Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Helmling · May 6, 2007, 11:38 PM

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?

tie · May 7, 2007, 01:14 AM

No. I'm disgusted by our politicians. The Democrats are making weak proposals, mostly symbolic to show they're standing against Bush. Bush himself figures he'll stay the course until he's out of office and dump the problem on the next guy. The other Republicans are okay with this, calculating it's better to let people keep dying than to criticize Bush; as the election draws closer they'll slowly step up their criticism to draw more support from the middle. There's plenty of blame to go around, of course.

Orion27 · May 7, 2007, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by tie

No. I'm disgusted by our politicians. The Democrats are making weak proposals, mostly symbolic to show they're standing against Bush. Bush himself figures he'll stay the course until he's out of office and dump the problem on the next guy. The other Republicans are okay with this, calculating it's better to let people keep dying than to criticize Bush; as the election draws closer they'll slowly step up their criticism to draw more support from the middle. There's plenty of blame to go around, of course.

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. Just look how Congress votes. the Democrats are securing their base which is a minority overall. They will pay rhetorical lip service to the anti war crowd much the way they pander to blacks. Reality bites. Look at the French Elections. No anti war rhetoric coming from France. Just the opposite. There is a certain reality when national security is at stake. The frustrating part is this pandering and rhetoric weakens our efforts and just makes it more costly. But since the Democrat party is a coalition of minorities, smoke and mirrors is what Democrats present to win elections. You just have to decide what you really want to happen in Iraq.
Defeat and retreat, or unified effort to bring stability and defeat the extremeists who oppose liberation. Polls which show disatisfaction with the war are not one dimensional.
There is lot of sentiment and disatisfaction with Bush pricisely because he has not been aggresive enough in Iraq.

subego · May 7, 2007, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by Helmling

Are there any other suggestions on the table?

It's not like I even think that suggestion is likely to work, I think it's more a question of our responsibility.

That being said, I've felt cutting the Russians in would have been (and still may be) a good idea. They could certainly lean on the right people, both globally and in the UN. It also gets things away from being solely a U.S. issue.

Of course, we would have gotten a much sweeter deal three or four years ago, we're a bit over the barrel at the moment.

Nicko · May 7, 2007, 05:32 AM

Most likely outcome...
Saw this posted on another forum.

Orion27 · May 7, 2007, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Nicko

Most likely outcome...
Saw this posted on another forum.

Nice smiley face Nicko. I don't think we want to deal with the aftermath osuch a scenario do we?

analogika · May 7, 2007, 08:40 AM

We're ALREADY dealing with the aftermath, you "true patriot", you.

That situation there is the point where the U.S. *stopped* dealing.

Orion27 · May 7, 2007, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

We're ALREADY dealing with the aftermath, you "true patriot", you.

That situation there is the point where the U.S. *stopped* dealing.

I'm not sure what you are tryingto say? It appears to me the Europe, being closer to the threat
may have a deeper "appreciation" for what we are trying to accomplish. We have now seen both Germany and France begin to tame the socialist left and their virulent anti-Americanism. It remains to be seen of course. The French election can not have encouraged the Islamist radical element inside France or Europe.

red rocket · May 7, 2007, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Helmling

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

1. Immediate withdrawal of all Western troops in the region.
2. Abolition of veto powers regarding UN resolutions.
3. Full and immediate US nuclear disarmament.
4. US coup d'état.
5. Bush, Blair, Cheney, etc. tried for war crimes.
6. Overthrow of puppet regimes in the ME.
7. Pump a few hundred billion into the economy.

In other words, no, nothing realistically achievable can be done. Remember that the people responsible for this débâcle have never been interested in the reconstruction of Iraq or the welfare of its people, it's all about resource control and regional hegemony.

Orion27 · May 7, 2007, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by red rocket

1. Immediate withdrawal of all Western troops in the region.
2. Abolition of veto powers regarding UN resolutions.
3. Full and immediate US nuclear disarmament.
4. US coup d'état.
5. Bush, Blair, Cheney, etc. tried for war crimes.
6. Overthrow of puppet regimes in the ME.
7. Pump a few hundred billion into the economy.

In other words, no, nothing realistically achievable can be done. Remember that the people responsible for this débâcle have never been interested in the reconstruction of Iraq or the welfare of its people, it's all about resource control and regional hegemony.

I'ts always curious about the Nihilists. They always want to deconstruct but in the end have nothing to offer for the future except totalitarinism. By your signature, you appear to reject the moral foundation upon which western society has been constructed. I wonder what moral construct is the future you envisage built upon?

