Biden & Graham Debate Iraq: 1/7/07 on Meet the Press

[Shahin]

You people in U.S don't know about the true situation in Irak. I mean, your government don't let u know about the situation en irak, afganistan, guantanamo... and the people that is killing and killing and killing. When i was in NY i was shocked because the people didnt know anything, in the TV there was everything manipulated, it is like there were only idiots in the US because you have to be idiot to believe the **** that appear in TV, papers... In other countries, where we have democracy (obviously US is not a democratic nation) we think that the US is a fascist nation conducted by the biggest idiot, George W. Bush, an idiot tha has the power to destroy millions of lifes, a power that he is using.

Here nobody cares (a lot of people is happy about that) about the americans that die each day, because they are invasors that want to stole a poor country, that want to kill a nation.

And rich people in US doesn't care about the americans died because ther are poor boys, black guys, and, in the us nobody cares about people that doesn't have money. Obiously, the childs of the rich people who want to continue the war never will go to the war, ohhh die for US it is only for poor people!

 

[Astronuc]

Many of us who live in the US are very well aware of the suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere. However, there is the inertia of the socio-political system that resists change.

The situation will not change overnight, but perhaps in months some change in the right direction will develop.

Then - will the Sunni and Shii end the various conflicts peacefully? That is what is needed.

 

[Shahin]

Many of us who live in the US are very well aware of the suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere. However, there is the inertia of the socio-political system that resists change.

The situation will not change overnight, but perhaps in months some change in the right direction will develop.

Then - will the Sunni and Shii end the various conflicts peacefully? That is what is needed.

What is needed does not concern the US nation. Is not his problem and, telling that they wanted to stop sadam husein because he had qumical armament (wich was not true) they are stolen the country. Thieves!

 

[edward]

Even before the "Surge" began , another silent build up had been taking place.

BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq Away from the headlines and debate over the "surge" in U.S. ground troops, the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces.

"Night before last we had 14 strikes from B-1 bombers. Last night we had 18 strikes by B-1 bombers," Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said approvingly of air support his 3rd Infantry Division received in a recent offensive south of Baghdad.

B1 Bombers pack one hell of a wallop, and they don't send them out to drop one or two bombs. We are looking at terrible civilian casualties and it barely makes the news.

"We're the busiest aerial port in DOD (Department of Defense)," said Col. Dave Reynolds, a mission support commander here. Working 12-hour shifts, his cargo handlers are expected to move 140,000 tons of cargo this year, one-third more than in 2006, he said.

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/topstories_story_196090204.html

Despite what anyone says, we are not about to leave Iraq. A few troops may be brought home at some point, but for the foreseeable future significant American forces will be headquartered in Balad and several other huge installations similar to it.

 

[turbo]

You're right, Edward. Bush/Cheney have unleashed a terrible war-machine against the Iraqi people and Congress does not have the will to stop it. Halliburton, the Carlyle group (including James Baker and Bush 41), and countless profiteering war-mongerers will kill hundreds of thousands and make fortunes doing it. The subservience of government to business (a hallmark of fascism) is now well-established, and it would take a mass conversion of Congressional representatives to ethical, humanitarian behavior to stop it. Ain't happening.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You people in U.S don't know about the true situation in Irak. I mean, your government don't let u know about the situation en irak, afganistan, guantanamo... and the people that is killing and killing and killing. When i was in NY i was shocked because the people didnt know anything, in the TV there was everything manipulated, it is like there were only idiots in the US because you have to be idiot to believe the **** that appear in TV, papers... In other countries, where we have democracy (obviously US is not a democratic nation) we think that the US is a fascist nation conducted by the biggest idiot, George W. Bush, an idiot tha has the power to destroy millions of lifes, a power that he is using.

Here nobody cares (a lot of people is happy about that) about the americans that die each day, because they are invasors that want to stole a poor country, that want to kill a nation.

And rich people in US doesn't care about the americans died because ther are poor boys, black guys, and, in the us nobody cares about people that doesn't have money. Obiously, the childs of the rich people who want to continue the war never will go to the war, ohhh die for US it is only for poor people!

The problem is that there is too much unfiltered information that may or may not be based on facts. Many people don't know what to believe, so they believe what they want, or they act out of a sense of duty while believing that this is the right thing to do.

And yes, many of us are convinced that the Bush administration has lied or been deceptive about Iraq at every step, and long before the war ever started. In fact to a large extent we know this. Just look at my signature. This is intended to remind everyone of exactly what we were told. There are even Americans who would support charging Bush and Cheney with war crimes.
http://elandslide.org/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=warcrimes&refer=home

The great irony is that no matter how horrific the results of our actions might be, the Americans that are dying, and the mother and fathers who are losing their sons and daughters, have given their all with the hope that they would he helping the Iraqi people.

