fer-sher
Member
Posts: 115
|
Posted: Jun 6, 2007, 15:36:17
|
weaver
Board Admin
Posts: 789
|
Survey Results
Posted: Jun 7, 2007, 03:55:37
So far.. 2 to 1.. plenty of people think we ARE making progress in war! |
ooojerry
Member
Posts: 1023
|
Posted: Jun 11, 2007, 03:37:20
The only bit of progress we have made in Iraq was the removal of Saddam Hussein. Otherwise, we have made no progress at all. We are in it for the money and not the humanitarian aid. The war used to be known as Operation Iraqi Liberation guess what that spells...OIL!!! The only true humanitarian aid that was actually offered was when President Clinton in 1993 had sent our soldiers into Somalia trying to overthrow a authoritarian government. Clinton was highly criticized in the first place because Somalia had nothing to give back to us in the first place. Then, with the Blackhawk incident Clinton had gotten himself in more trouble with both the public and the congress. Today, what we consider "humanitarian aid" (in Bush's eyes) is taking over a country, installing a democracy, and taking their oil supplies. We also have the Marshal Plan which states that we will give money to countries resisting take over. The only reason why we are in Iraq is for the OIL. We saw this as an opportunity to look good by taking out a totalitarian regime, but right now we are sticking our hand out expecting payments for our "preservation" of the Iraqi way of life. |
White-Pinnacle
Global Moderator
Posts: 1062
|
Posted: Jun 11, 2007, 14:37:21
I don't see how the U.S. is "in it for the money" considering the oil shipment out of Iraq is unreliable as the oil infrastructure is constantly under attack. Globally, price per barrel is pretty high so economically the U.S. industry is taking a hit. Also, the man power and the equipment in Iraq is draining the budget. This also affects future R&D and weapons acquisition for the future. I know this because I may not have a job in 3 years.
War is a poor method to make money. I think it's an extension of your geo-political influence. Like I mentioned earlier, if this war is to remove an authoritarian leader then why hasn't the U.S. done anything with Cuba or North Korea or ex-Burma?
The people who are making money are the contractors over in Iraq and I'm not talking about the guy with his boots on the ground but rather conglomerates like KBR or whatever organization VP Cheney was associated with. In addition, who has invested in the defense industries like BAE or any of the defense contractors who manufacture, rebuild, upgrade, and/or modify armoured vehicles? I remember reading or hearing the Saudi's have invested significantly in the U.S. defense industry. The Saudi's have such a huge investment in the U.S. that after 911 when flights were restricted, the Saudis received special permission to fly their citizens out of the U.S. because of the backlash against Muslims-need to do more research to confirm this. U.S. didn't want to say no because the Saudis could have withdrawn their investments. Also, I'm sure the relationship between the Bush family and the Saudis had something to smooth the process.
I have no doubt oil was an issue for the invasion. Without oil, our industry would be in the toilet and that means no jobs, no food, and no heat during the winter.
OPREP |
fallen1
Member
Posts: 1129
|
Posted: Jun 11, 2007, 16:09:28
just wanted to make a quick note...
the original name was "Operation Iraqi Freedom" not "Operation Iraqi Liberation".
Not even Bush was stupid enough to use a name that spelled OIL |
White-Pinnacle
Global Moderator
Posts: 1062
|
Posted: Jun 12, 2007, 23:37:22
If OIL was advertised as the reason then it would have been political suicide . . . come on though . . . what is the real reason?!?!?
OPREP |
slayer44
Member
Posts: 1268
|
Posted: Jun 13, 2007, 22:47:11
My openion on the iraqi war not your openion i dont care dont bother saying what you think about my openion, I dont care.
I think its a war for oil and one of the things in the way of the US was Saddam and hes gone now they need to get rid of other threats so the US can get their sweet oil.
My openion i dont care what you think about it ;) |
ooojerry
Member
Posts: 1023
|
Posted: Jun 14, 2007, 06:20:45
The real reason is cause we had problems with their foreign policy. |
White-Pinnacle
Global Moderator
Posts: 1062
|
Posted: Jun 14, 2007, 17:49:22
I was reading about the Shah of Iran on wikipedia website and it's pretty interesting history. Iran had a democratically elected Prime Minister years ago who nationalized the oil industry due to British and American controlling interests. The U.S. and the Brits didn't like it and the CIA "sponsored" a coup and installed the Shah as the head of the government. The Shah and his government became a huge ally but did not address internal and domestic issues and that's how the Islamists came to power. So the idea of promoting democracy in Iraq is somewhat a lame reason.
Another interesting topic is Hamas received Israeli support in its infancy. Little did the Israelis realize it would have to contend with a terrorist organization.
