WTF are we still in Iraq.

Pages

AuthorTopic: WTF are we still in Iraq.
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #50
quote:
Originally written by Sir David:

Alec, I must say that I agree with you on our order of operations; there were, and still are, plenty of other problems we could have solved. Diplomacy does not always work, unfortunately; I know about the African civil wars, and I really wish we would do more about those. As I said, N. Korea should really have been our first target (the African countries I don't count as "targets", since those require peace-keeping troops and care packages rather than invasion forces). But the fact of the matter is that we are now in Iraq, and we cannot simply abandon them to their fate. I believe that the invasion and reconstruction in Iraq were/will be easier than in N. Korea, and we need practice. So I say we make the best of it, try our hardest to establish freedom and democracy (it's a process, don't expect every Iraqi to vote before the year is up), and just do what we can for the Iraqi people. I'm far more optimistic than you are, Alec; I think that the media is casting a shadow on the quiet improvements in Iraq and focusing instead on the violence and bloodshed, simply because that makes better news. I think we will succeed, in the end; we didn't do so bad in Japan or Germany.
Japan and Germany are not analogous. There has never been a democratic regime in Iraq, and there is no 'common enemy' in Iraq. (In both cases, the moderate regimes that replaced the authoritarian ones hated and feared nearby Soviet influence).
And next to no Americans -- if any -- were killed in either occupation, at least after the fighting ended.
The media are casting a shadow on everything about Iraq. I haven't heard word one about them except for from small, liberal news outlets. Funny thing is, if anything good were happening there, you'd think the TV and paper news (which are dominated by those who supported the war) would trumpet it to the skies.

Alec, please. No matter how much of a liar Bush is, percieved or genuine, he never said anything as outrageous as your statement that American bombs will cause 50% of the Iraqi people to die of hunger and thirst.

Geographically, Sir David. The Tigris/Euphrates basin takes up about half of the country. And the estimate for long-run casualties at the outset of 'Shock and Awe' was 500,000 or so. Only further complications have occurred since then. 500,000 is a tremendous number; to put it into perspective, Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together killed about 100,000 people on the long term.


EDIT: I typed this post while Slith was posting... anyway, I agree with him, and I think I've made that point in other dicussions. If Iraq is a success, it will become a city on a hill, a role model for third world countries everywhere. This "get the hell out of here" attitude is nothing but harmful, but I think that those opposed to the war in the first palce are more supportive of that policy than Bush is. I really don't think he wants out of Iraq too quickly; if so, I'll be totally against that. But I think anything he says to suggest that is really just sucking up to his opponents, and to the more radical citizens of Iraq.

He wants out of Iraq. He has made this abundantly clear; he either expected it to be a walkover and is insulted it wasn't or wanted to set up a US-friendly (or at least US-corporation-friendly) regime and then get the hell out of the country.
I would protest Bush's point: he did, in fact, say 'We're going to war in Iraq and you can't stop us' -- if not in as few words. Owning the media makes you a de facto if not de jure dictator in a democratic society; then again, I'm sure you are one of the people who takes the phrase 'the liberal media' seriously.

Not on what news, Drakey? I've seen very, very few news articles recently that mention Iraq without mentioning civilian casualties. I can't think of any, in fact.

News reports are notoriously sketchy on these things; they say that civilians are killed, but not who, why, or how many. One American death and we won't stop screaming.

On WWI: those problems were hardly caused by America. Peace without victory, anyone? Wilson honestly wanted to stop the fighting; that was his goal. England, France, and the rest wanted reparations. They didn't just want to end the killing, they wanted to punish Germany to the point where the Germans could never fight again. This obviously didn't work; Wilson was disgusted by the European countries taking advantage of a defeated nation.

The war would have ended by stalemate in 1919 instead of decisive victory in 1918; neither side COULD have had a 'decisive victory' if the US hadn't gotten involved. Neither side could have extracted the kind of peace the Allies were able to thanks to the morale effects of American intervention.


No, we did not join the League of Nations, but the League really wouldn't have been very strong anyway. Wilson wanted America to join the League, of course, but political rivalries at home along with a general isolationist feeling in Americans prevented that. And who knows what would have happened if Wilson, not the isolationists, had gotten his way? Or America, not Europe? Probably not the Holocaust, I can tell you that.

The League was completely and utterly feckless. It was designed in such a way to exclude or diminish the protagonists in WW1, it ignored the Soviets, and the US wasn't ready to get involved in a long-haul global commitment like that anyway. When Italy invaded Ethiopia, Haile Selassie protested the attacks loud and long; his nation had been a member of the LoN since its inception, and so had Italy.
England and France did nothing; the US wouldn't have if they had been a member.
Again, the US turned WW1 from a colonial struggle that would have been nondecisive into the flagstone of two world wars.
You will not find a sane historian who will tell you that the US was right to enter the first World War, Sir David; diplomacy could have settled it, but the US barely ever tried to use diplomacy. They sat on their laurels until the right propaganda victory came, and pitched in for the side they had the most financial interest in.



