Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Can anything save Iraq now?

Can anything save Iraq now? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Aron Peterson
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2007, 04:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Iraq, the UK, the US, many nations have human development indicators that are falling.
Human development indicators. Would those be little lights we stick on our heads to say if we are turning left or right at a junction?
( Last edited by Aron Peterson; Aug 12, 2007 at 03:01 PM. )
Web dev, Poe, faux-naïf, keyboard warrior, often found imitating online contrarians . My stuff : DELL XPS, iPhone 6
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2007, 04:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Orion27 View Post
Your disgust is well founded. You my friend are being used by the Democrats. You're locked in to your illusion things will change in Iraq if a Democrat is elected.
Um, only the Democrats are offering any alternative at all. If you want us to keep losing, with a steady course, then you'll vote for a Republican. I'm not that stupid.

Sorry to be harsh, but anybody who wants to stay the course right now is an idiot. Bush is for staying the course. I don't care if you think we need to leave now, or if you think we should instate a draft and send 300,000 more troops. Either way, your position is completely opposed to Bush's position. Bush is not fighting to win the war and nor is he retreating. This is a disaster.

Are any Republicans saying we should draft 300,000 more troops? Then I might take them seriously. But they aren't. McCain is the one most willing to criticize Bush, and he won't criticize Bush's war strategy. If you are supporting the Republicans, then you are supporting losing the war, because staying the course cannot win it.

Until the Republicans come up with any alternative, there is no choice except to support the Democrats. But that's not so bad; I'm sure they will eventually come up with an alternative, just closer to the election. Too bad for everyone dying in Iraq in the meantime -- politics is a dirty game and sometimes people literally have to die for it.
( Last edited by tie; May 7, 2007 at 05:43 PM. )
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
faragbre967
Senior User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2007, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
You mean that they are only at war with developing nations? Wow. You've got a pretty low bar there, especially considering the nuclear technology we're selling to developing nations now!
I agree that the European Union has been spectacularly successful at providing for peace in Europe - the second half of the 20th century was markedly different than the first.
Yes Europe is in much better shape since the first half of the 20th century, but think about how many people had to die before everyone starting getting along.

I'm starting to think we should all just leave the Middle East to itself and let them slaughter each other. It's what we had to do as first world countries to get along, it's what France had to do to become a democracy, it's what the US had to do to get rid of slavery. Sometimes the only way to make social changes is to slug it out until you hate fighting.
...
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2007, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by faragbre967 View Post
I'm starting to think we should all just leave the Middle East to itself and let them slaughter each other. It's what we had to do as first world countries to get along, it's what France had to do to become a democracy, it's what the US had to do to get rid of slavery. Sometimes the only way to make social changes is to slug it out until you hate fighting.
Erm, they were not slaughtering each other as much before we intervened...
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2007, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Aron Peterson View Post
Human development indicators. Would those be little lights we stick on our heads to say if we are turning left or right at a junction? Would you like to put that in plain English, not link to an article (the article expressed there is a wider gulf between haves and have nots. This is primarily because men in poorer societies keep sticking it in their wives causing higher birth rates among the have nots than the haves. You can't blame Bush, Blair or Jews for bleeping their wives too) and instead say what your own observations are about how the world is messed up today and how much better it was yesteryear.
Wow - it's a while since I've seen that much horseshit in one place. The HDI is an indicator of things that most people agree are linked to quality of life - health, longevity, money, clean air, rights etc. It's not about the gulf between rich and poor, it's about the poor now being even poorer than they used to be - nothing to do with the rich. And not much to do with your frankly offensive views on the causes of poverty.
     