Big Mac · May 7, 2007, 10:38 AM

Peter Parker.

BRussell · May 7, 2007, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Helmling

Are there any other suggestions on the table?

I have hope, perhaps naive, that if we got out things could improve. I believe the US presence there is causing the violence, not preventing it. The best hope may be for the country to significantly decentralize into three regions, but share oil profits roughly equally. Joe Biden has a proposal like this.

Helmling · May 7, 2007, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by red rocket

1. Immediate withdrawal of all Western troops in the region.
2. Abolition of veto powers regarding UN resolutions.
3. Full and immediate US nuclear disarmament.
4. US coup d'état.
5. Bush, Blair, Cheney, etc. tried for war crimes.
6. Overthrow of puppet regimes in the ME.
7. Pump a few hundred billion into the economy.

In other words, no, nothing realistically achievable can be done. Remember that the people responsible for this débâcle have never been interested in the reconstruction of Iraq or the welfare of its people, it's all about resource control and regional hegemony.

What? How would any of that prevent disaster in Iraq? By moving the disaster here?

Helmling · May 7, 2007, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by BRussell

I have hope, perhaps naive, that if we got out things could improve. I believe the US presence there is causing the violence, not preventing it. The best hope may be for the country to significantly decentralize into three regions, but share oil profits roughly equally. Joe Biden has a proposal like this.

No, I remember reading that young woman's account of being a hostage earlier in the year. She really gave me a lot of insight into the Sunni/Shiite conflict. We're just in the way of their old quarrel, which has now become a blood feud. When we leave, it will get worse.

Breaking up the country may be the only way, yes. It still strengthens Iran's hand, but if it will save thousands of lives then that's a price I'd be willing to pay.

Helmling · May 7, 2007, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Orion27

I'ts always curious about the Nihilists. They always want to deconstruct but in the end have nothing to offer for the future except totalitarinism. By your signature, you appear to reject the moral foundation upon which western society has been constructed. I wonder what moral construct is the future you envisage built upon?

The moral foundation upon which western society has been constructed? Give me a break. The West has been built on conquest and capital, it gets and F- in "moral foundations." I realize this is a separate discussion, but ascribing any special place to religion in the rise of the West is so absurd that I can't help but comment.

Helmling · May 7, 2007, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Orion27

I'm not sure what you are tryingto say? It appears to me the Europe, being closer to the threat
may have a deeper "appreciation" for what we are trying to accomplish. We have now seen both Germany and France begin to tame the socialist left and their virulent anti-Americanism. It remains to be seen of course. The French election can not have encouraged the Islamist radical element inside France or Europe.

I think he's saying that it was the US failing to consider the fall-out of the war that led to the current quagmire.

besson3c · May 7, 2007, 11:09 AM

How about cozying up to countries hosting Shia and Sunnis and work out a deal of some sort?

Just a half baked idea...

Aron Peterson · 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by red rocket

1. Immediate withdrawal of all Western troops in the region.

Leaving Iran to invade, which would have happened when Saddam's regime imploded, and Turkey counters Iran with their own invasion. Iran threatens with nukes, whether they have them or not, and... Not a pretty picture.

5. Bush, Blair, Cheney, etc. tried for war crimes.

They didn't invent the WMD claims.

6. Overthrow of puppet regimes in the ME.

There are no puppet regimes. The regimes that appear to be pro-western tell the West they are the best and only choice while at the same time fuelling Islamic fundamentalism so they can stay in power.

7. Pump a few hundred billion into the economy.

Only free trade can allow money to flow properly into the pockets of regular people. Pumping money generally means sending money over to be stolen.

Remember that the people responsible for this débâcle have never been interested in the reconstruction of Iraq or the welfare of its people, it's all about resource control and regional hegemony.

Another brainwashed person. The people who created the WMD story were Iraqi. They were also Shia and friendly with Iran. There were also Kurds who wanted Saddam gone. The Kurds now have representation, autonomy and are drilling their own oil. The only problems are terrorists, criminal gangs and sectarian vendettas. They can be solved but it will take time because it's been going on for long before the US existed.

As for resource control, you probably haven't noticed that Iraq has become the first nation in the Middle East, the first OPEC nation, to have created an agreement to distribute the proceeds of oil exports to each of Iraq's regions. This is a first! No longer will all profits be centrally controlled or kept by one dictator or an elite! That's a big threat to surrounding regimes who will be pressured to change their ways too. And it also proves that the stinking idea that the US or the West is "stealing" or controlling Iraq's oil is a big terrorist fuelling lie.

analogika · May 7, 2007, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Orion27

both Germany and France begin to tame the socialist left and their virulent anti-Americanism. It remains to be seen of course. The French election can not have encouraged the Islamist radical element inside France or Europe.