--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
Profile #51
quote:
The war would have ended by stalemate in 1919 instead of decisive victory in 1918; neither side COULD have had a 'decisive victory' if the US hadn't gotten involved. Neither side could have extracted the kind of peace the Allies were able to thanks to the morale effects of American intervention.
Well, Germany, with fresh troops from the eastern front, might have done something. But that doesn't matter.

By the way, I have more where the good news I posted came from.

And why do we do this? We're not going to convince one another of our opinions, (without Socratic dialouge and hard evidence, anyway), and the only thing we do while we post our political ravings here is make ourselves look good (or bad) while darting (targeting with ridicule) the President or whoever else.

We might gain a following of n00bs or something, but what's that worth?

--------------------
"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #52
Rhetorical practice, of course. And maybe in the short run it's just putting your bags on the table and pointing at them and shouting, but in the long run, people's opinions DO change.

--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Babelicious
Member # 3149
Profile Homepage #53
Sir David's claim that we did well with Japan is ludicrous. They are essentially a one-party state.
Their current prime minister has worshipped at Yasukuni Shrine, where homage is paid to great "heroes" like Hideki Tojo of World War 2. Twice. As an official. Kenichi Asano, author of "Why Japan Remains A Threat To Peace And Democracy In Asia," likens these visits to a hypothetical situation where the German president visits the graveyard of Adolf Hitler on V-Day.
Shintaro Ishihara, the governor of Tokyo, favored for the prime minister, has publically denied that the Japanese ever waged aggressive war during the WW2 years.
This stance is supported by a popular Japanese historian, Minoru Kitamura, who recently released a book claiming that reports of the Nanjing Massacre were fabricated by agents of the Nationalist Chinese and that Japanese invaders were welcomed with open arms by the "liberated" Chinese.
In general, Japan is an intensely undemocratic state dominated by a single ultra-right-wing party which consistently glorifies the World War II era and denies any wrongdoing by the imperialists. The media there is absolutely in thrall -- Asano refers to it as "lap dog journalism."

--------------------
You are my precious thing
Thing of speed and beauty,
You are my precious thing
As long as you remain beneath me
-- Big Black
Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Apprentice
Member # 3916
Profile #54
If there really was a Conservative running for President, I would vote for him. Though "conservative" has become fairly synonymous with "Republican" in the US, there ain't any prominent true conservatives that I see.

Bush is dumb, no question about it, but on that basis alone I see no reason to object to him. Often, a President or gov't who does "nothing" is the best recipe for a country. "Don't mess with us." However, GWB is determined to make his mark on the world.

After the sky-high popularity ratings of 9/11 and Afghanistan/Al Queda, Bush needed an issue as those ratings, though still high, were on the downslope -- and as the economy threatened to capture the public consciousness. Who knows all the psychological motivations he has? Finish what Dad began? Prove that, unlike Dad, he can finish it? Certainly his administration includes some influential people who had been preaching, "Let's get Saddam," for a long time.

I doubt there will be any truly "good" resolution in Iraq, per the opinion in the US, in general. I don't see democracy being "installed" in a manner there which is satisfactory to us Yanks. An awful lot of cultural and historical hurdles to clear, there.

This "send people to Mars" stuff is baloney -- GWB wanting some JFK aura to surround him in the fullness of time .....oh please. I see economic necessity putting the kibosh on this get-out-into-space desire.

Why are we still in Iraq? We will be there until the powers-that-be perceive it in their best interest to withdraw.

Doug
Posts: 18 | Registered: Thursday, January 22 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
Profile #55
Bushie was intent on getting out a few years later, but I'm guessing protesters, politicians, and providence caused the Administration to shorten the time we were there.

--------------------
"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #56
I sincerely doubt Bush planned to stay there for the long haul. Either he was horribly naïve -- I continue to believe he is a rather intelligent person; he is certainly articulate when he talks about killing things -- or he and his administration planned to replace one dictator with another.
Sure, there'll be a vote or two, but eventually, whoever wins them will go the way of S.H., with the only difference being that, due to the dictator being US-friendly, we won't feel the need to go on and on about their atrocities against mankind, nor to remove them from their ill-gotten office.
As long as he's loyal to the American oil industry, we're going to be fast friends with him, as a matter of fact. As I said earlier, Bush's motivation is not personal but tangential greed; his friends and allies run much of American industry, and he's basically giving his constituents what they want. It violates the interests of the American people? Pssh. The American people's opinions are an extension of the media's. (Tell a lie once, and it's a horrible mistruth. Tell it twice, it's a little white lie. Tell it three times, and it's the gospel truth.)
And the Republicans dominate the media.

I think we ought to give the GOP a pat on the back and our most sincere congratulations for winning their eighty-year struggle with American democracy and get to Scandinavia while the getting's good.