Most Americans now realize that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, but we don't know how to get out without making things even worse. That is, we fear that things could get much worse [perhaps even spreading to a regional war, or worse] if we leave, or if we leave too quickly, or if we leave without a well considered plan. This is why we don't just cut funding for Bush's war and bring the troops home. Many of the qualifed experts who now have a voice [Bush is very unpopular] tell us that there is no good option in Iraq, only options.

 

[Astronuc]

Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13qaeda.html
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JIM RUTENBERG

BAGHDAD, July 12 — In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush’s critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

The American military and American intelligence agencies characterize Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as a ruthless, mostly foreign-led group that is responsible for a disproportionately large share of the suicide car bomb attacks that have stoked sectarian violence. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, said in an interview that he considered the group to be “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.”

. . . .

Bush is at it again.

 

[Art]

Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13qaeda.html
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JIM RUTENBERG
Bush is at it again.

BAGHDAD, July 12 — In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

I thought at first he was making a confession

 

[Shahin]

Most Americans now realize that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, but we don't know how to get out without making things even worse. .

The governement of the US nation does not care about that kind of things. They want just to earn money from irak, and when they couldn't make more money from irak, then they will get out with no care about the situation in irak and with no care in making things even worse.

 

[Moridin]

At least defense contractors care.

 

[fresnelspot]

my frends i am living in Turkey. There is a bloodsheld in Iraq. Everyday innocent people die. Everyday professors and intellectual people are being killed. The Iraqi people are in a civil war . They are fighting against each other. Everyday there is a blast in Iraq. They can't rafine oil . We give refined oil to them. We supply electricity to Northern Iraq . There is no authority in Iraq to stop this right now. Plus , northern ıraq hides the terrorist who attact my county right now . Plus the turkish ambassador to Washington have announced that the terrorists of PKK are using M-16 guns and using C-4 type of explosives . I am afraid but no other country than US can provide these sort of material . As you know the M16 are products of US and not sold in the black market.

 

[Ratzinger]

The governement of the US nation does not care about that kind of things. They want just to earn money from irak, and when they couldn't make more money from irak, then they will get out with no care about the situation in irak and with no care in making things even worse.

Earning money? The US government pays 12 bn US dollars each month on the Iraq war right now.

 

[Shahin]

Earning money? The US government pays 12 bn US dollars each month on the Iraq war right now.

Yes? If this is true, i can't imaging how much money the US nation is getting from irak, i mean, stolen his oil and things like that, in order to win more money than the US nation expends.

 

[Integral]

Yes? If this is true, i can't imaging how much money the US nation is getting from irak, i mean, stolen his oil and things like that, in order to win more money than the US nation expends.

And you call the citizens of the US misinformed. But this is not mis information it is just wrong. There certainly is money being make in Iraq, but it is made by the buddies of Cheney, and the money they make comes form the money the US taxpayer is sending to Iraq not the Iraqi oil fields.

I would really appreciate a reasonable middle eastern view point here. Unfortunately so far all we have seen is either preaching the Muslim way, or blindly condemning the US. There is no need to do that as it does not help anything. Could you please provide reasonable information from a different view point? Please!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, Shahin, we value your input as it helps us all to better understand what's happening, but your media and information sources are biased just like any of ours. This war has cost the US about 600 Billion dollars as a minimum. That will cost each and every American - men, woman, and children - about $2000, and this war will cost many more hundreds of billions of dollars before it's over. We also have many very damaged soldiers returning home who will need government aid [taxpayers money] for decades to come. It is also estimated that about 30% of the returning soldiers have psychological problems that will need treatment, and some for many decades, as happened with the Vietnam vets.

I agree that we are all [the US and the ME] being screwed by the likes of Cheney and his buddies, but contrary to what Cheney and Bush seem to think, they are not the government. We have two other branches, and the debates about what to do are fierce and passionate.

 

[Shahin]

And you call the citizens of the US misinformed. But this is not mis information it is just wrong. There certainly is money being make in Iraq, but it is made by the buddies of Cheney, and the money they make comes form the money the US taxpayer is sending to Iraq not the Iraqi oil fields.

I would really appreciate a reasonable middle eastern view point here. Unfortunately so far all we have seen is either preaching the Muslim way, or blindly condemning the US. There is no need to do that as it does not help anything. Could you please provide reasonable information from a different view point? Please!

Muslim way?. i don't understand, muslim is about religion, not about a point of wiew. i think your religion does not define your point of wiew about the situation in irak. It is like if i say that your opinion is in the "catholic way". I really think that the US nation is getting more money from irak than he expends in all the thinks you have named. But, apart from this, i can say that a enormous hate against the US nation is growing up in a lot of countries (not only arabian countries) as a result of a lot os circunstances. For example:the war in iraq, afganistan...do not sign kyoto´s paper (sorry i don't know how to say in english), the terrorism that the US governement is doing in some parts of the world...
I don't know if you know the opinion about the US goivernment outside the US, in fact, nobody consider tha US is a democratic nation...