Rest assured that Sarkozy's attitude toward America was the LAST thing that decided the vote.

Really.

Nobody cares.

However, it's nice to see that even the Republicans are following the European lead in their virulent anti-Americanism, finally damning the Fearless Idjut for his Fearless Decisions.

Your grand delusion that everybody who sees your president as the criminal he is, hates Americans, just makes it that much easier for you to deny reality. But hey, who am I telling this.

RAILhead · May 7, 2007, 01:26 PM

Orion27 · May 7, 2007, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Helmling

The moral foundation upon which western society has been constructed? Give me a break. The West has been built on conquest and capital, it gets and F- in "moral foundations." I realize this is a separate discussion, but ascribing any special place to religion in the rise of the West is so absurd that I can't help but comment.

You need to back to school.

peeb · May 7, 2007, 01:39 PM

The problem is the NeoCons were making foreign policy without even reading the Lonely Planet for the region they were invading. They've made a huge mess, which will take decades to clean up. They need to be sent to their rooms, and told to think hard about what they've done.

Uncle Skeleton · May 7, 2007, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Orion27

You need to back to school.

Haha! Classic.

olePigeon · May 7, 2007, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Orion27

I'm not sure what you are tryingto say? It appears to me the Europe, being closer to the threat
may have a deeper "appreciation" for what we are trying to accomplish. We have now seen both Germany and France begin to tame the socialist left and their virulent anti-Americanism. It remains to be seen of course. The French election can not have encouraged the Islamist radical element inside France or Europe.

I agree about the swing in support, but I disagree on the motives. Initially they were hard against the war. It was/is a stupid move on the Administration's part. The change in support, however, is that now that allied troop casualties is in the thousands, and civilian casualties on both sides is in the hundreds of thousands, they feel they need to help with the situation as it has become.

Allied support from participating nations is the only way to quell the mess that's going on in Iraq. The U.S. miscalculated horrendously their competence in dealing with the situation, and I think the other countries that were initially against such a policy are now looking to help; if anything, because people are dying needlessly and the war needs to come to some sort of conclusion.

peeb · May 7, 2007, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I agree about the swing in support, but I disagree on the motives. Initially they were hard against the war. It was/is a stupid move on the Administration's part. The change in support, however, is that now that allied troop casualties is in the thousands, and civilian casualties on both sides is in the hundreds of thousands, they feel they need to help with the situation as it has become.

Allied support from participating nations is the only way to quell the mess that's going on in Iraq. The U.S. miscalculated horrendously their competence in dealing with the situation, and I think the other countries that were initially against such a policy are now looking to help; if anything, because people are dying needlessly and the war needs to come to some sort of conclusion.

Yes, the Europeans are realizing that the US is not going to clean up the mess that it made, and that they are going to have to intervene if there is to be any progress. This is not support for the war, but recognition that saner voices have to step in.

kmkkid · May 7, 2007, 02:14 PM

A dozen nukes could help.

peeb · May 7, 2007, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

A dozen nukes could help.

That's the kind of thinking that got us into this mess.

shinji · May 7, 2007, 02:26 PM

It will be over once the world stops depending on oil.

We are in Iraq for the long haul, regardless of any campaign promises.

kmkkid · May 7, 2007, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

That's the kind of thinking that got us into this mess.

Didn't get me into any mess.

peeb · May 7, 2007, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Didn't get me into any mess.

Maybe not yet, but that kind of thinking by the NeoCons got the whole world into the mess it's in right now.

Nicko · May 7, 2007, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Didn't get me into any mess.

It gets even better when you consider how reliant the US is on our sweet Canadian oil

peeb · May 7, 2007, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Nicko

It gets even better when you consider how reliant the US is on our sweet Canadian oil

Just wait till they start threatening you with a dozen nukes because you're not selling it cheaply enough!

Nicko · May 7, 2007, 02:44 PM

Heh, what are they going to do? Make radioactive oil?

peeb · May 7, 2007, 02:46 PM

Shocking! Awesome!

kmkkid · May 7, 2007, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Just wait till they start threatening you with a dozen nukes because you're not selling it cheaply enough!