--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2940
Profile Homepage #57
Here in South America public opinion on the U.S. was bad already, now in the Bush administration period it is even worse. It has gone to such levels that many people, after observing the events on Sept. 11 usualy commented things like "They had it comming...".

What we dont like about U.S. policies is the sick double standard they have. Most of those terrible dictators you acusse so much, most of those evil terrorist leaders you speak of, at one time, were close allies with the U.S. Many were trained in the "so horrible things" they do such as torturing, killing and whatnot. The very weapons they use were usually given or sold by the US. After a few years when those allies chose their own path, against US intrests, they sudenly become the axis of evil and a horrible force to be dealt with. Yes, those people are devils and deserve to be killed, but lets just remember who aided them and trained them in the first place and probably created those dictators and Osama-like Warlords.

I dont know much about other countries, but I can sure tell you about Pinochet and his CIA trained minions that raped, killed and vanished many people who thought diffrently and some who had nothing to do with it. We were commies at that time, so what, we were under no dictatorship, Chile was the first country and I think the "only" country in democraticaly electing a Communist Goverment. But no, they had to eliminate the communist threat, what threat! We represented no menace at al, the only reason they did it was for the economic intrests in Chile, who at that time, and still is, one of the main copper producers in the world.

Yes, now Chile is the most solid economy in South America and has established free trade with Europe, US, Canada and is working its way to Asia with Korea, exactly the opposite to its commie days. But I would NEVER trade lives for economic stability.

I heard Powell mention the chilean case as a "mistake", mistake my A$$!! I dont imagine the US. forgiving Osama or Saddam if they say all their killing was a mistake.

So you see, this little game of secretly creating evil dictators and terrorist were they see it fit and then conviniently removing them from the world in a glorious march of the liberation army has gone way too far and is realy pissing off world opinion.

Keep pushing that way and I can assure you the Sept.11. incident will not be the last one the US. will see.

[ Friday, January 23, 2004 11:28: Message edited by: The_Nazgul ]

--------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying."
Posts: 469 | Registered: Thursday, May 1 2003 07:00
Agent
Member # 798
Profile Homepage #58
SirDavid rebuilding Iraq is going to be diffrent than rebuildingGermany or Japan. First Germany wasn't allways a dictatorship. Germany was unified in the 1870's sometime, I don't know what year, but I know it was around the same time Italy was unified. Anyway, Prussa was a constitutional Monarchy for many years. Actually at one point they where calling Berlin the Paris of the East. I don't even think Hithler ran Germany for a Decade. The point I am trying to get across is that The Germans knew about Democracy and how it worked. As for the Japannese, they studied Democracy. And Italy was a Constitutional Monarch when it was first unified as well. Actually most of the Italian city states where Republics for years during the Rennaicance. So the Italians, Japanesse, and Germans knew about Democracy and a republic before The U.S rebuilt there nations. Iraq is diffrent, they've been under The Baath Regime for I'd say more than 40 years. I really don't know what went on in Iraq itself before The Baath Party took over. But I'd assume there was political instability before The Baath Party took over. So this isn't going to be like rebuilding Germany,Italy and Japan. This is going to be much harder. And from the way things look on the news. I wouldn't be surprised if After the U.S pulled out the Nation would go back into chaos. Like what happend with Afganistan when we pulled out bothe times. After the war with the Soviets and after 9/11.

--------------------
Look Ma, I'm banned!
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Friday, March 22 2002 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2242
Profile #59
Alright, where to begin on this one. First of all, Moody, WAR IS JUSTIFIED IN SOME CASES , and if you can't see that you either are ignorant, or one of the peace protesters who know absolutely nothing about politics (which is quite a few, not suprisingly). Now that I've gotten that off my chest.

quote:
Originally written by General Secretary Custer:

quote:Originally written by Firedrake the Silent:
[QUOTE]Originally written by Desert Plah:
[qb] [QUOTE]

World War 2 was caused by World War 1. As a matter of fact, had America not intervened in WW1, both sides would have been thoroughgoingly crippled by general strikes; the Allied invasion of Soviet Russia wouldn't have happened (thus drastically decreasing the devastation of the civil war, and putting Trotsky rather than Stalin in a position to take over after Lenin's death); neither Weimar Germany nor the Nazi Party would have happened; the capital to create the bubble economy of the 20s wouldn't have happened, so the Great Depression wouldn't have happened.
The world would have been taught the lessons of WW1 without having to learn them through the terrors of WW2, the Soviets wouldn't have been anywhere near as brutal and heavy-handed -- nor as diplomatically isolated -- as they became under Stalin, and Germany would still be, as it was before the loss of the first war, one of the best places in the world to be a Jew.

