.



Your definition of 'secure' is obviously vastly different from most other peoples.

Maybe you should get your news from many sources instead of just the MSM and anti-war sites.

Apparently it didnt pan out quite the way certain parties planned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
Freedom of info act - yer only man.....

Apparently they were considering a coup before Osama changed the playing field

Problem is we are not stealing any oil from Iraq so that kinda debunks that statement.

And you always make plans for war Nodinia.

Thats only what america says. Brtish media (BBC, etc.) says differently. Every foriegn paper I've read on the subject says differently. I don't trust the government so why should I believ what they say?

Soldiers on the ground say differently.

Is it because of the American casualties in Iraq or because of war itself (being illegal) has many Americans feeling disapointed with Bush and starting to debate about this issue?

Is it because of the American casualties in Iraq or because of war itself (being illegal) has many Americans feeling disapointed with Bush and starting to debate about this issue?

Its because of the casualties. I guess people forget that people actually die in war. I guess it goes to the fact that the US hasn't had a high death toll since Nam that they forget this fact.

Maybe you should get your news from many sources instead of just the MSM and anti-war sites.

I don't know what MSM is.
Anti war sites? AFP, Reuters, CNN, BBC, RTE, TG4.... ok then. Maybe I'll just stay tuned to FOX.

Take off the blinkers ;)

Is it because of the American casualties in Iraq or because of war itself (being illegal) has many Americans feeling disapointed with Bush and starting to debate about this issue?

They see that it is a tough fight so they decide that it isn't worth it and we should just defend our own borders. So much for technology bringing humanity closer.

I don't know what MSM is.
Anti war sites? AFP, Reuters, CNN, BBC, RTE, TG4.... ok then. Maybe I'll just stay tuned to FOX.

Take off the blinkers ;)

I don't watch FOX, I hate ultra-conservative news.

They see that it is a tough fight so they decide that it isn't worth it and we should just defend our own borders. So much for technology bringing humanity closer.
Pussies. If you can't take it (i.e. casualties), don't dish it out.

Quetzl,

If we are in Iraq for the oil then why the hell am I paying 250 at the gas pump?

That kinda debunks your arguement right there. So if we are there for the Oil then WHERE IS IT?
oh corneliu i hate to have to explain all these things to you

not that the war is totally about oil. its more about the bush family saving face.

but

if you recall, we were supposed to be at war for maybe a month, be greeted as liberators, the country would go back to peaceful co-existance and the oil would be free from the "food for oil" restrictions (and if they were lucky, owned by some big US oil companies)

just because things didnt unfold that way doesnt mean that wasnt the plan.

unfortunately there are thousands of iraqis who dont care for the US invasion and dont want to see the country rebuilt by anyone but their own factions. we cant get the oil out so supply hasnt increased and the price has skyrocketed.

fortunately for the oil companies it turns out that war is good for profits. it goes against the common wisdom which requires steady supply from countries that are under the strict control of their governments. but speculation has driven the price so high that the US companies are making record profits. so its still win/win since some day iraq will settle down and their oil may well end up in our hands.

That kinda debunks your arguement right there. So if we are there for the Oil then WHERE IS IT?
Sitting in five oil tanker ships several miles off the coast of New York. :D

Pussies. If you can't take it (i.e. casualties), don't dish it out.

Well also the average person doesn't care about the rest world. Until they see the pictures on the 6:00 news, then they care until they get their full hour of entertainment news.

Its because of the casualties. I guess people forget that people actually die in war. I guess it goes to the fact that the US hasn't had a high death toll since Nam that they forget this fact.
Relatively speaking, the US has never had a high death toll in a war. In numbers, that is obvious, in percentages countries like Australia have had it a lot worse.

I'll hate myself for asking this but do you think that the casualties were acceptable during World War II?
There is no easy yes and no answer to that question. There was a lot of unacceptable practices by both sides in the war, but ultimately Germany had to be stopped.

Relatively speaking, the US has never had a high death toll in a war. In numbers, that is obvious, in percentages countries like Australia have had it a lot worse.

Now this I can't argue with.

There is no easy yes and no answer to that question. There was a lot of unacceptable practices by both sides in the war, but ultimately Germany had to be stopped.

at least you are honest about it so I'll give you a cookie for it :)

Relatively speaking, the US has never had a high death toll in a war. In numbers, that is obvious, in percentages countries like Australia have had it a lot worse.

Well they had a high death toil in the Civil War but that doesn't really count for this.

Soldiers on the ground say differently.


right. I've heard 'em. But thats only been on corporate media. I have personaly talke dto quite a few Iraqi vets through canvassing and activist work that say quite the oposite. The gov. won't let our boys sleep for more than a couple hours, so they have to tie themselves to trees to stay standing and sleep. They are constantly on their toes, not knowing from where or when an attack will come. That hardly seems secure.

right. I've heard 'em. But thats only been on corporate media. I have personaly talke dto quite a few Iraqi vets through canvassing and activist work that say quite the oposite. The gov. won't let our boys sleep for more than a couple hours, so they have to tie themselves to trees to stay standing and sleep. They are constantly on their toes, not knowing from where or when an attack will come. That hardly seems secure.

