It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leaked memo reveals Iraqi truth

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

You know Hilary will win the next election. She attended the Bildergerg meeting, as did David Cameron of the UK. He and the conservatives will win the next Uk election.

You heard it here first


Oh DEAR... hadn't heard that. I told a friend who lives in Germany that Merckel would win the elections there... he didn't believe me, but I told him it would happen because she'd been okayed by the Bilderbergers. She won in rather peculiar disputed circumstances and I think it might have changed my mate's mind about the conspiracy angle.

I can't quite believe it will be Cameron, though. More of the same dreary nonsense. I can't stand it.

As for Hilary, [sarcasm]well, at least the war will go on, eh?[/sarcasm]

[edit on 22-6-2006 by rich23]




posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The entire arguement for withdrawl is that Iraq is stable enough to suceed.


Actually, this is a misrepresentation. The "entire argument" has many different strands, and each strand is put forward by different people with different agendas.

One argument which I favour is this: the US simply cannot do any good in Iraq. They have blown it, not merely because of massacres like Haditha, and the random violence like the shooting of a pregnant woman the other week, but more importantly because the whole thrust of policy in Iraq has been to asset-strip the country and put it at the mercy of international investors. It would be nice to be able to say, with Colin Powell, "we broke it, we should fix it", but the US is simply no longer in a position to do that. Even moderates have been alienated by US behaviour there, and the only thing for the US to do is get the hell out.

But with an enormous embassy ("visible from space", apparently) and at least four deep-desert bases under construction, that's not on the cards, is it?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
You and your anti-war crowd explain to me your understanding of the spread of Islamofacism?


Your response is sadly predictable.
By your way of thinking it is wrong to oppose sheer incomptance from civilian leaders which they now in part admit to. Saddam was a minor nusicance who was the glue that held the geographical area known as Iraq.
As for Islamofacism thats one of the groups who oppose the Afgan government.
Remember Afghanistan ?
How soon people forgot when the media casts its eyes elsewhere.



Thanks to the bungled occupation Iran is fighting a war with the USA indirectly.

The current situation in Iraq isnt so much about fighting al qaeda terrorists

After all If you pay less attention to media spin and more attention to the info that slips bewteen the cracks you get a better picture of the sitution. The media dosnt seem to report just how many differnt insurgent groups there are.



The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine.

link



Originally posted by Nygdan
Iraq will descend into anarchy. The entire arguement for withdrawl is that Iraq is stable enough to suceed. This document argues against withdrawl.


I agree.
It is very important to have a realistic measuring stick when it comes to the future of Iraq. The countrie will never be a model model democracy Iraq will face internal security problems even after the insurgency has been contained. Unless the political borders in the middle east change people are just going to have face yhe harsh reality.

And that is the best case scenario at worst Iraq will return to a regime that is worse then Saddam ever was.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Didn't Bush say he doesn't read Newspapers or Watch the News? His only source for information is Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove. No wonder he doesn't know what's going on.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by smokenmirrors

Originally posted by grover
AHH... The silence of the Bush/war supporters is deafening.



And I suppoes you will and do delight in the following quote from this thread's referenced article, hoping beyond all hope the US pulls out of Iraq, abandons the country to those who will force upon the populace this?

"As Islamic militancy increases, women find it increasingly dangerous not to wear a veil in Sunni and Shia neighbourhoods. One was warned not to drive a car. Others were told to cover their faces and to stop using mobile phones. Threats against women who do not accept this second class status have escalated in the last two months. It has also become dangerous for men to wear shorts or jeans in public or for children to play outside wearing shorts."

You and your anti-war crowd explain to me your understanding of the spread of Islamofacism?

Shall it be left to topple governments world wide?

Do you see it as a threat?

When the above referenced militancy establishes itself in your homeland will you be happy to live by it's dictates?

And you women of western culture who enjoy freedoms of expression, speech, dress, choice, what say you of the plight of women as described above?

Are you outspoken women prepared to enjoy "second class status"?

Are you willing to submit?