I believe I heard a commentary on National Public Radio or was it BBC that mentioned every time the U.S. got involved in another nation's internal politics like Iran and Iraq, the S*** hit the fan pretty bad.
I hope I'm not giving the impression that I'm a lefty for listening to NPR. I do like the BBC news as I think it gives more of a balance on international affairs and also an European perspective as well. I don't watch TV, I do listen to the radio on my commute and get my news on the internet but you can't believe everything you read or see because there are inaccuracies everywhere.
Irregardless of what U.S. government leaders state, I believe it is oil. Believe it or not, I thought the invasion was a good decision and rightly so. As in everything, hindsight is better than 20/20.
OPREP |
seroone
Member
Posts: 252
|
Posted: Jun 24, 2007, 20:31:31
Quote: "We don't really need oil, so lets go ahead and let the Middle-East fall apart.."
USA CANADA and UK have enough Oil but its more of the USA who needs it.
Quote: We are not the soviets
It does not matter on who you are the soviets were techneologically advance in there reign of power and because of the gurilla warfare that the Afghans did they stoped the Superpower of the world at that time.
Bush won pull out because "It would be another Vietnam we lost support and lost the war" So hes stayin the course!
And weaver your right Saddam should have been taken out of power for the cruel things he did to people....... BUT HE MAINTAINED ORDER When the first warmongering bush came in stopped Iraq from invading Kwaiit he told the people to rise up against Saddam. That would have been like Russia winning over the american people when they were in the cold war, it would cause alot of grief. Bush II being like his father took his opprutunities to war after 9-11 and no point in denying it he attacked afghan but had set his eyes on Iraq.
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
-Adolf Hitler
Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.
-Adolf Hitler |
White-Pinnacle
Global Moderator
Posts: 1062
|
Posted: Jun 27, 2007, 16:43:31
Instead of stating the US, Canada, and the UK has enough of oil you should state the developed countries including Europe, Japan, US, and Canada. You forget it's a single oil market worldwide. Some of these countries have limited natural oil resources but certainly not enough to sustain it's daily use. . . for example the US use a significantly large amount of natural resourse/energy i.e. oil for its ratio of citizens.
The First Gulf War was a result of Iraq invading Kuwait. I don't understand where the warmongering term for George H. Bush came from as the US had pretty much support from the Middle East countries.
Afghanistan was invaded after 911 because of the Taliban support for Al Qaeda. The invasion of Iraq is questionable as it is a hindsight event. The Afghan Mujahadeen was well supported by the US, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries during the Cold War era. Arms and money certainly helped the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan. The problem after the Soviet defeat is that the US left a power vacuum in Afghanistan so the war lords were fighting each other causing chaos leading to the Taliban to power because it created some resemblance of stability.
OPREP |
teh-pwnzer
Member
Posts: 3281
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2007, 07:43:48
I feel that we are making progress in Iraq...but everyone must understand that this progress is incramental. Many politicians do not see this and want immediate results. Progress is being made in small steps. As to the "why" we are there in the first place?... I believe it s the oil. We also got involved with Somalia for humanitarian reasons, but that "aid" was not at the same level as Iraq (not of the same magnitude).
The bottom line is that we should think about the thousands that have lost their lives fighting for our freedom and way of life. |
Pawned
Member
Posts: 16
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2007, 21:10:40
Are we making progress? i put no because the real progress would be us pulling our troops out. I think 75% of america is against bush's plan of staying in iraq yet he still manages to make our troops stay. The bombings,killings and all that will not stop until we pull out because they dont want anyone except their kind of people in their country because of their religion or some crap. My old classmates brother went 2 Iraq and died because of those assholes and he was only 21. More and more of our troops are dying,we must keep that in mind.
So i say we must pull out. |
White-Pinnacle
Global Moderator
Posts: 1062
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2007, 23:09:18
Even if the US and the coalition troops pull out now, the Iraqis will end up in a civil war supported by the Saudis (Sunni) and Iranians (Shiite). Throw the Kurds (PKK) and Turkey in the mix and shake well with the Al Qaeda. That's a great mix to deal with.
It's an unmitigated disaster!!!
OPREP
P.S. how many sons and daughters of House and Senate members are in Iraq? |
Vudoo
Member
Posts: 591
|
Posted: Jul 9, 2007, 05:10:17
Are we making progress? i put no because the real progress would be us pulling our troops out. I think 75% of america is against bush's plan of staying in iraq yet he still manages to make our troops stay. The bombings,killings and all that will not stop until we pull out because they dont want anyone except their kind of people in their country because of their religion or some crap. My old classmates brother went 2 Iraq and died because of those assholes and he was only 21. More and more of our troops are dying,we must keep that in mind.
So i say we must pull out.