Except that Canada isn't a target-able nation. Iraq was easy to make up excuses for attacking. Might even say a no-brainer.

Not to mention, I doubt the US of A would want a country so physically close to it to become a nuclear wasteland.

peeb · May 7, 2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Except that Canada isn't a target-able nation. Iraq was easy to make up excuses for attacking. Might even say a no-brainer.

Not to mention, I doubt the US of A would want a country so physically close to it to become a nuclear wasteland.

You think the US has never invaded a neighboring country?

I agree that they would not want to nuke Canada, but invade? Who knows? If a socialist government came to power that cut off Canadian oil to the US and the Middle East was not ponying up, I can well imagine a targeted intervention to liberate the Canadians!

kmkkid · May 7, 2007, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

You think the US has never invaded a neighboring country?

I agree that they would not want to nuke Canada, but invade? Who knows? If a socialist government came to power that cut off Canadian oil to the US and the Middle East was not ponying up, I can well imagine a targeted intervention to liberate the Canadians!

But would the rest of the world allow it? Anyways no sense squabbling over situations that wont occur in our lifetime

In case you missed the

in my other posts, I wasn't serious about the nuking of Iraq in the first place

peeb · May 7, 2007, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

But would the rest of the world allow it? Anyways no sense squabbling over situations that wont occur in our lifetime

Allow it? What are they going to do about it? They allowed Iraq, didn't they. I don't think it's likely, but I think it is perfectly possible that that kind of thing could happen in our lifetime the way things are going.

Aron Peterson · 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

Your grand delusion that everybody who sees your president as the criminal he is, hates Americans, just makes it that much easier for you to deny reality. But hey, who am I telling this.

What about your grand delusion, or is it disinformation, that the idjit in office acted alone and invented the WMD story themselves?

Aron Peterson · 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Maybe not yet, but that kind of thinking by the NeoCons got the whole world into the mess it's in right now.

The world has never looked better (environmentalism aside). That's not saying much but the world was a much worser place at any moment in history and is in general moving in the right direction, and it gets better if people stop pointing the finger at those who work the hardest. It always seems that when people don't want to take reponsibility for their or their culture's problems they waggle their fingers at whites, protestants, the wealthy and Jews. It's an easy way to mask their own faults - laziness, sectarianism, racism, violence, criminality, fundamentalism and corruption.

kmkkid · May 7, 2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

Allow it? What are they going to do about it? They allowed Iraq, didn't they. I don't think it's likely, but I think it is perfectly possible that that kind of thing could happen in our lifetime the way things are going.

Well, Iraq doesn't exactly have the allies Canada has....

peeb · May 7, 2007, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson

The world has never looked better (environmentalism aside).

In what respect has the world never looked better? Really, I'm curious about which aspects you think are in the best shape they've ever been.

peeb · May 7, 2007, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Well, Iraq doesn't exactly have the allies Canada has....

So, when the US engineers a coup in Canada, which allies are going to lead the coalition to reverse it? What might their strategy look like?

kmkkid · May 7, 2007, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

In what respect has the world never looked better? Really, I'm curious about which aspects you think are in the best shape they've ever been.

Peace amongst first world nations?

kmkkid · May 7, 2007, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

So, when the US engineers a coup in Canada, which allies are going to lead the coalition to reverse it? What might their strategy look like?

Ok, you're missing the point here. Canada isn't anywhere near what Iraq was, which could lead to such nonsense. No coup is going to happen here. Our democracy is stable.

Aron Peterson · May 7, 2007, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

In what respect has the world never looked better? Really, I'm curious about which aspects you think are in the best shape they've ever been.

Compare any nation to how it was throughout history and it's better today. Even developing nations, even Iraq and Iran. There are some places that haven't changed, like Sudan or Somalia. They always had those same problems they face today.

If you don't agree feel free to point out a nation or region that was at a better place in history.

peeb · May 7, 2007, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Peace amongst first world nations?

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.

peeb · May 7, 2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson

Compare any nation to how it was throughout history and it's better today. Even developing nations, even Iraq and Iran. There are some places that haven't changed, like Sudan or Somalia. They always had those same problems they face today.

If you don't agree feel free to point out a nation or region that was at a better place in history.

Iraq, the UK, the US, many nations have human development indicators that are falling. The Lost Decade: They Were Promised a Brighter Future, But in the 1990s the World's Poor Fell Further Behind

kmkkid · May 7, 2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

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.

Things will never be perfect.

peeb · May 7, 2007, 03:49 PM

Not if we carry on in this direction!