What arthors of simplistic sentiments fail to understand is that first off this is Bushes war, it is a war of choice, not necessity, not even by the standards of cold war necessity. It is driven by ego and greed, everything else is just rhetoric to justify its existance. Our men and women, God bless em, ARE DYING FOR NOTHING!!! Not weapons of mass destruction, not 9/11, not some neblious war on terrorism....NOTHING but a petty little man's (Bush) ego. Second of all...are you really so befuddled as to think that an Islamic/facaist state would overwhelm the west and take over? Oh come on now you have been listening to way too much mush loosebowels and talk radio. And finally When are you dittoheads gonna get it through your pea sized brains that opposition to Bushes splendid little war DOES NOT MEAN we support the terrorists...the with us or againist us rhetoric was just that, rhetoric. I love my country, but I love my planet more and I want to see all of us grow, develop and prosper, not just some corporate fat cats, which is all this damned misadventure is doing, fattening up the fat.


And you too, my friend, have failed to answer any of the questions I pose, rather embarking on comments meant to belittle.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
We shouldn't really be suprised at a severe breakdown of societal structure in Iraq. Historically it has been rather fractious. I also believe it would be naive to think strategists did not expect this to happen. I am inclined to think that the situations in the outlying areas of Iraq will not have a major influence over policy.



Originally posted by smokenmirrors
You and your anti-war crowd explain to me your understanding of the spread of Islamofacism?

Some people tell me that lots of nasty men with beards and headscarfs and funny ways are coming to enslave me and my women and to destroy my comfortable way of life.



Shall it be left to topple governments world wide?

Which governments do you have in mind. I can't see any of the governments of the Americas succumbing to hirsute marauders. Ditto Australia, China, Japan, Russia, New Zealand...I could go on. Oh yes, and the UK.



Do you see it as a threat?

Obviously there is a threat. One cannot deny that terrorists exist. That would make no sense. But then, threats exist all around me. I do not sit and worry that Islam extremists are hiding under my bed, particularly.



When the above referenced militancy establishes itself in your homeland will you be happy to live by it's dictates?

The simple truth is, I believe, that the peoples of my land would rise up en masse and spill blood before they are dictated to by anyone from within their country.



And you women of western culture who enjoy freedoms of expression, speech, dress, choice, what say you of the plight of women as described above?

N/A



Are you outspoken women prepared to enjoy "second class status"?

N/A



Are you willing to submit?

Well...no. But then again, I don't believe I will ever be asked to 'submit', not to Evil Muslim Overlords at least.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by KhieuSamphan]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
You and your anti-war crowd explain to me your understanding of the spread of Islamofacism?


Your response is sadly predictable.
By your way of thinking it is wrong to oppose sheer incomptance from civilian leaders which they now in part admit to. Saddam was a minor nusicance who was the glue that held the geographical area known as Iraq.
As for Islamofacism thats one of the groups who oppose the Afgan government.
Remember Afghanistan ?
How soon people forgot when the media casts its eyes elsewhere.



[edit on 22-6-2006 by xpert11]


Tell me why you would quote one of my questions, not answer it, and totally ignore the other questions I posed....if there is a thing predictalble here from my vantage point it seems to be a trend in response to my post.

Saddam a minor nuicance?
Islamofacism is merely a group of people opposing the Afghan government?

I'm not even going to ask from where these ideas emanate.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors

And I suppoes you will and do delight in the following quote from this thread's referenced article, hoping beyond all hope the US pulls out of Iraq, abandons the country to those who will force upon the populace this?

"As Islamic militancy increases, women find it increasingly dangerous not to wear a veil in Sunni and Shia neighbourhoods. One was warned not to drive a car. Others were told to cover their faces and to stop using mobile phones. Threats against women who do not accept this second class status have escalated in the last two months. It has also become dangerous for men to wear shorts or jeans in public or for children to play outside wearing shorts."


Now is it a war based on miltary/security issues - or is it a war based on cultural differences and religion? This war was about WMD wasn't it? Terrorist attacks and whatnot? I am a female and quite interested in women's rights, however this is not a satisfactory argument for continuation of the war in Iraq.


You and your anti-war crowd explain to me your understanding of the spread of Islamofacism?


again...is this what the war is about? Huh/ and all the things I've read coming out of the whitehouse would suggest it's about other things.