Another think that was a surprise for me was the poor level of culture of the people becuase there were guys (universitary students) that asked me things like: Spain is placed in Africa?; Do you have cars in Spain?; Albert Einstein, is not a senator?; what are talking about, Kofi Anan is a raper!, oh! you are spanish, so you talk africanesse!, It is not possible, in spain there is no winter!, Cristobal Colon was a catholic protestant (?), Churchill, i don't know, it sounds like a comunist, Oh spanish! US is going to conquer your country full of muslim people!...Oh you are too tall, i thought spanish people was about 1,55 meters...

My question know is why?

P.S: i really loved to live in US, i met great and wonderful people, and i would like (surely i will) to return to live 2 or 3 years, while i finish mi studies there, in a good american university.

 

[siddharth]

For example:the war in iraq, afganistan...do not sign kyoto´s paper (sorry i don't know how to say in english), the terrorism that the US governement is doing in some parts of the world...

To give a different opinion, in my country, most of the people who I've spoken to on the US foreign policy seem to echo some points Shahin brought up. For example, some of the opinions I've heard are: (Remember, these are only the opinions I've heard, and may be factually completely wrong)

• Oil was the primary factor in the Bush administrations decision to invade Iraq. Most of the people I've spoken to here, think that access of Iraqi oil funds and control over oil supply were the real reasons for the war.
• Kyoto protocol: By ignoring the kyoto protocol, people here believed that the US had no interest/understanding about climate change.
• War crimes: While in incidients like Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Mahmudiyah, Ishaqi and Mukaradeeb a trial (if it's not covered up) is held and the soldiers sometimes acquitted, in guantanamo or secret cia prisions, they imprision/torture people routinely without any trial.

So, this isn't exactly a "Muslim way".

 

[fresnelspot]

And you call the citizens of the US misinformed. But this is not mis information it is just wrong. There certainly is money being make in Iraq, but it is made by the buddies of Cheney, and the money they make comes form the money the US taxpayer is sending to Iraq not the Iraqi oil fields.

I would really appreciate a reasonable middle eastern view point here. Unfortunately so far all we have seen is either preaching the Muslim way, or blindly condemning the US. There is no need to do that as it does not help anything. Could you please provide reasonable information from a different view point? Please!

there is one reality. US wants to bethe most powerful State for the coming years. They have keep the energy recources of middle east and Middle Asia. This Doctrin is called the "Big middle east project" according to this the map of 1/3 of the "old" world must change. That is why US troops are in ıraq .
there are some developing economies who seem to be future giants ( eg.China) The control of energy recources means the control of the growth of economies. There is no middle eastern opinion my dear . There is only the truth.

 

[hserse]

It’s unfortunate to say this, it's not going to end soon, this war will continue. Whether Democrats or Republicans takes the Oval office or which side takes power or dominates congress, its insignificant compared to the strategic goal “ideology of national interest.” As long as our politicians see a possibility of a long-term strategic interest or advantage to install Western ideology in the Middle East, Iraq war will continue. Vice versa, U.S. will end the war only if it brings about a long-term interest to the US, but will not cut and run. Look at Vietnam today, the democratic state which the Communists so much NOT want to installed. Thousands of U.S. soldiers died, millions of OTHERS died and the residual of WAR still remains. Relatively speaking, America's lost the Vietnam conflict, but won the WAR. We as US citizens thought our provoking protests ended the Vietnam Conflict, but it was minute compared with the “pre-defined U.S long-term advance strategic maneuver” that allowed the end to the WAR. [Argumentatively speaking, "but the US is a democracy", unfortunately as democracy fades into darkness, authoritarian rises when we "the people" authorize them power to govern. Therefore, they have the power to decide that we as a “divided whole” can not decide and those few will be the “decider.” One would say, is there evidence of this incredulous theory, unfortunately, this is why we place them in ELITE category in the social ranking]. Back to the topic, if anyone familiar with chess, it was the chess maneuver with a twist. By usual standard "captured the King and you won", but in Vietnam the U.S. plays with a twist "you can capture my King and you won" but I captured your Queen and still have my Queen- and my majestic power still reigns.

Back to the IRAQ War, U.S cannot play the same strategies as it did in Vietnam. Few options are on the table this time. US knows it has very slim chance of winning (who are they going to beat) this war and knows they could not afford (there's no advance strategic maneuver to make) to loose. The neo/conservative think tank found out a little too late. They should have foreseen or clued in from the events from the Middle East Crisis (longest conflicts) or Russian vs. Afghanistan. The Middle Eastern cultures and believes system are not like that of Vietnam, or any other the Western or Eastern nations. Those who are culturally incline/diverse will see that this as a major obstacle to Western ideological setting to take affects. To the very extent, this is the most and only significant obstacle. Other obstacles such as insurgents, extremists and terrorists are all bi-products of our ill-conceived view that we with our power can instill our ideology and in returns better our interests. As you can see, slim chances to go forward and try to win the war in IRAQ.
On the other hand, it is absolutely impossible for the US to cut and run. U.S. is not going to throw away hundreds of billions or trillions dollar down the drain an in addition to loosing faces. Therefore any possible of winning (slightly on low side) the terrorists and insurgents and the possibility of setting a US backed government, our political leaders will continue this war without a doubt. On the worst case, US may withdrawal troops, but US will still have military base operation over there for strategic advantageous against China, IRAN, Soviet, etc.