Yeah, there's a case where 'peaceful methods' would have solved nothing.
[/quote]Uh... right. First of all, if we hadn't intervened in WW2, the war would have continued on for a long time, considering we are one of the people who helped settle a peace. I'll admit that punishing the Germans so harsly after the war (they lost all of their colonies, basically had to pay for the war by themselves, had to disarm) caused them to become angry enough to start WW2. The Allies have never invaded Russia, so I don't know where you were going with that, Stalin probably would have still had taken over, considering he was Lenin's right hand man and the fact he became extremely powerful. He removed anyone who would had opposed him right after Lenin died.

Nazy Germany could have still happened because they were still power hungry and angry over their defeat in WW1.

As for the Great Depression, it still would have happened. Some newer things were introduced into economics around this time, such as inflation and credit. WW1 wasn't a direct cause.

Your assuming that WW2 wouldn't happen, but it was waiting to happen due to the fact THAT Germany had allied itself with Japan, who were very imperialistic at the time and also drew us into the war through pearl harbor. The Soviets weren't brutal, Stalin was.

WWI was caused due to the many alliances that countries had formed, and caused by an assassination.

Next page...

I'll agree that the media is really stupid nowadays and we'd probably be doing better moral wise if idiots worrying about ratings didn't show all the bad about Iraq and some of the good.

Pulling out of Iraq would be foolish considering they'd hate us more because we totalled their country and then left again, leaving a void for a Islamic Fundamentalistic country to form. Just what we need, another Iran.

I agree with desert about Germany pulling their troops from the Eastern front and moving them to the Western front.

All that crap about 9/11 being preventable is just crap the media is sturring up as people look for someone to blame over 9/11 beside the terrorists that caused it. We weren't prepared for a terrorist attack of that magnitude.

--------------------
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes back into you."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Posts: 469 | Registered: Thursday, November 14 2002 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
Profile #60
Uh-uh. Not only do we still have men in Afganistan, but Germany was a militristic, autocratic society up until the end of WWI, after which a weak republic was formed.
Hitler took over in the early 1930's, and turned Germany into a militristic, autocratic society once again.
Iraq was once part of the Ottoman Empire, until the end of WWI, where the British, French, and other Allies thought it'd be a great idea to carve the area up like they did to Africa, wich is why we have multiple groups in Iraq vying for power.
It was once a monarchy, an arm of the Ottoman, then it was carved up by the Allies and became another weak republic, which was eventually taken over by, (i think), some general, and then Saddam Hussien.
And the whole thing with arming guys who then turn against us was our parents' way of fighting the Communists without blame, and a sad way, at that. We didn't intentionally train terrorists and the like so we could have "a game of creating terrorists and dictators so we can remove them and have the glory of the liberation army." That's sick.

EDIT: (oh boy)

WWI had many causes, but this isn't history class.

World War 2 is called that for a reason. There's not a sane historian that won't tell you that it wasn't a leftover from WWI.

The colonies were wrong anyway.

He was talking about the Russian Revolution that put Lenin into power, instead of Leon (is it Leon?) Trotsky. Watch Animal Farm. (Not Animal House.)

[ Friday, January 23, 2004 14:07: Message edited by: Desert Plah ]

--------------------
"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2940
Profile Homepage #61
It is isnt it, but then again, thats how the CIA works. And no one will mark them as terrorist for all the things they did.

[ Friday, January 23, 2004 14:09: Message edited by: The_Nazgul ]

--------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying."
Posts: 469 | Registered: Thursday, May 1 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
Profile #62
The CIA doesn't work to glorify America, it works to protect it. Supposed to, anyway. And as I said, many (regrettable) things were done that were a direct cause of America's fear of Soviets and Communism.

Perhaps Nikita K. had something to do with it, saying:"We will bury you," or something mean like that.

--------------------
"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #63
quote:
Originally written by Firedrake the Silent:

Alright, where to begin on this one. First of all, Moody, WAR IS JUSTIFIED IN SOME CASES , and if you can't see that you either are ignorant, or one of the peace protesters who know absolutely nothing about politics (which is quite a few, not suprisingly). Now that I've gotten that off my chest.
I would beg to differ, and I am not what one would call 'ignorant'.

quote:Originally written by General Secretary Custer:
quote:Originally written by Firedrake the Silent:
[QUOTE]Originally written by Desert Plah:
[qb] [QUOTE]

World War 2 was caused by World War 1. As a matter of fact, had America not intervened in WW1, both sides would have been thoroughgoingly crippled by general strikes; the Allied invasion of Soviet Russia wouldn't have happened (thus drastically decreasing the devastation of the civil war, and putting Trotsky rather than Stalin in a position to take over after Lenin's death); neither Weimar Germany nor the Nazi Party would have happened; the capital to create the bubble economy of the 20s wouldn't have happened, so the Great Depression wouldn't have happened.
The world would have been taught the lessons of WW1 without having to learn them through the terrors of WW2, the Soviets wouldn't have been anywhere near as brutal and heavy-handed -- nor as diplomatically isolated -- as they became under Stalin, and Germany would still be, as it was before the loss of the first war, one of the best places in the world to be a Jew.