Aron Peterson
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2007, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
The HDI is an indicator of things that most people agree are linked to quality of life - health, longevity, money, clean air, rights etc.
All are improved today (apart from the global warming issue, but at least we're not breathing in coal dust and smoke like they used to 50 years ago), yet you said that the UK and US (and other nations) are less well off?
( Last edited by Aron Peterson; Aug 12, 2007 at 03:01 PM. )
Web dev, Poe, faux-naïf, keyboard warrior, often found imitating online contrarians . My stuff : DELL XPS, iPhone 6
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2007, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Aron Peterson View Post
All are improved today (apart from the global warming issue, but at least we're not breathing in coal dust and smoke like they used to 50 years ago), yet you said that the UK and US (and other nations) are less well off?
It is certainly true that Iraq, the US and the UK have been better. Your claim that the world in general has never been better is just bogus.

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson View Post
Well, sorry for sounding offensive but the poor also have a responsibility towards everyone else. Overbreeding has been a serious cause of poverty throughout much of the world, especially South Asia where, and this is a fact, sometimes children are bred with the sole purpose of using them for work and even to sell them off. Human rights and the quality of life isn't something only given by the wealthy to the poor. It also something the poor must strive for themselves.

Nevertheless, as said, the quality of life and human development have certainly improved for the vast majority of nations, even those that are still experiencing conflict within and without. It's so obvious. But I guess it's easy to ignore that and just have a field day bashing the usual folk right?
Who am I 'bashing'? Your understanding of global development and poverty is woeful, and your statement no nation is worse off now than at any time in history is ridiculous. Whether or not it has for 'most nations' depends on what time period you pick.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2007, 05:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling
What? How would any of that prevent disaster in Iraq? By moving the disaster here?
Iraq is finished. The disaster has already happened. If the suggestions I listed were implemented, it would not bring back to life the hundreds of thousands killed due to the invasion, but it might do something to give the people in the region some hope for the future, stop the region being a breeding ground for terrorism, as well as finally suggest to the people of the world that the states with all the military might are in some way accountable for their actions. You cannot fight fire with fire, you need to tackle the root causes and remove the incentives.

As for ‘bringing the disaster here’, I really have no idea what you're talking about there.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2007, 08:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
Iraq is finished. The disaster has already happened. If the suggestions I listed were implemented, it would not bring back to life the hundreds of thousands killed due to the invasion, but it might do something to give the people in the region some hope for the future, stop the region being a breeding ground for terrorism, as well as finally suggest to the people of the world that the states with all the military might are in some way accountable for their actions. You cannot fight fire with fire, you need to tackle the root causes and remove the incentives.

As for ‘bringing the disaster here’, I really have no idea what you're talking about there.
You speak of "root causes" which are I presume the incentives to violence. What root causes do you refer to?
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2007, 02:57 PM
 
Account by a ex US SF soldier working as a reporter embedded with UK forces:

Any perception that British forces have it easy down here in Basra is wrong. In the nearly three weeks I’ve been here, I’ve seen more mortar and rocket attacks than during my cumulative time in Iraq.
Michael Yon : Online Magazine Blog Archive Rattlesnake

Not really about the wider effort, but think it's a very good first hand report of the situation on the ground. Interesting reading a US report about UK forces from my POV as a Brit.
     
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2007, 03:10 PM
 
Right. The war is over. We need to declare victory, and beat as ordered a retreat as we can. With any luck, the NeoCons will be out of power for a generation as a result. At least something worthwhile might come of it.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2007, 12:38 AM
 
So, Bush pleaded to give his troop surge a chance... How much time is a "chance"?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2007, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, Bush pleaded to give his troop surge a chance... How much time is a "chance"?
This is a good question. For some, a few months. For most, it is already too late. For the remainder, as long as it takes.

The goal in Iraq is a lofty one and given that our strategy is in a reactive posture, makes guessing the fruits of this effort all the more difficult and hard to stand behind. I really wish we'd gone the Powell route to begin with, but admittedly I'm relying on hindsight. The benchmarks would've been more clearly defined and the successes more visibly apparent for the Iraqi and the American. Understandably, upon reading more deaths on a daily basis the American public has all, but entirely lost its resolve. Survival in office will depend on bending an ear toward the collective. I wish I could answer your question more clearly, but it seems we need a couple of key breakthroughs. WIth success will come time. With time will come success. It's a vicious cycle.
ebuddy
     
Helmling  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2007, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
Iraq is finished. The disaster has already happened. If the suggestions I listed were implemented, it would not bring back to life the hundreds of thousands killed due to the invasion, but it might do something to give the people in the region some hope for the future, stop the region being a breeding ground for terrorism, as well as finally suggest to the people of the world that the states with all the military might are in some way accountable for their actions. You cannot fight fire with fire, you need to tackle the root causes and remove the incentives.