Thus, it’s going to be a stalemate. US would not “cut and run,” even if they cannot move forward. The US will leave eventually, but will not cut the lost- it wants its ROI. Vice versa, the Muslim world would not allow foreign occupation on one of its holiest land, and the extremists, insurgents, Al Qaeda, and the innocents will be doing the dirty deed. The Muslim nations have learned from Israeli and Palestinians conflicts, and they sure wouldn’t allow to same result for IRAQ (in life or death) as it did for the Palestinians people. The bloodshed will continue to reign …

"Nature tends to balance itself. If we brought about the imbalance we must be able to rebalance. If we unable to restore the natural balance, by GOD's wrath shall it be balance again" ...unknown

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I don't think Vietnam is changing because of Americans secret chess game, I think nations are realising that communism does not work, take a look at China, it's becoming ever more capitalist, I don't think the US had much to do with that. Now you could posit that if the war in Vietnam had not been fought and they just let the Viet Kong role over the South the same thing would have happened, and to be frank I see little reason why not.

As to Iraq, I hear that The House passed a bill to withdraw all major units of US troops by April next year, I'm sure Bush Vetoed it, although I haven't heard anything.

Afghanistan was ultimately a disaster for the Russians, but did they win now that another power has been forced into clean up the own mess caused by the US supplying insurgents with arms, and thus such insurgents gaining power in the civil war that followed, no I don't think so and I see little reason to believe it will result in much of a difference now than it did for the Russians, we'll see. We all know the Russians are good at chess right?

I think your assuming that the game wasn't over when the US withdrew, and that somehow it's game was deeper, it wasn't the US realized it was losing both domestically and on offensive soil, and that it could fight on but at what cost, so it conceded a mate in 14 moves. After that a new game started that had little to do with the US, and to be frank who knows where that will lead.

Given enough time you can assume a victory out of any defeat, no one won the cold war, it was a stale mate, but in 50 years I suspect you will claim the US won that one. And in a hundred years when Korea reunites that the US and allies won that one too. Wishful thinking I think.

The war in Iraq will not gain anything for the US or UK I think, but I'm speculating, but then since I'm responding to speculation I see no reason why I shouldn't.

I think sometimes it's just best to say we messed up and learn from our mistakes, not try and claim that sooner or later there will be a real gain from our actions, to be frank this sounds like denial, the sooner we get to acceptance the better.

 

[Astronuc]

Powell: Thinning U.S. Resources Will Require Pullout
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12067170

All Things Considered, July 18, 2007 · Over the past several weeks, former Secretary of State Colin Powell has spoken with increasing openness about the nature of the war in Iraq, about what went wrong, and about the limitations of the current strategy.

Some time ago, Powell apologized for presenting an inaccurate case to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons.

Powell does not support Congressional efforts to bring the troops home. But he tells Robert Siegel in an interview on Wednesday that troops will have to start coming home next year, because the military is stretched too thin.

In recent interviews, you've said that, given the lack of political progress in Baghdad, the surge of U.S. troops is only likely to hold the lid on something that will boil over just the same. Given that, right now, let's say if you had a vote in the U.S. Senate, would you support a resolution that said, let's change the mission, let's start getting out in a few months?

. . . .

Can't have it both ways.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

 

[BobG]

Powell: Thinning U.S. Resources Will Require Pullout
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12067170


Can't have it both ways.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I'm not sure what you mean. He says he wants to wait until Petraeus has reported in the fall to make a decision before bailing out. He also says troop levels can't be sustained past sometime next summer. That's not a mutually inconsistent statement.

He didn't clarify and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it could mean that if there is no progress by fall, then there is no chance of success before the troops are exhausted and you may as well start bringing them home. If there is enough progress to believe we'll start to see success in Iraq by next summer, then you wait until next summer (or until success, if success occurs sooner) to start bringing troops home.

He's seems to be saying that we should keep troops in 'as long as possible' and that 'as long as possible' is next summer.

 

[turbo]

He's seems to be saying that we should keep troops in 'as long as possible' and that 'as long as possible' is next summer.

Not to be too cynical (though I don't know if that is possible with this bunch of radicals in the WH), but a summer of 2008 phased withdrawal would be a great political boost for the neo-cons, especially if they failed to manage the withdrawal well, and Iraq fell into even worse chaos than the present. Then the chickenhawks could point to the Democrats and claim that they were the ones who responsible for the chaos. Bush is currently using the words "precipitous withdrawal" in his public statements, setting up the stage for just this kind of Rovian crap.

 

[Art]

I'd imagine there will be a draw down of US forces from early next year no doubt disguised as a handover of security matters to Iraqi forces following what will be acclaimed by the Bush admin as a successful conclusion of his 'surge' strategy whatever the reality on the ground.