Yeah, there's a case where 'peaceful methods' would have solved nothing.
[/quote]Uh... right. First of all, if we hadn't intervened in WW2, the war would have continued on for a long time, considering we are one of the people who helped settle a peace. I'll admit that punishing the Germans so harsly after the war (they lost all of their colonies, basically had to pay for the war by themselves, had to disarm) caused them to become angry enough to start WW2.
The war would have lasted, yes. But please do deign to consider that perhaps a few thousand more casualties and a few million more dollars loss are a fair tradeoff weighed against a war more destructive than the majority of human military history, the Holocaust, and the Cold War.

The Allies have never invaded Russia, so I don't know where you were going with that, Stalin probably would have still had taken over, considering he was Lenin's right hand man and the fact he became extremely powerful. He removed anyone who would had opposed him right after Lenin died.

Lenin opposed him; Trotsky's faction fell out of favor during the Counterrevolution (in which the Allies did indeed invade Soviet Russia), and Stalin started to be favored by the military. Had the soviet civil war not been exacerbated by Allied aid to Whites, Stalin would never have gained the military momentum necessary to start the removal of enemies he became famous for. At this point, I'm beginning to doubt you're in any place to call people 'ignorant' with respect to history.


Nazy Germany could have still happened because they were still power hungry and angry over their defeat in WW1.

No it wouldn't have, you damn fool.

As for the Great Depression, it still would have happened. Some newer things were introduced into economics around this time, such as inflation and credit. WW1 wasn't a direct cause.

WW1 was indeed a cause -- do you even have any idea how much $9,000,000,000 would inflate an unready economy? It lead to one big boom and one big bust, as opposed to many little booms and busts found before the reparations and the war. Without the reparations, the postwar depression would have lasted until the late 20s, from which we'd get Keynes and such. I'm sorry, but you do not have any idea what you're talking about.

Your assuming that WW2 wouldn't happen, but it was waiting to happen due to the fact THAT Germany had allied itself with Japan, who were very imperialistic at the time and also drew us into the war through pearl harbor. The Soviets weren't brutal, Stalin was.

Okay, replace references to Soviet brutality with Stalinist brutality and you're still heavy dozens of millions of lives.

WWI was caused due to the many alliances that countries had formed, and caused by an assassination.

I never claimed that we could have prevented WW1. I claimed it was an amoral war and entering it was wrong, and lead to WW2, arguably this century's only moral war.

Next page...

I'll agree that the media is really stupid nowadays and we'd probably be doing better moral wise if idiots worrying about ratings didn't show all the bad about Iraq and some of the good.

In other words, you wish that they'd be even more overstuffed with conservative lapdogs. Ugh.

Pulling out of Iraq would be foolish considering they'd hate us more because we totalled their country and then left again, leaving a void for a Islamic Fundamentalistic country to form. Just what we need, another Iran.

And how did we solve Iran? Backing Saddam Hussein, of course! Why not create a secular dictator in some neighboring country and use them to check Iraq while it's convenient, then dispose them to much good propaganda later?
I agree that we need to stay in Iraq. The conservative tide is against it.

I agree with desert about Germany pulling their troops from the Eastern front and moving them to the Western front.

Wouldn't have decided the war. The problem with winning WW1 wasn't about warm bodies, it was about morale. The American entry into the war provided fresh, highly effective troops, which boosted French-British morale significantly and lead to a decisive victory, which lead to brutal terms at Versailles rather than more peaceful terms somewhere like Rotterdam or Boston.
In short, I know WW1 history and you most obviously do not. You are obviously fighting out of your depth; I could continue to present more damning historical analogy to the current situation proving that, in fact, it's impossible to cause a diplomatically unresolvable situation except through war, or you could perhaps move into a different arguement. Were I in your shoes, I'd go with the latter.

All that crap about 9/11 being preventable is just crap the media is sturring up as people look for someone to blame over 9/11 beside the terrorists that caused it. We weren't prepared for a terrorist attack of that magnitude.

Were Gore in office, the media would still be blaming him for 9/11 constantly.
[/quote]
Uh-uh. Not only do we still have men in Afganistan, but Germany was a militristic, autocratic society up until the end of WWI, after which a weak republic was formed.

They had a strong parliament beforehand; they essentially ran everything in Germany except foreign policy, making them stronger in some areas than even our Congress.

Hitler took over in the early 1930's, and turned Germany into a militristic, autocratic society once again.

Disagreed. Hitler came into power through the will of the German people; if they still had elections in the 40s, he would probably have kept winning them well into 1945.

Iraq was once part of the Ottoman Empire, until the end of WWI, where the British, French, and other Allies thought it'd be a great idea to carve the area up like they did to Africa, wich is why we have multiple groups in Iraq vying for power.
It was once a monarchy, an arm of the Ottoman, then it was carved up by the Allies and became another weak republic, which was eventually taken over by, (i think), some general, and then Saddam Hussien.

