Bush tries to impose new terms of victory [Iraq]

fly_agaric

RedPlanet wrote:

American's hoping it lasts and lasts while secretly arming both sides.

Why do you think people in the US (govt. or your average citizen) hope for a long lasting civil war in Iraq and that the US weapons makers plan to sell weapons to both sides?

I suppose "RedPlanet" probably refers to a wish to see the world turn into a big happy communist paradise [under your benevolent leadership perhaps] but sometimes I think it refers to the place you point to in the sky and call "home".

fly_agaric

Please read the charter regarding attacking the post and not the poster.
Another remark like the above and you will get a ban.

AbusesToilets

RedPlanet wrote:

Maybe what we'll see is a civil war along ethnic lines.
American's hoping it lasts and lasts while secretly arming both sides.
But eventually ****e and Sunni will make peace once america is out of the picture and their puppet government gone.
Nothing unites people like a common enemy.

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement,or is it a case of letting anti-US sentiments get the better of you.The US gains nothing in your scenario.One of the main aims of the NeoCons agenda in invading Iraq was to establish a stable,friendly trading partner that would be a counter to Iran and the hegemony of OPEC.That scenario doesn't work if the country is involved in civil war.

Frederico

fly_agaric wrote:

Out of the "billions of dollars" - how much goes on "security" do you think?
I mean you all think that US and British troops are fair game for the glorious and heroic Iraqi Freedom Fighting Martyrs because they are occupiers don't you? Right on Brothers!
Members of the glorious and heroic Iraqi Freedom Fighting Martyrs would tend to take an even dimmer view of those Iraqis who would collaborate with the schemes of said occupiers and be seen take their shilling!
That would make it somewhat difficult to recruit workers without paying danger money I Imagine. Then you pay even more danger money either to soldiers or private security people (you know how private verything is always better these days:rolleyes:) to protect them.
End result - lots of money down the toilet and the only people who perhaps do well out of it are some of the private security companies.



Hasn't done much good has it? Oil exports are lower than before the war AFAICR.



So why don't you tell us about the real plan then eh oh Swami!

About 15% to 20% (of reconstruction costs) goes on security I believe.

US and UK forces are fair game for the insurgency who see them as occupiers, crusaders, supporters of Israel.. when you are in a foreign country firing approx 250,000 rounds of ammunition a day in anger, you are bound to create more enemies than you can kill.

Blue37

Manic Moran wrote:

There is a certain logic behind it. If the two sides really want to spend their effort whacking each other, maybe we shouldn't stop it? I don't agree that we should let it happen, but the argument is there. Of course, I wouldn't want to hear anyone lamenting "Ah, we must do something to stop the genocide"

NTM

What logic for America?? Have you any understanding of global politics??!

I can picture it now. Americans pull out leaving sectarian civil war to carry on. Within about 45 minutes the Iranian tanks will roll into Baghdad to "protect" Shias from further slaughter.

Result: An Iranian puppet-state in Iraq

Ya real logical from an American point of view :rolleyes:

Nah, I'm afraid ala Vietnam the poor fools are in this one for the long haul

Hobbes

Had to laugh in recent Bush interview he is claiming he never said "Stay the course" when it came to Iraq.

Sgt. Sensible

Hobbes wrote:

Had to laugh in recent Bush interview he is claiming he never said "Stay the course" when it came to Iraq.

91 US troops dead (and one captured, so as good as dead) so far this month and 8 or 9 times that wounded. He'll be saying he never said 'bring it on' next.

Frederico

The Irony of all this ..

Now America will experience another Vietnam, quite obviously, unless Bush slimes out of Iraq and blinds the US populace (which doesn't seem too hard these days).

What that means is that the US will be weak now and countries with aspirations will just be able to blatantly stand up. I don't think this was part of the NeoCon fantasy.

fly_agaric

Frederico wrote:

About 15% to 20% (of reconstruction costs) goes on security I believe.

Then take away all the danger monies I mentioned [as I said - the Iraqis who would work on these projects are probably in more danger from the wonderful Iraqi insurgents and militias than the US troops or private security "contractors" are] and then corruption (both US and Iraqi) + major private sector gouging (the wonders of the free market). There will not be much left to actually get something done IMO - even when the security situation allows for it.

Frederico

fly_agaric wrote:

Then take away all the danger monies I mentioned [as I said - the Iraqis who would work on these projects are probably in more danger from the wonderful Iraqi insurgents and militias than the US troops or private security "contractors" are] and then corruption (both US and Iraqi) + major private sector gouging (the wonders of the free market). There will not be much left to actually get something done IMO - even when the security situation allows for it.

The Bush administration arrogantly ignored almost all warnings that this might/would happen from day 1. Let's just say it how it is, there are quite a few hardworking good people in Iraq, American and Iraqi, but at the end of the day the US administration puts 10 times more effort into rushing cluster bombs to Israel than it does to building hospitals in Iraq.

The will has never been there to help the Iraqi people, that was very far down the list of objectives.

ISAW

AbusesToilets wrote:

The point i was making is that there will be no significant rebuilding until the insurgency is defeated.

This is spinning in the most extreme form! Why does the place need to be rebuilt? Because it was destroyed. Who destroyed it? And you try to shift this responsibility on to someone else.

People are happy to lambast the US for not rebuilding Iraqi infastructure,yet this is made untenable by the level of insurgent attacks and intimidation.

But it isnt their fault the place is rubble in the first place! Using this logic I can burn your house down and loot it and then blame you for attacking me when I have someone else deliver a brand new TV while I am picking through the debris.

So when the Coalition forces take the steps to defeat the insurgency,while trying to get the Iraqi forces to stand up on their own,they get slammed.
I don't see what's naive in that statement Meepins.

Whats naive is that you dont save something by destroying it in the process! And while the symptom of the invasion is insurgency it was the Us that caused the invasion to happen. You dont remove a symptom by introducing a cause.

I think those who are embezzling taxpayers money should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible

Start with "savings and loans" and move on from there. The military NASA etc. have all wasted taxpayers money. You dont thave to invade another country to waste even more! Why not stay at home and tackle you own problems and dont visit them on other people in a way where you own poor are sacrifices for some "vision" which is totally concocted and unrealistic and " let freedom ring" "stay the course" and "bring it on" are shown up for the empty tough guy talk from those who never was prepared to suffer loss or put their own life on the line for this "vision".

lostexpectation

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/10/post_411.html#014151

My attitude about our – look, I'm into campaigning out there: People want to know, can you win? That's what they want to know. I mean, there's – look, there's some 25 percent or so that want us to get out, shouldn't have been out there in the first place – and that's fine. They're wrong. But you can understand why they feel that way. They just don't believe in war, and – at any cost. I believe when you get attacked and somebody declares war on you, you fight back. And that's what we're doing.


we weren't attacked by Iraq.