Apart from the US forces being stretched too thin a key reason will be there is a desperate need to bolster forces in Afghanistan where NATO forces are losing hearts, minds and territory to the resurgent Taliban. Without a draft the only place these troops can be taken from is the Iraqi theatre.

Other NATO countries have rebuffed all requests for additional support and so either America supplies the forces or no-one does in which case Afghanistan will eventually be lost to the extremists which would be a politcal disastor for the republican party who have consistantly been accused by the democrats of taking their eye off the ball through their invasion of Iraq.

 

[hserse]

Counter points to Mr. Schrodinger

1. The U.S. will gain something, the spoil of WAR, maybe not much as they had originally intended. The U.S will not come out empty handed. The troops will eventually be pulled out; however, strategic military base operations will be maintained over there. In term of militarily counter strategic operation, this would be a major accomplishment for the U.S- that is in itself is one of the neo/conservative agenda in going to IRAQ war. However, the U.S. has to overcome the psychological warfare game as the Russian were unable to in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and all other nationalistic extremists- it has been and will be the waiting game and time (at the moment) is on their side.

2. You are correct “enough time you can assume victory” in the aspect of the Cold War. Personally, I believe the US knew it already won the Cold war strategy decade prior to the fall of the Berlin wall. US knew Soviet could not keep up with technological advance and other strategic advantageous that US have- economic, trade, technology, location, location, location.

3. As far a Vietnam, if you’re saying U.S. has nothing to do with it, you are wrong. Military no, but U.S. has absolutely almost everything else to do with it. If the US has the ability to bring about the change to the head of Communists states (USSR, China) into accepting mixed democratic ideas and practice- imagine VIETNAM. These strategic ideological maneuvers don’t have to be in public forum. You should know already, our government or any other governments will allow its citizens to know only what they want its citizens to know. You may think this is conspiracy thinking, but we authorized them when we vote them (or fraudulently vote themselves) into offices.

4. As far as Afghanistan (or other any other less developed nations which we were/currently involved), we created the original of mess because we wanted to win the Cold War against the Communists nations. We supply arms in the name of democratic and independence, but what the Afghan didn’t know is that they were just a wasted pawn (when things got rough) for the Queen in strategic game. Unfortunately, the pawn realized it was being used; it turned against its master. Now you have all these extremists (we labeled them) or nationalists fighters. No one wants to get used and abused. Now were going back there to clean up in the pretense of “fighting terrorism,” and installing US backed (corrupted) government (those people who helped got us into the IRAQ war).
On chessboard, Russian are great, in the real game, the US still hold the title-maybe it’s the arrogance that we now is the most hated countries (by Arabs at least) so much in the world and the reason we are in this mess.

5. Legislation passed by House or Senate is just to satisfy American people and the rest of the world that we practice democratic process. They don’t care about the hundreds thousands of lives lost and the US soldiers (that is in itself terrorism and mass destruction), if they did they would have follow the UN guidelines and able to get all the Arabs countries involved. This is the Information age (not Industrial Age or colonial era) everyone seems to know except the U.S. especially the politicians of how this war started, but the media (indirectly controlled by ELITE) made the spin out of it. Believe me, it doesn’t matter who’s getting into the White House or which party is in power- more or less US forces will be there, they have plans to establish IRAQ as a strategic counter offense military base (not so much against terrorists like they’re advertising). Vice versa Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all know the moves and they’ll just let the extremists, insurgents, and Al Qaeda do the bidding. It’s almost like the US wants to place strategic defense (or leverage for future negotiations) system in Poland against rogue nations, or is it. In terms of strategic thinking, every nation is a rogue nation. Do you think Russia or China agrees, less likely, they’re thinking the same thing. Let Russia or China install a missile defense system (assume if they have the technology) in California or close to the US to deter North Korea- I wonder how the US react. It’s only a defense from rogue nations!

Note: For every actions and there’s always an equal and opposite reaction- this doesn’t just apply to just physics it’s a natural force to balance itself (YING/YANG) - including human events.

 

[BobG]

I'd imagine there will be a draw down of US forces from early next year no doubt disguised as a handover of security matters to Iraqi forces following what will be acclaimed by the Bush admin as a successful conclusion of his 'surge' strategy whatever the reality on the ground.

Apart from the US forces being stretched too thin a key reason will be there is a desperate need to bolster forces in Afghanistan where NATO forces are losing hearts, minds and territory to the resurgent Taliban. Without a draft the only place these troops can be taken from is the Iraqi theatre.

Other NATO countries have rebuffed all requests for additional support and so either America supplies the forces or no-one does in which case Afghanistan will eventually be lost to the extremists which would be a politcal disastor for the republican party who have consistantly been accused by the democrats of taking their eye off the ball through their invasion of Iraq.