No. An artificial monarchy was installed, which continued until replaced by Hussein's US-backed government. I do not believe Iraq has ever been anything except a colonial dependency or an effective autocracy.

And the whole thing with arming guys who then turn against us was our parents' way of fighting the Communists without blame, and a sad way, at that. We didn't intentionally train terrorists and the like so we could have "a game of creating terrorists and dictators so we can remove them and have the glory of the liberation army." That's sick.

No; instead, we destroyed the futures of a billion innocent, helpless people in the third world as part of a massive power game against an essentially inferior enemy with delusions of grandeur. This is not 'sick' at all, I gather.

EDIT: (oh boy)

WWI had many causes, but this isn't history class.

World War 2 is called that for a reason. There's not a sane historian that won't tell you that it wasn't a leftover from WWI.

The colonies were wrong anyway.

He was talking about the Russian Revolution that put Lenin into power, instead of Leon (is it Leon?) Trotsky. Watch Animal Farm. (Not Animal House.)

Actually, Leon Trotsky still had a good chance of succeeding Lenin in spite of differing belief systems, but Trotsky's chances were pretty much shattered by his support of a strong Duma, which the war caused Lenin to disfavor; the war also necessitated a General Secretary to control the Communist party, a position Stalin was given as a way to reduce the amount of harm he could do, from which he took utter power of the Soviet Union.

The CIA doesn't work to glorify America, it works to protect it. Supposed to, anyway. And as I said, many (regrettable) things were done that were a direct cause of America's fear of Soviets and Communism.
Entirely unfounded, really. What would the world look like if the US had tried to build a working relationship with the Soviets instead of using them as puppets in WW2 and discarding them when necessary?

Perhaps Nikita K. had something to do with it, saying:"We will bury you," or something mean like that.

Or perhaps Ike E. had something to do with it, too, having threatened every small country which looked at capitalism funny with nuclear war until the Soviets could do something about it. IMAGE(WTF are we still in Iraq (3)_files/tongue.gif)

--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2940
Profile Homepage #64
Thats my point. The US gov. cant just say it was a mistake, it was regrettable and then toss in the past like they have done with many horrors. People in US burocracy should be in jail and treated as terrorist for what they did and most likely keep doing. If not this will go on forever. Someone has to tell those people that you cant just train, arm and prepare any guy out there.

I am saddened to say this but they got what they deserved. The worst thing is that the iraki people and US soldiers are paying the price in blood when those who should realy be in jail are wondering the US freely.

--------------------
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying."
Posts: 469 | Registered: Thursday, May 1 2003 07:00
Agent
Member # 618
Profile Homepage #65
Let's have a little quiz:

1)Why did Hitler become the monstrous leader of Germany? A: because in the closing days of WW1 he was hit by an american shell, killing the rest of his platoon and causing him to experience "shell shock" and turning him deeply insane.

2)How much has heroin production in Afghanistan gone up SINCE American "intervention"? A: roughly 1100% (seriously).

3)Who educates the majority of terrorist leaders? A: American universities (9/10 of those ivy league).

4)What is the meaning of the word terrorist? A: someone who inspires terror, you don't have to blow anything up to do that.

5)Running by the previous question, who is the world's biggest terrorist? A: America as a whole, George "dubya" Bush in particular.

6)Also running by that, what is the world's biggest terrorist organisation? A: the CIA (member for member).

7)Who is the world's biggest arms dealer? A: America (black market AND above-board).

8)Who startsthe most wars in the world? A: you guessed it, America.

9)Who backs the most wars in the world? A: yawn(!) America(!).

10)Finally, what is America's most common excuse for fighting a war? A: protecting national interests (the real honest to whatever truth).

Hitler didn't start a fight, he went insane and finalised one that was (for him at least) still going on. At the end of the day, (no offence to you people) if America DIDN'T exist, the world in all likelyhood would be ALOT better off. T.T.F.N.! (ta-ta-for-now).

--------------------
I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because i can, but i don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try.

In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo.
Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2242
Profile #66
Why are we arguing about things from WW1 and 2 again? I thought this was a discussion about Iraq. I'm done arguing over what could have or should have happened. It's possible that any of the things anyone posted COULD have happened.

I personally think that we're doing a decent job in Iraq. We just need to work more on rebuilding it.

--------------------
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes back into you."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Posts: 469 | Registered: Thursday, November 14 2002 08:00
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
Profile #67
Alec's theories of possibilities without American entry to WW1 are interesting, but they belong to the Turtledove thread of alternative history, which is about creating a good story. What we should be looking at here is what might actually happen.