What you're describing is absolutely an atrocity - but it is not the basis of the war. Many middle eastern countries have had issues with women's rights over a great span of decades and always will...it's a human rights issue but also one that involves religion and culture - it's not something that can be changed by bombing the crap out of a country, toppling a government and imposing a foreign system of law and order. Nor is it the mainstay of the Bush administrations "reasons" for being there or ending up there in the first place.


Shall it be left to topple governments world wide?


whether middle eastern women are victimized or not - it's not a tool for invasion or war mongering against democratic first world countries or even second world countries... It's merely a way to control the masses within their own confines and context of religious belief.


Do you see it as a threat?
Not at all. It is definitely an issue for human rights and women's rights - but not a war time consideration.


When the above referenced militancy establishes itself in your homeland will you be happy to live by it's dictates?


This makes no sense to me...it implies that the cultural/religious and human rights being supressed in the middle east will root in any other country above and beyond the democracy that rules us? Simply not going to happen.


And you women of western culture who enjoy freedoms of expression, speech, dress, choice, what say you of the plight of women as described above?


It is a travesty and millions of women around the globe share the broken heartedness of the middle eastern woman's plight - but are we willing to use this as an excuse to exasserbate and already condemned war? Not likely - I'm fairly certain that most women (aside from hard arsed feme-nazi-down-your-throat-women's-libbers) would agree that using the plights of middle eastern women to fuel this terrible war is NOT nor should it be a consideration. Imagine condoning the deaths of thousands of women and children so that these women and children that are fortunate/unfortunate to survive can enjoy the freedom of life without a veil, or to drive a car...


Are you outspoken women prepared to enjoy "second class status"?


I'm sorry but in the majority of first world countries women are still not at par with male counterparts - personally I've found a great deal of power and success in subversion as a second class citizen. Ask this question again in a few decades when women's status is more equal in fact.



This issue of women's rights is not and issue requiring Global intervention in the form of war. Civil unrest - definitely. War to free middle eastern women from oppression??? No.

It is seemingly common for war supporters to attempt to find anything that may lend justification to their war. Fishing for legitimacy is not new. Bush does it all the time.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan



Some people tell me that lots of nasty men with beards and headscarfs and funny ways are coming to enslave me and my women and to destroy my comfortable way of life.


Ah, I see you were in a jovial mood here, great!



Which governments do you have in mind. I can't see any of the governments of the Americas succumbing to hirsute marauders. Ditto Australia, China, Japan, Russia, New Zealand...I could go on. Oh yes, and the UK.





The simple truth is, I believe, that the peoples of my land would rise up en masse and spill blood before they are dictated to by anyone from within their country.


You know there are a few countries thus far who have made concessions to the Islamofacist radicals, do not make a fool of me my friend.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
the US simply cannot do any good in Iraq.

I find it extremely hard to beleive that things will not get worse if the US leaves, which means, the US is doing something, at least. If the situation can't be improved much beyond what it is now for a hundred years, then for a hundred years the US will have to remain in Iraq.


xpert11
The current situation in Iraq isnt so much about fighting al qaeda terrorists

The larger portion of the insurgency is probably people who are 'not al qaida', (though its debatable whether or not the shia insurgencies represent islamofacism). Regardless, the Iraq War is a test of the US's ability to re-organize the middle east along democratic lines, and thus, a premier front in the struggle between the US and Al Qaida / the West vs. Islamism


Iraq will face internal security problems even after the insurgency has been contained

Indeed. Infact, its possible that the US can leave iraq while the insurgency is still 'strong and uncontained', so long as the iraqi government has a solid military base to stand on (ie, there aren't entire brigades that are fronts for the insurgency, there aren't popular militias providing provincial security, etc).


KhieuSamphan
Some people tell me that lots of nasty men with beards and headscarfs and funny ways are coming to enslave me and my women and to destroy my comfortable way of life.