If anything illustrates the folly of saying the US or NATO is winning or losing a Mid-East civil war, it's Afghanistan. In spite of setting up free elections, Afghanistan's official government has yet to govern much outside the capitol. The 2001 war basically restored the country to the condition it was in prior to the Taliban winning power with Bin Laden's assistance.

The Taliban are resurgent because there is no Afghanistan group with enough power to run the country - including the Taliban should they succeed (regardless of a resurgence in the strength of Al-Qaeda, they're nowhere near strong enough to be king makers, even in a country as fractured as Afghanistan).

I don't think the US owes anyone an apology for running over the Taliban en route to Al-Qaeda. In a more politically incorrect world, the US should have done the job completely against Al-Qaeda, then left. In a more politically correct world, I understand why there had to be at least some effort in establishing a democratic government, but no one should have invested too heavily in the success of Afghanistan (something the other NATO countries seem to be realizing).

 

[hserse]

Astronuc, thanks for the link...
You know its an irony that great leaders never wants to be in politics.

 

[Smurf]

You know its an irony that great leaders never wants to be in politics.

wouldn't call them great then...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Counter points to Mr. Schrodinger

1. The U.S. will gain something, the spoil of WAR, maybe not much as they had originally intended. The U.S will not come out empty handed. The troops will eventually be pulled out; however, strategic military base operations will be maintained over there. In term of militarily counter strategic operation, this would be a major accomplishment for the U.S- that is in itself is one of the neo/conservative agenda in going to IRAQ war. However, the U.S. has to overcome the psychological warfare game as the Russian were unable to in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and all other nationalistic extremists- it has been and will be the waiting game and time (at the moment) is on their side.

This is actually wishful thinking, If you mean,when troops leave it will erupt into intense civil war, on top of what it has already created a fractured middle East an increased terrorism and this will be balanced by a real advantage to the US, I'm afraid I think you are dreaming.

2. You are correct “enough time you can assume victory” in the aspect of the Cold War. Personally, I believe the US knew it already won the Cold war strategy decade prior to the fall of the Berlin wall. US knew Soviet could not keep up with technological advance and other strategic advantageous that US have- economic, trade, technology, location, location, location.

What did you win and end to the threat of MAD, did you defeat communism or as most people know, was it an idea that was dying since soon after its instigation and would of done regardless. Communism killed itself because it is impractical, it was simply evolution, survival of the fittest, democracy didn't triumph over it at all, any system lives or dies on practicality, communism wasn't thus it was doomed to failure from the start. The US and Russia did little in the cold war except create a stale mate, a lack of progress and for the first time ever the fear of total annihilation .

3. As far a Vietnam, if you’re saying U.S. has nothing to do with it, you are wrong. Military no, but U.S. has absolutely almost everything else to do with it. If the US has the ability to bring about the change to the head of Communists states (USSR, China) into accepting mixed democratic ideas and practice- imagine VIETNAM. These strategic ideological maneuvers don’t have to be in public forum. You should know already, our government or any other governments will allow its citizens to know only what they want its citizens to know. You may think this is conspiracy thinking, but we authorized them when we vote them (or fraudulently vote themselves) into offices.

Same answer as above really.

This is just delusion really, you appear to be making unsubstantiated claims, that China has been massively influenced by the US, now if you said by the West maybe, but your assuming glorious triumph of a country that makes up a minority of the Western world. And China is the biggest economic threat to the US since the EU. Not that the US has achieved nothing but talk about blowing your own trumpet. This strategy you suggest is simply the events in the world that have by no precise active agent caused the world to unfold as it has. Again your assuming things that weren't bound to happen any way are somehow part of some secret agency in the US, this is a bit fanciful and sounds like a conspiracy theory, replace US with Illuminati methinks. Are you a neo-con by any chance, sounds like their fairy stories? I thought even they'd given up their ideology?

4. As far as Afghanistan (or other any other less developed nations which we were/currently involved), we created the original of mess because we wanted to win the Cold War against the Communists nations. We supply arms in the name of democratic and independence, but what the Afghan didn’t know is that they were just a wasted pawn (when things got rough) for the Queen in strategic game. Unfortunately, the pawn realized it was being used; it turned against its master. Now you have all these extremists (we labeled them) or nationalists fighters. No one wants to get used and abused. Now were going back there to clean up in the pretense of “fighting terrorism,” and installing US backed (corrupted) government (those people who helped got us into the IRAQ war).
On chessboard, Russian are great, in the real game, the US still hold the title-maybe it’s the arrogance that we now is the most hated countries (by Arabs at least) so much in the world and the reason we are in this mess.

The world is a mess precisely because of yours and the Wests foreign policies.
Afghanistan will end the same for us as it did for the Russians. The situations are so similar as to be almost identical, the difference is instead of say the US supplying insurgents with training and weapons, it's Iran and Pakistan.