German troops from the Eastern front did hit the Western front after Brest-Litovsk. And they damn near won the war. There was a general attack all along the line so the Allies couldn't concentrate their forces in one place and some of the French armies, still weakened after the troubles following the Nivelles offensive, as well as Gough's British army, numerically weak and led by an idiot, were forced back. For a while it seemed like the Germans would break them and they broke through the lines of the Aisne, but the French stopped them at the Marne with American assistance and ragtag brigades just held Amiens before Rawlinson's and Byng's armies counter-attacked and the Germans were forced to retreat.

Had their been no American entry, Britain would not have starved. Alec might claim that America would not have supplied Britain, but unless they were at war, they would have supplied Britain. In 1914, long before American views on the issue were decided, Britain still got large amounts of supplies from America. Germany didn't, due to the North Sea being held by the British.

Of course, Germany was angered by this and the cause of the declaration of war was German attempts to get Mexico to attack America. So one might argue that the only way American non-intervention could be secured would be if they put an embargo on Britain.

But this would be tantamount to war and if we think of Britain as neutral, this was never going to happen. So we must assume that Germany either puts up with it or Mexico ignores Germany, since the alternative would be lunacy, and America does not hear of the affair.

So come the Third Battle of the Aisne, Crown Prince Wilhelm leads his forces against an army without the morale boost of knowledge that 1 million US troops will be in France within a year, without even the small number of American troops who would put on a small offensive the next day.

So the situation is more serious. Ludendorff and Petain both suffer their breakdowns and have to be replaced by Foch and (if I remember correctly) Lossberg. For a while the Germans hope they can reach the capital. They do indeed cross the Marne, but with the failure of the offensive, the defenders of Paris receive new hope and fight the invaders out of the suburbs. (An alternative scenario is that Petain's advice to Haig to abandon the French and make for the Channel Ports is taken. The likely outcomes hereis that Britain suffers little, but Belgium is annexed and France is crippled.)

The Germans are weakened and counter-offensives force them back, almost in a state of rout. The Germans establish themselves on the Siegfried line with difficulty and settle down for the long run.

In Africa, von Lettow has finally surrendered to Smuts, freeing up more South African troops for the Western front. But they were not trained for trench warfare and few will arrive in time for the end of the war.

Late 1918 sees the war fought on a smaller scale. Offensives are just as murderous, but more split up. Moreover, whilst the continued poor harvests in Germany mean revolution looks ever closer, the Allied troops are also beginning to grow mutinous as the U-boats keep doing their murderous work.

The Kiel mutiny still occurs in late 1918. If the Allies rode out Third Aisne and Second Marne, it's likely history would have been the same and the war would have ended here. But lets say that the Kiel mutineers are persuaded to go back to work and the disorder doesn't spread.

However, come early 1919, with both sides suffering from the Spanish flu outbreak, Britain can launch a new tank offensive. The lessons of Cambrai have been learnt, and a hole is made in the lines. The Germans make a fighting retreat to the Rhine, harried by the British, French and King Leopold.

Later that year, as the mutineers refuse to leave port, the Royal Navy will feel confident enough to take back Heligoland. On the Hannover coast, landings are made, but the troops are too few to advance far inland.

And lets put the revolution here. With German troops still fighting or called away to fight separatist Lithuanians, Liebknecht, Luxembourg et al seize Berlin. Other rising burst out in Munich, Essen, Hamburg and the other German industrial towns. Faced with losing the country to communism, the generals must, as in real history, surrender to the Allies.

Lloyd George had still been re-elected on his 'Make the pips squeak' platform but he's no more sincere about it than he was and Clemenceau is in poorer health than in 1918. Besides, realpolitik dominates as the Allies agree on peace, with the French getting Alsace-Lorraine, Pilsudski getting Poland, perhaps even an independent Rhineland, anything for peace. German troops fight workers, and the Freikorps is here made up of those too young to fight in the war, but inspired by the Right. Allied troops fight too, but they have spent 5 years fighting Germans. They are not friendly. Nobody knows quite how it starts, but with industry militant in Britain and France, some soldiers mutiny. German soldiers throw in their lot with the workers too. In confused circumstances, all three fall to communist governments.

In future years, we will be as familiar with them as with Lenin and Stalin. The 1920s are a time of blood and terror. Revolution follows counter-revolution, Poland is crushed without western support, Italy is consumed in civil war, Spain is one giant bloodbath, eventually resulting in the virtual extinction of the aristocracy after the French intervene with the left.

America sees many different facets of socialism in the 20s. There is the Russian kind, where socialism in one country is never suggested by Bukharin. There is the French kind, which is often more akin to anarcho-syndicalism than communism. There is the British kind, which still manages to be innately conservative and preserves the monarchy, although Lordships are abolished and the landed gentry find their estates divided amongst the commons.

Perhaps Eugene Debs nearly gets in on a rise of popular acclaim. Perhaps immigration is stopped and there is a wave of anti-immigrant violence. Either way, a recession is likely.

This is all conjecture, and things would more than likely be nearer history than I have suggested. But any theory of stalemate is stupid. A stalemate would only be achieved if both sides suffered a revolution.