Enslave? No. But launch terror attacks like in Israel, or on 911? Clearly, they are. They have a major problem with the US, as a global superpower that is involved in teh world's affairs. If it was just a beef with the US military influence, heck, teh US might be able to just pull out entirely from the rest of the world. But the problem is also that the west and the US have cultural effects that can't be contained, and that it is home to companies that are large, legal, and powerful, and these things all make the islamists feel inferior, or, at least, as if the west thinks it is superior. And that leads to the terrorism. That, in addition to, the existence of despots in teh middle east, such as Hussein, who rule over the people, and make islamists groups their only opposition. True enough, there are other despots, like the Sauds, who don't help the situation either. All of this argues for, rather than withdrawl from Iraq, for invasion and re-organization of the entire middle east.


The simple truth is, I believe, that the peoples of my land would rise up en masse and spill blood before they are dictated to by anyone from within their country.

And thats the problem, such a situation would ruin the US, so the US can't permit even a foothold on the other side of the globe for the islamists/islamofacists. Clearly, an 'alqader army' isn't going to march on Washington DC. But we'd be fools to think that there aren't a lot of capable people in the mid-east who are severely angry with the US, for what has already happened, and that they are only interested in punishing the US, not 'negotiating a peace' or something. If we want the US to become like Israel, and have constant terror attacks, then, yeah, we can pull out of Iraq, or even just sit in Iraq and do nothing else. If we want any chance of stopping that situation, we need to re-roganize the entire middle east along democratic lines.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
the thing is when bush and darth cheney talk about a war against terror lasting decades, think about that, decades...how do you think they plan to do this? Face reality, they don't give a flying boink about a stable Iraq...as long as its a bloodbath, it can be used as an excuse to keep pouring more money and lives into it as fighting global terrorism, and enrich their already rich buddies, run up massive deficts and dismantle (or privatize) just about everything the government does to...as grover norquist famously said, get it down small enough to drag into the bathroom and drown in the tub. Think I am kidding? Former head of the Republican party, James Gilmore (former governor of my state, Virginia) quite blatently said that the whole idea of running up so much red ink was to back legislatures into a corner so that they would be forced to eliminate services. In short all they have to offer is war. Is this the country you want?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
"As Islamic militancy increases, women find it increasingly dangerous not to wear a veil in Sunni and Shia neighbourhoods. One was warned not to drive a car. Others were told to cover their faces and to stop using mobile phones. Threats against women who do not accept this second class status have escalated in the last two months. It has also become dangerous for men to wear shorts or jeans in public or for children to play outside wearing shorts."


I see! So the US is there for good just to make sure the secular and democratic tradition prevails, even if its against both Shia and Sunni population.


You and your anti-war crowd explain to me your understanding of the spread of Islamofacism?


This is a sentence which ends with a question mark, and not a proper question. However, I think that "islamofascism" is a category manufactured for the consumption of simple minded individuals who need a label to properly direct their hate towards all things islamic.


Shall it be left to topple governments world wide?


Give me a break.


Do you see it as a threat?


No.


When the above referenced militancy establishes itself in your homeland will you be happy to live by it's dictates?


If you tried to scare me or anybody else with this rather ridiculous hypothesis, my reaction is mostly laughter.


And you women of western culture who enjoy freedoms of expression, speech, dress, choice, what say you of the plight of women as described above?


Your feeble further attempts to instill fear in my heart failed.


Are you outspoken women prepared to enjoy "second class status"?


This sample of froth-mouthed hysteria elicited the same humorous reaction from me.


Are you willing to submit?


Yeah, I'm still laughing.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
smokenmirrors I didnt answer your questions because they would drag the thread off topic if you want those questions answered start another thread on PTS. In case you havnt noticed the Tailban and various taliban warlords are fighting the Afgan government.
Where do I get my info from ?
A place called reality its to bad that there arent enough residents due to the harsh nature of living in reality.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
BTW....I'm fierce?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Enslave? No. But launch terror attacks like in Israel, or on 911? Clearly, they are. They have a major problem with the US, as a global superpower that is involved in the world's affairs. If it was just a beef with the US military influence, heck, teh US might be able to just pull out entirely from the rest of the world.