5. Legislation passed by House or Senate is just to satisfy American people and the rest of the world that we practice democratic process. They don’t care about the hundreds thousands of lives lost and the US soldiers (that is in itself terrorism and mass destruction), if they did they would have follow the UN guidelines and able to get all the Arabs countries involved. This is the Information age (not Industrial Age or colonial era) everyone seems to know except the U.S. especially the politicians of how this war started, but the media (indirectly controlled by ELITE) made the spin out of it. Believe me, it doesn’t matter who’s getting into the White House or which party is in power- more or less US forces will be there, they have plans to establish IRAQ as a strategic counter offense military base (not so much against terrorists like they’re advertising). Vice versa Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all know the moves and they’ll just let the extremists, insurgents, and Al Qaeda do the bidding. It’s almost like the US wants to place strategic defense (or leverage for future negotiations) system in Poland against rogue nations, or is it. In terms of strategic thinking, every nation is a rogue nation. Do you think Russia or China agrees, less likely, they’re thinking the same thing. Let Russia or China install a missile defense system (assume if they have the technology) in California or close to the US to deter North Korea- I wonder how the US react. It’s only a defense from rogue nations!

Note: For every actions and there’s always an equal and opposite reaction- this doesn’t just apply to just physics it’s a natural force to balance itself (YING/YANG) - including human events.

You're an optimist, not a realist I see, you look at the past with rose tinted spectacles and thus expect the future to be rosy.

I genuinely think you're reading too much into situations, but if you have proof for some of these musings I'd like to see it, frankly most of it sounds a little far fetched.

If you ask me your views are symptomatic of the problem, you and people like you are still reading victory into American foreign policy for the last 50 years where as most other people are seeing not total failure but certainly not a good result of it's political machinations. In fact I think, had the US done nothing in the last 50 years, that communism would have collapsed anyway, as it was, no single war between communism and the West achieved any measure of success, if that was the only criteria we were looking at if anything it prolonged the existence of communism.

Whilst I don't think US foreign policy has been a total disaster, or indeed Western foreign policy, you have to be a pretty optimistic or delusional character to try and claim the last 50 years as any sort of victory overall or that somehow there will be one. As I said you can either go on persuading yourself despite a history replete with failures - that eventually some good is going to happen and then cherry pick that good event as evidence of success on a sea of failure- or you can accept that the latter half of the 20th century was generally a mess of shockingly inept or over zealous foreign policy, that has lead not to a safer more stable planet, but to heights of terrorism and instability not seen in the history of the world.

I think it's time to move on, time to alter foreign policy and time to accept the cock ups and change our direction, I think wishful thinking will get more pain and failed ventures frankly. I at least have history to point at and say look where that failed, look where it is failing now. What you outline seems little more than hope and speculation.

My only hope is that we are beginning to learn from our mistakes, that my view of accepting the limitations of our actions in the past is common place. I'd like to believe your dreams obviously, but they are I think just that.

I do wish to add though, that I think doing nothing is even more foolish than trying to enforce will on countries that do not want it, but diplomacy is better handled through talking these days than by military extension, this to me seems much more evident. Look at North Korea, willing to abandon it's nuclear program in return for aid. Libya willing to change from rogue state in return for diplomatic concessions. The world has changed and war or military activity is evidently not the most viable means of achieving positive benefit in most situations.

 

[hserse]

Wow, how could you labelled me as a neo/con, and MAD. Independent thinker, daydreamer, or far fetch unrealistic person - yes, I will accept to labling. My goodness, neocon.. MAD. Now I realized people have seem to position themselves as democrat, republican, neo/con, liberal,conservative,... etc. I 'm hoping to have an open minded forum (even how crazy one's idea is). Obviously, you view me like people viewed John Nash with his delusional mind and conspiracy theories. Fortunately, I haven't gone that deep or developed any useful theory; therefore, I'm still realistic as one can be.

You should have realized my position from my first post. I have agreed with most of your positions or points you made like..

1. "I do wish to add though, that I think doing nothing is even more foolish than trying to enforce will on countries that do not want it, but diplomacy is better handled through talking these days than by military extension, this to me seems much more evident. "

2. My only hope is that we are beginning to learn from our mistakes, that my view of accepting the limitations of our actions in the past is common place.

3. The world is a mess precisely because of yours and the Wests foreign policies. Afghanistan will end the same for us as it did for the Russians. The situations are so similar as to be almost identical, the difference is instead of say the US supplying insurgents with training and weapons, it's Iran and Pakistan.

I will take it upon myself to assume you're a chess player-maybe a good one at it. You know a player who can strategically able to understand and realize the opponents future moves more likely to win the game. That's to understand the opponent's mind.
This statement,
"This is actually wishful thinking, If you mean,when troops leave it will erupt into intense civil war, on top of what it has already created a fractured middle East an increased terrorism and this will be balanced by a real advantage to the US, I'm afraid I think you are dreaming,"
it's what NOT I DREAM of, but rather the nightmare for me, US soldiers, innocents civilians, or just lives in general. This is the dream of those who failed (or refused) to understand or acknowledge history or learned from it. It is the dream of "the blind indifferent, the merciless unfeeling world"-Roger Water. For me, I dream for the light to "Lights the dark side of every human mind.." RW. However, in conclusion, we both hope for piece and prosperity to all nations on this fragile planet that we called EARTH.