As for ‘bringing the disaster here’, I really have no idea what you're talking about there.
I mean you seem to advocate the United States just folding up tent and bending over. I do have to object to one implication of your most recent post as well, that being the implication that every problem in the region is somehow our fault. The U.S. and the other Western powers have a lot to feel guilty about in the middle east, but the region's backward culture of violence and repression might have a teensy bit to do with their woes. Their current hope for the future is God guiding them to a bloody victory over the infidels of the West. Is that the hope you want to encourage?

Hyperbole will get us no where. Even the maximum figure for the civilian death toll in Iraq is below 100,000. That doesn't minimize the horrible cost of human life, but you seem to use your inflated figure as an excuse for the U.S. to wash its hands of its responsibility in Iraq--indeed, of all its responsibilities in the world--and just cower behind our own borders. Now anyone around here will tell you I am loathe to support Bush's bizarre "take the fight to them" reasoning in the so-called War on Terror, but if you remove the imperial might of the US from the world stage then you create a power vacuum.

Who or what would fill that vacuum? Do you really have a better candidate than the US? China? Iran?

For my part, I'd rather we get the current imbeciles out of office and go back to the UN and our allies with a giant "mea culpa" banner to build some real consensus about what's the best course for rebuilding Iraq.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2007, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling
The U.S. and the other Western powers have a lot to feel guilty about in the middle east, but the region's backward culture of violence and repression might have a teensy bit to do with their woes.
Right, the people of the Middle East are all backward, violent and repressive, that explains it.

Originally Posted by Helmling
Their current hope for the future is God guiding them to a bloody victory over the infidels of the West. Is that the hope you want to encourage?
No, that is the mujahedeen's hope for the future. The majority of people just want to live in peace.

Originally Posted by Helmling
Hyperbole will get us no where. Even the maximum figure for the civilian death toll in Iraq is below 100,000.
That is provided you dismiss the findings of the Johns Hopkins study which put it at 655,000 last year.

Ministers were told not to rubbish Iraq deaths study | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited

Originally Posted by Helmling
That doesn't minimize the horrible cost of human life, but you seem to use your inflated figure as an excuse for the U.S. to wash its hands of its responsibility in Iraq--indeed, of all its responsibilities in the world--and just cower behind our own borders.
"Cower" behind your own borders, like virtually every other country on the planet that does not think it is its divine mission to rule the world. Yes, that just might be an idea worth considering.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2007, 01:59 PM
 
We have two options to secure Iraq:



or

I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2007, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
I'm assuming that everyone--even those who believed in the purpose of invading Iraq--can see that the effort is unraveling. With the green zone shrinking and destabilizing and the violence becoming more and more deeply rooted, I would hope everyone now can see that things have gone amiss in the US's post-war reconstruction of Iraq.

If you don't accept that, please just bugger off. I'm not interested in replies from people with no grasp of reality.

For the rest of us:

Is there anything now that can be done to prevent Iraq from becoming a monumental humanitarian crisis for which the United States is responsible?

Would a massive build-up of U.S. forces even work to secure the country? (Nevermind for the moment that there is no political will for such a costly endeavor, but hypothetically, could it even get the job done?)

Are there any other suggestions on the table?
How about if Dick Cheney makes a surprise visit?
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2007, 08:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post
*From left to right; Chuck Norris shaking hands with, (not pictured) Rumsfeld.

Well... we tried, but you know how power corrupts.
ebuddy
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2007, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
*From left to right; Chuck Norris shaking hands with, (not pictured) Rumsfeld.

Well... we tried, but you know how power corrupts.
No ****?
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:30 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,