No, it might not, even though that wouldn't be too bad. Obviosly Israel is a thorn in the side of the Islamic world, at least in the eyes of many muslims, and the US is committed to Israel and oll that.


But the problem is also that the west and the US have cultural effects that can't be contained, and that it is home to companies that are large, legal, and powerful, and these things all make the islamists feel inferior


No they don't. Large companies are not a consideration to a religious person.


And that leads to the terrorism


No, what leads to terrorism is the desire to drive the US out of the Middle East. I didn't make it up, it's one of the few definitions of terrorism available (in a borader context) -- to try and influence a larger military power from lands preceived as occupied.


If we want the US to become like Israel, and have constant terror attacks, then, yeah, we can pull out of Iraq, or even just sit in Iraq and do nothing else. If we want any chance of stopping that situation, we need to re-roganize the entire middle east along democratic lines.


This is wrong. For one, the terror attack in London was in large part provoked by the war in Iraq. In fact, the US already made and keeps making more enemies in the muslim world, with this invasion. As to "re-organizing ME along democracy", I don't know what world you are living in. In Iraq, the best that can exist is a shaky balance of power between ultra-religious Shia, moderate Shia, Sunni etc.

Democracy is a culture of sorts, and I refuse to have a part in the next 300 year exercise to plant in in the ME.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Enslave? No. But launch terror attacks like in Israel, or on 911?

To be honest, Israel's proximity to it's enemies make it's own and America's situations rather different. I don't believe America will come under sustained attack like Israel does, simply because Israel and her opponents live cheek-by-jowl.

Sleeper cells in the US may be a possibility. In fact, if the 'terrorist' situation exists as we are led to believe, the cells such as these must be assumed to be part of the structure. There are ways and means of dealing with this prospect, however.



All of this argues for, rather than withdrawl from Iraq, for invasion and re-organization of the entire middle east.

I disagree with your sentiments here, but I am not going to accuse you of being a warmonger or 'an evil American'.

I will ask, however, do you think this policy is practical and affordable? Given the uproar caused by the original invasion post-9/11, do you think further intervention would be supported by the US's allies. Additionally, does the US have both the manpower and the fiscal resources to expand the conflict. I believe some dissent in congress does originate as a result of the escalating costs of the war, and we do occasionally hear of how unpopular a draft would be, should it be required.

On a side note, reading your post, it struck me for the first time how the US is by far and away the main focus in all of this. It did make the think that it some may perceive that it could be in the interests of Britain to withdraw from the conflict. Not that I believe this is likell or desireable, in the long run.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by KhieuSamphan]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
"As Islamic militancy increases, women find it increasingly dangerous not to wear a veil in Sunni and Shia neighbourhoods. One was warned not to drive a car. Others were told to cover their faces and to stop using mobile phones. Threats against women who do not accept this second class status have escalated in the last two months. It has also become dangerous for men to wear shorts or jeans in public or for children to play outside wearing shorts."



As carification this quote was from the original posted article in this thread, these are not my words.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
No they don't. Large companies are not a consideration to a religious person.

Hmm. Perhaps. However, I would stress that a large part of the anti-american movements in the middle east and around the world are largely phrased as economic issues. And groups like the Baathists, and arab nationalists, their rhetoric sometimes runs in parralell with communist anti-capitalist rhetoric.

And at the same time, the people that are islamists, i'm not entirely convinced that they aren't upset over having coca cola factories and the like in their nation.


try and influence a larger military power from lands preceived as occupied.

Yes, but...what occupation? Bin Laden referenced the pressence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, but, of course, they were there are the request of the Sauds, and certainly thats not why pakistani islamists are angry with the US, surely there were people in Iraq angry with the US before the Iraq war, or in Afghanistan before that war? The occupation and infiltration is that of westernization and modernization in general. If the US left iraq, there'd still be iraqi terrorists looking to attack america. And, in part, this is also because the local regimes are seen as extensions of america. That, in itself, is another problem. Hussein, one could argue, was a creature of american creation (largely). So if the issue is that there are despots supported by the US, what else is the US to do but destroy the despots and replace them with locally elected governments? IE, reorganize the middle east?


Iraq, the best that can exist is a shaky balance of power between ultra-religious Shia, moderate Shia, Sunni etc.