By the way, it's NOT that "North Korea WILLING to abandon it's nuclear program in return for aid," or "Libya WILLING to change from rogue state," but rather, they were FORCE to conform. I wonder if " Iran WILLING to abandon it's nuclear program in return for aid." In media or politics, they don't like to use the negative connoctation and they hate had to admit fault or mistake.

It's been wonderful discussing this topic issue with you, I hope we both learned something from each other... Thanks.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Hehe neocon is worse than calling someone a terrorist these days, I did smillie it up btw

Just one thing I think that's the point Libya and North Korea were forced into conforming by diplomatic and economic pressure, now whilst it's not always possible to do things that way, I would prefer it to be de riggeur. I don't think trying to bomb Kadafi and killing over a hundred civilians in sneak attacks is anything but another form of terrorism. It's often cited by Osamah Bin laden as one of the main reasons why he became a terrorist and an excuse for the killing of civilians. People don't realize the implications of there actions, or that if there on one side, somehow there actions are not held to the same standards as they. What achieved more? Bombs or talking?

 

[BobG]

This is heading towards a regional war whether the US stays or goes.

At this point, it's hard to say what would be the best option to take. It's hard to see the US departing with the stakes getting even higher, but I'm not sure what role (or what side) the US should be supporting.

About the only thing to be said is, "What a mess!"

The US isn't supplying Iraq's government with weapons fast enough, at least partly because of the fear that the Shiite government will forward them on to Iraq militias. On the other hand, the US has given a few weapons to Sunnis fighting Iraqi Al-Qaeda.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/focusoniraq/2007/July/focusoniraq_July116.xml&section=focusoniraq

Of course, if the US won't give Iraq weapons fast enough, China will (and Iran would be willing).
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/The_United_States/Iraq_envoy_slams_US_over_Iraqs_ill-euipped_arms_forces/articleshow/2234699.cms

In fact, Iraq is turning out to be good business for China. If the US won't arm the Shiite militias, they'll just buy Chinese weapons (via Iran?). China's arming both sides of the conflict.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=84006

And since the US isn't really giving more than token support to Sunni militias that fight Iraqi Al-Qaeda, Saudis have to provide the bulk of support to Sunni militias, including those that fight the Shiites.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2136515,00.html

And, in the mean time, a different war is escalating between Turkey and Turkey-Kurdish insurgents taking refuge in Northern Iraq (in the Iraqi Kurdish regions).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-07-18-iraq-turkey_N.htm

Iraq's legislature is unlikely to do much in response to the situation. Even in session, they seldom have enough present to form a quorum. Between boycotts and legislators who are hesitant to risk going when the prospects for accomplishing anything in a given day, there are few days when the legislature has a 100 or more legislators present (the required number to vote on anything). Anything controversial is postponed and the parliament is scheduled for vacation in August.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800565.html

For the war that's shaping up, believing any candidate is really going to get American troops out of the conflict is probably being naive. Or, the US could leave and start accepting that its role as the world's leader is destined to be shorter than Great Britain's was. (Considering everything changes faster than it did before 1900, that's probably a more natural progression than a century or so of US dominance.)

 

[Astronuc]

U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html

WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.

But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.

In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.

. . . .

So I wonder who is making the big bucks here, and what is ultimately the cost/price to the US taxpayer, and what is the potential compromise of security to the US.

U.S. Proposes Arms Deal for Allies in Mideast
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12326251

Elsewhere I've read that the US is not pleased with Saudi Arabia and there lack of support for a unified Iraq. However for SA, it's a matter of supporting fellow Sunnis against the Iranian-supported Shii.

 

[siddharth]

Third of Iraqis 'need urgent aid'

Nearly a third of the population of Iraq is in need of immediate emergency aid, according to a new report from Oxfam and a coalition of Iraqi NGOs.

The report said the Iraqi government was failing to provide basic essentials such as water, sanitation, food, and shelter for up to eight million people.

It warned the continuing violence was masking a humanitarian crisis that had grown worse since the invasion in 2003.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6921617.stm

This is quite a depressing read. I think providing essential commodities and shelter should be an important part of any plan to bring stability to the region.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6921617.stm

This is quite a depressing read. I think providing essential commodities and shelter should be an important part of any plan to bring stability to the region.

I think 'depressing' is putting it mildly. Reading further down that article -

It suggests that 70% of Iraq's 26.5m population are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% prior to the invasion. Only 20% have access to effective sanitation.

Nearly 30% of children are malnourished, a sharp increase on the situation four years ago. Some 15% of Iraqis regularly cannot afford to eat.

The report also said 92% of Iraq's children suffered from learning problems.

It found that more than two million people have been displaced inside the country, while a further two million have fled to neighbouring countries. Many are living in dire poverty.

How would one propose to have a stable country where 92% of the children suffer from learning problems?

And this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6921623.stm