Yea...I love how you make it seem like they were forced to be in Iraq...It's a volunteer army, you VOLUNTEER. It's not like they were drafted into the army, if they joined the army on their own accord they must realize that there is a large chance that they could be killed. You think that Bush the "asshole" he is wants people to die? If a person does bad enough in school to not be able to make it to college and joins that army then their fate is completely their choice. A person DOESN'T HAVE to join the army, it is completely their choice...Now with that said, I do not like the idea of Americans dying nor do I completely agree with the war. I just don't like it when people complain about brothers or friends or family being killed in Iraq and making it seem like it's the government's fault. I mean the government does have the choice to go to war or not, but it is solely the choice of the person whether or not to actually join the army...
P.S. Minnesota State Senator Becky Lourey's son died in Iraq a couple years ago.
|
ShiftyDevil
Member
Posts: 43
|
Posted: Jul 9, 2007, 18:43:15
I don't think anyone can really measure the progress, what do we know other than what the media tells us, and the media has been failing us for years?
Progress will be made when a government that can provide the basic human needs for its populace begins to form. We made the major mistake of sending in troops without the engineers/skilled manpower with the logistics/supplies to rebuild. If we had done that right I think we would be seeing a completely different situation, we could have won this with a electricity, toilets and internet access.
As far as why we went there? I'm not convinced it was all about the oil. I'm pretty sure however, that it was a nice bonus.
Do you remember the state of things such as unemployment and the economy before the war went into full tilt?
The people that are really making out are the Haliburton's, good ol' Ike was right. |
Streetbum
Member
Posts: 523
|
Posted: Jul 11, 2007, 06:51:46
Alright, the Iraqi people are not "a**holes" (watch your language by the way). They are fighting for what they believe in just like we are. The army of the United States works with a principle of respecting their enemy, so you should do the same.
Please don't say things like "because of their religion or some crap", that is completely ignorant and disrespectful. How pissed would you be if a country walked into your house and started bombing the hell out of you? I might fight back too. Now, I support the war, but I can see a little farther into the minds of some of the (ex-)insurgents then I think you're willing to.
I say ex-insurgents because the major factions are actually starting to see our point. Many of them are working with our forces now, trying to gain stability in their homeland. Almost all of these people would have been SHOOTING at US forces only months ago. Now, don't you think it is strange that these "***holes" have all of a sudden just changed their minds? Maybe they have just seen the PROGRESS and decided maybe...just maybe.. were being sincere and trying to stabilize things... Well jeez, thats something to think about. |
weaver
Board Admin
Posts: 789
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2007, 14:44:15
This is not a 'US against THEM' situation.
There are no less then 100 factions with various desires and wants. At this point, the US is simply 'in the way' of their fight.
Lets get over the whole 'We are here to help you' mentality and reasoning and get back to the 'We are here because it is in our best interest' mentality. From there, from a position of REAL POLITIK and not IDEOLOGY, can you make reasonable and rationale decisions.
Lets get back to rationale.
No one likes war. If the US public was, at this point, 100% in favor of the war I would say there is a serious problem. Iraq has done nothing against us (recently) and so their is no psychological need for hatred (Which would be - 100% in favor of war).
We've been there for 5+ years now. Why are we all so impatient to wait till September with the new General Patreus provides his report on the surge? Why is our own representative govt. turning in on itself? Oh.. Oh yes. Elections are coming. How silly of me. And I thought that their present actions were the result of what they really felt was right.
If we wanted to abandon Iraq, we could be out of there inside of 45-60 days. Every man and woman and tank. Everyone wants us to leave, but I continue to hear no discussion on what happens afterward. Are we leaving because we don't want to lose more men? Are we leaving because we feel we are doing wrong by the Iraqi people being there? Are we tired of spending money? Are we afraid of Iran?
- What - is it - and - Why - do we want to leave.
Hmm sounds like a new topic. |
ShiftyDevil
Member
Posts: 43
|
Posted: Jul 12, 2007, 17:32:25
Why do we want to leave? Good question. I want to leave because we never should have been there in the first place.
Which also means that we have thrown a country into chaos for no good reason that I can see.
Which also means that even though I think it was wrong to go there, and that its a huge, dissapointing, stupid, irrational war. We can't leave because we have stirred up the hornets nest so badly that it would be incredibly irresponsible for us to leave now.
We as a country and a people now owe it to the Iraqis to leave their country a better place. That doesn't necessarily mean that they need to have a representitive form of government patterned after our own. After all you can't for a democracy or republic on a populace if they don't want it.
The onus is on us to help stop the infighting, create stability, and make the factions move forward in some form of truce.
It's our fault we are in this war, we are the ones who elected our government and that means if we have to keep pumping our tax dollars, and sending our troops there then we are going to have to accept the responsibility of our actions. |
|
Forum Home > Non-Gaming > Real Politik > Iraqi Progress?
|