Right, which is what democracy is. A shaky and tennuous balance of power amoung different groups.


For one, the terror attack in London was in large part provoked by the war in Iraq

And if there had been no iraq war, there'd be no terror?

There is nothing that the US can do to prevent terror attacks upon itself, short of democratizing, however minimally, the middle east. Leaving the middle east, even if it woudl appease the anti-american organizations, wouldn't solve anything. THere'd still be a struggle between the local despots and the jihadis, and the jihadis will allways perceive the Sauds, for example, to be receiving american support. Indeed, who could the US not give it at least funding, or let it purchase US jets and the like?

And even if it could, and the middle east became one large anarchy, but peopel there weren't interested in attacking the US (though, clearly, some would even blame the US for not intervening, and at THIS point, for starting the collapse by invading, but not supporting, iraq), then some other world power would take advantage of the situation. The Russians certainly seem to be intersted in re-asserting their dominance in their old satellite republics, whats to stop them, or the chinese, from manipulating the region to their own ideals? Why should the US sit by and allow that threat to form?

And, similarly, what happens if, as in the sudan and afghanistan, the local warlords in the hypothetical anarchic mid-east, an islamist militia does form and establishes an emirate from cairo to kabul?
Do you really think that its going to be isolationist? That, when there are riots in paris by morrocan muslim immigrants, that this emirate won't step in? Or support islamist movements within the riots?


KhieuSamphan
To be honest, Israel's proximity to it's enemies make it's own and America's situations rather different

Agreed, BUT, that is, until there are movements of large populations of angry and opressed radical muslims into the US. Just look at the riots in France, Germany, Amsterdam, etc. Now, its just riots. How long before its organized anti-government rocket brigades, along the lines of the Hamas Qassim brigades?


There are ways and means of dealing with this prospect, however.

I agree, BUT, its far better for us to occupy Iraq and have the struggle go one there, than to have things like the PATRIOT Act in force permanently in the US, or even MORE restrictive acts. The US is on the offensive right now, and look at the liberties and powers we've given away. Imagine what we will do when we're under seige? Athens, in seige, executed Socrates. And I suspect that the Athenians were somewhat more enlightened than the average american.


but I am not going to accuse you of being a warmonger or 'an evil American'.

Well, crap. You're no fun.



Given the uproar caused by the original invasion post-9/11, do you think further intervention would be supported by the US's allies

By the allies? Thats difficult to gauge. But, essentially, we're just talking about Britian and Australia. Howard and Blair would go for it, perhaps, but who knows what will happen when they are out.


does the US have both the manpower and the fiscal resources to expand the conflict

Yes. Of the active combat brigades within the US Army, only a small number are used to police iraq. There are a large number that can be sent into Iraq and Syria. ALso, there simply has to be a benefit in removing the state of Iraq from the equation, they're not stupid, and have to see that they are under the cross hairs, so there's no way that tehy aren't supporting the insurgency in Iraq, with money, training, and supplies. If the iranian government is on the run, having enough problems organizing its people directly, they're not going to be able to aid the Iraqi resistance. And if we throw syria into that mix also, who's going to be funding these resistances? No one.
Its the resistance that has the manpower and financial problem here, not the US.


It did make the think that it some may perceive that it could be in the interests of Britain to withdraw from the conflict

Indeed, Britain could be out before long, BUT there really is a tight alliance between britian and the US, I don't see the Brits abandoning the US, even in an Iran War. Minimally, Britain might not help with a conventional army in Iraq, but their special ops unjits might still help, and in such a situation, they might stay in Iraq, but not invade Iran. At the same time, NATO, as a whole, has made commitments to participate in Afghanistan, so the allies, they might not go ad hoc into these wars, but they will go, in a predetermined manner, into the war system, either way.


I believe some dissent in congress does originate as a result of the escalating costs of the war, and we do occasionally hear of how unpopular a draft would be, should it be required.