Right.....

right. I've heard 'em. But thats only been on corporate media. I have personaly talke dto quite a few Iraqi vets through canvassing and activist work that say quite the oposite. The gov. won't let our boys sleep for more than a couple hours, so they have to tie themselves to trees to stay standing and sleep. They are constantly on their toes, not knowing from where or when an attack will come. That hardly seems secure.

Welcome to life as a soldier. That is what they do.

I also have talked to Iraqi war vets and they say the complete opposite of what you are saying.

Welcome to life as a soldier. That is what they do.

I also have talked to Iraqi war vets and they say the complete opposite of what you are saying.


well, then theres no way to proove or disproove the other. I guess we'll each have to believe what we want to and leave it at that.

well, then theres no way to proove or disproove the other. I guess we'll each have to believe what we want to and leave it at that.

For once, a sensible post. I'll accept the offer of peace.

I recently read an article and Iraqis said life was better under Saddam but that they don't want to go back to his rule or a similar kind.
Well they certainly don't like the presence of US troops. The vast majority would like the troops to leave immediately despite the consequences.

well, then theres no way to proove or disproove the other. I guess we'll each have to believe what we want to and leave it at that.

That's probabley because not every soldier, airmen, sailor or marine is a mindless clone who had the same exact experiences. My experience in afghanistan was a mixed one. For the most part I witnessed much improvement there, but i also sustained my first casualties late in my deployment. An infantryman is going to have a very different experience in country than a mechanic is. These kind of factors are what cause the different views. In my view, we are winning in afghanistan and it was a good cause. I am deploying to Iraq in May so i will be able to talk about that when go.

Problem is we are not stealing any oil from Iraq so that kinda debunks that statement.
It is not about "stealing" their oil per se, it is about controlling their oil. It is about building "enduring military bases" in Iraq, and Bremer's Orders.

It is not the price at the pump that matters right now for the oil barons, it is the future control over reserves.

Quetzl,

If we are in Iraq for the oil then why the hell am I paying 250 at the gas pump?

That kinda debunks your arguement right there. So if we are there for the Oil then WHERE IS IT?

Again with the "Control of Iraqi Oil = Cheaper Gas Prices" myth.

Seizing control of Iraq's fields and refineries has the primary effect of freeing the United States energy industry from having to play OPEC's bitch. Halliburton and their ilk have no interest whatsoever in making gasoline products more affordable to consumers when they can continue to gouge everyone else for record profits.

It is not about "stealing" their oil per se, it is about controlling their oil. It is about building "enduring military bases" in Iraq, and Bremer's Orders.

It is not the price at the pump that matters right now for the oil barons, it is the future control over reserves.

Here you do make a point. However, are we really controling the oil?

Here you do make a point. However, are we really controling the oil?
'Controlling' can mean many things.
But ultimately the construction and exploitation contracts for the oil fields will likely, or already have gone to major oil companies which were obviously sponsors to or otherwise connected to the Neocon movement.

'Controlling' can mean many things.
But ultimately the construction and exploitation contracts for the oil fields will likely, or already have gone to major oil companies which were obviously sponsors to or otherwise connected to the Neocon movement.

Maybe.

Here you do make a point. However, are we really controling the oil?
There was some interesting mismanagement for sure:

US 'failed to control' Iraq oil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4098729.stm)

A United Nations panel has found that the US-led occupation authority failed to exercise proper controls over Iraq's oil industry and could not say how much oil had gone missing since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
The International Advisory and Monitoring Board report also said there were "important weaknesses" in the management by occupation officials of up to $20bn in Iraqi funds, mostly from oil sales.

US politicians have often accused the UN of incompetence and, perhaps, corruption in its handling of the oil-for-food programme, a scheme to alleviate Iraqi suffering under sanctions before the war. Now the boot is on the other foot.

What happened to Iraq’s oil money? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621523/)

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the United States took control of all of the Iraqi government’s bank accounts, including the income from oil sales. The United Nations approved the financial takeover, and President Bush vowed to spend Iraq’s money wisely. But now critics are raising serious questions about how well the United States handled billions of dollars in Iraqi oil funds.

Iraq's oil resources generate billions of dollars — money the United States promised to protect after overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Now, Frank Willis, a former senior American official in Iraq, tells NBC News the United States failed to safeguard the oil money known as the Development Fund for Iraq.

U.S. to Take Bigger Bite of Iraq's Economic Pie (http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=26796)

The United States is helping the interim Iraqi government continue to make major economic changes, including cuts to social subsidies, full access for U.S. companies to the nation's oil reserves and reconsideration of oil deals that the previous regime signed with France and Russia.

During a visit here this week, officials of the U.S.-backed administration detailed some of the economic moves planned for Iraq, many of them appearing to give U.S. corporations greater reach into the occupied nation's economy.

For example, the current leadership is looking at privatising the Iraqi National Oil Company, said Finance Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi.

The government, which is supposed to be replaced after elections scheduled for January, will also pass a new law that will further open Iraq's huge oil reserves to foreign companies. U.S. firms are expected to gain the lion's share of access in a process estimated to be worth billions of dollars.