A draft is not required. If it ever got to the point that the US itself was threatened globally, perhaps then a draft woudl be initiated, and then people would be flocking to it anyway. As far as finance, I think the US can hold out on that front longer than the insurgencies. In a real dire circumstance, the US could just take control of oil sales from iraq, or 'borrow', or, hell, tax, iraq for the US pressence.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
[ Regardless, the Iraq War is a test of the US's ability to re-organize the middle east along democratic lines, and thus, a premier front in the struggle between the US and Al Qaida / the West vs. Islamism


If it was only that simple that kind of thinking might apply to say western europe where political boundries and the "local populations" have merged for a lack of a better description . This process has yet to take place in the Middle East due to the fact that political rather then tribal boundries were created post WW2. Even if the best case scenario happens in Iraq it wount redesign the map of the Middle East.



Indeed. Infact, its possible that the US can leave iraq while the insurgency is still 'strong and uncontained', so long as the iraqi government has a solid military base to stand on (ie, there aren't entire brigades that are fronts for the insurgency, there aren't popular militias providing provincial security, etc).


The wrong approach is being used if you look at other conflicts that have involved counter insurgency warfare Special forces have had the most success along with the " win the hearts and mind and live with local popualtion " approach. Many Americans dont understand the hearts and minds approach or choose to ignore it the reasons for this are off topic so I wont go into them.

Iraq would be better off with a small - medium elite security force rather then a large poorly trained force that is easley infiltrated and presents more targets to the enemy. This approach would take longer but if we dont do the job properly we my as well not even bother.

There is no way the Iraqi security forces will be able to contain the insurgency if the current line of thinking continues.


[edit on 22-6-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
How long before its organized anti-government rocket brigades, along the lines of the Hamas Qassim brigades?

This is a possibility I guess. If this were to happen in the UK I could imagine Muslim groups being hounded out of the country or ghettoised. Plus, I could see a resurgence in right wing politics following. However, a sustained attack within this country is not likely, in my opinion.



There are ways and means of dealing with this prospect, however.
I agree, BUT, its far better for us to occupy Iraq and have the struggle go one there, than to have things like the PATRIOT Act in force permanently in the US, or even MORE restrictive acts.

This, to me, is assuming that terrorist action against the US is suspended, in a sense, as a result of the conflict. This seems to run counter to what we know of the nature of terrorism. Why would a potential attacker of America confine their actions to Iraqi sphere?
It also occurs to me that fighting an enemy like this, within sovereign nations, would be best executed via a proxy. We are told of pro-democratic resistance in these areas. Would it not be a better option to arm 'indigenous' allies, as has been done rather effectively in the past.



Howard and Blair would go for it, perhaps, but who knows what will happen when they are out.

I think our lot will stick with you, regardless of who is in office. As you say, there are strong bonds there, going back a long time. I notice that Howard has just reaffirmed his country's commitment to the conflict, to protests from the opposition.



There are a large number that can be sent into Iraq and Syria.

To be fair though, if the US were to expand ground forces into Iran and Syria, there must be more resistance than was encountered from the Iraqi forces. They just ran away! It won't just be insurgents being fought either. It will be other organised armies, who will be motivated to resist.



A draft is not required. If it ever got to the point that the US itself was threatened globally, perhaps then a draft woudl be initiated, and then people would be flocking to it anyway.



The Heritage Foundation
In 2003, 387,920 troops were stationed on foreign soil. This figure is out of a total of 1,434,377 personnel.

Thats a few men, though obviously not all will be trained front line troops. I wonder if that would indeed be sufficient for your proposed nation-building policy.




As far as finance, I think the US can hold out on that front longer than the insurgencies.

Only time will tell on this one, I guess.




In a real dire circumstance, the US could just take control of oil sales from iraq, or 'borrow', or, hell, tax, iraq for the US pressence.

Lol...You'll catch a whopper with bait as good as this!




Well, crap. You're no fun.


He he...Ok then, I'll give it go...Given the nature of the region, the idea that a meddlesome interventionalist force can simply waltz into the Middle East and impose conditions that enable everyone to live happily ever after seems, to me, short-sighted at best, and a tragic waste of human life at worst.

Oh, and I liked your Socrates reference. I believe a certain Leo Strauss regarded Socrates' death as particularly significant.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join