There is lots more, but I think you catch my drift?

*snip*

Actually I do get your drift.

'Controlling' can mean many things.
But ultimately the construction and exploitation contracts for the oil fields will likely, or already have gone to major oil companies which were obviously sponsors to or otherwise connected to the Neocon movement.
Bingo!! Perhaps some politicians are getting impatient because Iraq hasn't been "pacified" yet? I can especially see why McCain would be concerned if he is going to seek the Republican nomination for President in 2008. The longer this drags on, the less likely that he or any other Republican will win the White House?

Bingo!! Perhaps some politicians are getting impatient because Iraq hasn't been "pacified" yet? I can especially see why McCain would be concerned if he is going to seek the Republican nomination for President in 2008. The longer this drags on, the less likely that he or any other Republican will win the White House?

It also depends on how the Dems and the Reps put up. I'll say this, it should be an interesting Presidential race :)

Originally Posted by Greater Somalia
Is it because of the American casualties in Iraq or because of war itself (being illegal) has many Americans feeling disapointed with Bush and starting to debate about this issue?
Its because of the casualties. I guess people forget that people actually die in war. I guess it goes to the fact that the US hasn't had a high death toll since Nam that they forget this fact.
I disagree. I think our problem is with the war itself -- or more precisely with the running of the war. The problem is not so much the idea that the war is illegal -- I think so, but I acknowledge that it is debatable. But what is certain is that the Bush admin has mishandled this situation to the point of negligence of their own command duties. They lied repeatedly about their reasons for starting the war, thus garnering public support under false pretenses. They started out with a theoretical plan and then refused to adjust it to match reality. They ignored or manipulated intelligence to promote their PR push for the war before and during it. They now admit that they failed to plan for an insurgency, even though insurgency is a common likely scenario familiar to all military strategists. They have no plan for the reconstruction of Iraq. They have no plan for how to hand control over to a new Iraqi government. And they were caught unprepared for popular political support for parties who oppose the US -- so much for the plan to spread democracy. They failed to anticipate possible civil war in Iraq, despite the clear fact that Iraq is a cobbled-together nation consisting of groups that have never been easy with each other. Every single thing they could have done wrong, they did. This is why Americans are becoming unwilling to keep risking their children's lives on this.

But you prefer to say we're turned off by the body count because that's in keeping with your notion that Americans are cowards. Apparently, you define as "coward" anyone who isn't willing to just throw their life away on a failed project.

For all those overtly pro-war people out there who have never served, put your money where your mouth is before you chirp about how cool war is. Enlist and see what kind of results votes have at home, putting your fellow citizen in harms way for foreign corporate adventures. When you get back you can tell us how cool war is then. I think a generation with an appetite for computer wargames and movies has warped a lot of young minds out there.

As for people who despise soldiers, just for being soldiers, I think that they’re mostly hypocrites. Free love and love of humanity is apparently only free if people believe as you do. It’s pathetic. If you have a problem with foreign policy direct it at the people who make that policy, not the people who work for the government. It’s shameful, misdirected, and it shows how stupid you are. Contrary to popular belief, a lot of soldiers are not happy about fighting wars. They are leaving families and loved ones behind for long periods of time. They signed up though and they do their duty and watch out for their buddies. Seeing your best friend’s head turn into pink mist isn’t really on anyone’s things to do list. People join the army either out of public service, looking for challenge, family tradition, or necessity (lack of employment or options of employment). Contrary to some people's opinion, I want to kill people isn’t really a reason for joining the military.

What I most cherished in the military was that they stripped away all the fake you, because you couldn’t pretend to be cooler than you were. Under that kind of stress and challenge, everyone knows the real you. That kind of naked sincerity is sorely lacking in civilian life, where it’s almost always about insincerity and marketing a better fake you.

The Bruce

Im not pro war but i always thought that saddam was bad. Lesser of two evils is not always clear cut. Sometimes when both options are so fucked up you cant see whats worse..........

I think that the White House has made most of their own problems in Iraq, mostly by ignoring reports from the people on the ground. They dusted off the same invasion plan that Bush’s father rejected at the end of the First Gulf War, when Papa Bush told the same people surrounding his son today, that he wasn’t going to get America mired in another Viet Nam. This time around, they literally took Wolfawitz’s original plan for invading Iraq out of a drawer, had Cheney edit it and went with it. Rumsfeld had such confidence in the plan to invade Iraq, Cobra II, that he wouldn’t accept any intelligence reports that showed any flaws of the White House strategy against Iraq. They refused to listen to their own Generals and Intelligence reports and hid inside their own little world.

There were warned that they needed to have enough troops to provide stability after they won the fight and they were ignored by the White House.

They were told that their rapid advance was bypassing enemy paramilitary units and leaving them to roam free behind their lines. They were told that these paramilitary units would be a serious problem in the future. They were ignored.

They were told that if they disbanded the Iraqi army that they wouldn’t have the means to maintain order in Iraq and that it wasn’t feasible to think they could create a new army out of nothing. They were ignored.

If these three major failings had been addressed by the leadership in the White House instead of berating the Generals for even bringing it to their attention, the problems in Iraq would be much, much less than they are today.