Also, Wilson was feeling merciful when he wrote the 14 Points. By November, having seen the German devastation in Northern France, he wasn't. In many cases, Lloyd George was the moderate.

Oh, and Trotsky's appeal was largely because of his role in the Russian civil war. The Red Army would have supported him if Stalin was less powerful, because he would still be leading it, not Frunze. Stalin's rise to power was the result of networking and Lenin's ill-health just after Stalin got General Secretary. The difference would have been that Zinoviev and Kamenev would have formed a triumvirate with someone else, perhaps Bukharin. Anyway, the real alternative history question is what would have happened had Sverdlov survived the flu epidemic.

--------------------
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned
I'll tell you my story, man
Though I wish I'd never been born
I'm loose at the seams,
I've broken my dreams
And my hand it shakes the pen
Come on, come on now baby,
Let the good times roll again
Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00
Agent
Member # 798
Profile Homepage #68
We should not be comparing The War in Iraq to WW2. We should be comparing it to Vietnam. It's obvious that this war is nothing but another Vietnam. In Vietnam US had no right being there. US just went in there for it's own selfish needs. But that's all put aside. Does anyone think Vietnam is any better now then it was then. Sure now that Vietnam opend up to tourism things have gotten better (mostly for the Rich, I doubt the poor are getting any of that money) But when US pulled out of there in the early 70's it wasn't any better than it was when we went in in the 60's. If anything it was worse than it was in the 60's. That is what this War is like. The U.S won't get anything accomplished. When The U.S Pulls out of Iraq Iraq will probably be even worse than it was when the war started. Face it ingeneral what do Wars achive. Nothing but blood and death. And what are they started for, usually religion, land or power. Wars are idiotic, they resolve nothing. But the people who make weapons for War make tons of money. I think that's why Vietnam lasted for as long as it did. Face it Vietnam was a mistake that everyone paid for dairly. And I have a feeling 20 years from now we'll be saying the same thing about the war in Iraq.

--------------------
Look Ma, I'm banned!
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Friday, March 22 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #69
Exactly. If America pulls out now, they'll have Vietnam all over. And if they don't, they end up with half of the forces there dead and the others deserted. Let's face it, the US are buggered.

--------------------
"And all should cry, Beware, Beware!
His Flashing eyes, his Floating hair!" S. T. Coleridge
---
"It is as if everyone had lost their sense
Consigned themselves to downfall and decadence
And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey.
---
Quote of the Week: "I have a high opinion of myself, which makes up for my total lack of intelligence." Anon.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
Profile #70
No, Vietnam happened because the US didn't pull out. Had they done so, the North Vietnamese government, which would have overwhelmingly won a plebiscite, would have overrun the south just like they did in 1975. Whether they'd then have turned into another Cambodia, however, is open to question. But you can never know when you've saved millions of lives, only when you've failed to do.

The other ingredients aren't there, either. There's not the guerilla force that's been fighting for more than two decades, the relatively unified nature of the opposition and it's a desert rather than a jungle. Moreover, Vietnam was actual combat operations at battalion level and above. Iraq isn't.

It's easy to make analogies, but they're unsuitable here. Iraq is like Iraq. That's as far as we can go.

--------------------
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned
I'll tell you my story, man
Though I wish I'd never been born
I'm loose at the seams,
I've broken my dreams
And my hand it shakes the pen
Come on, come on now baby,
Let the good times roll again
Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
Profile #71
Eh, that works, rather than having (everybody) spend all (their) time arguing about "what's really going on", and whether or not we (that includes everybody) know what we really know. Iraq doesn't matter to me, I can't do anything about it, and I'm too young to be drafted.
I could care less who does or doesn't hate Bush, it doesn't matter.

EDIT: (Edited for niceness. IMAGE(WTF are we still in Iraq (3)_files/biggrin.gif) )

[ Saturday, January 24, 2004 18:06: Message edited by: Desert Plah ]

--------------------
"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #72
Defeatism is a lovely attitude to have, isn't it? I mean, nothing is your problem if you don't acknowledge anything can be fixed.

IMAGE(WTF are we still in Iraq (3)_files/rolleyes.gif)

--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
Profile #73
Bleh, you disgust me. IMAGE(WTF are we still in Iraq (3)_files/tongue.gif)

--------------------
"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Agent
Member # 798
Profile Homepage #74
Actually there has been a civil War going on in Iraq between The Baath and the Kurds. Second most of the Mid East is under Civil war, In General The Mid East is not a Politically stable region. And SirDavid said we should declare War on N Korea. I have to differ. If US learned anything from The Korean War, The Vietnam War, and The War in the Pacific. It's one thing. Stay out of Asia. The Asians will fight you to the death. See The Asians are use to War, War is something the Asians are good at. Even though the Koreans and the Vietness are not as equiped with weapons as we are. They are destined to win or die trying, and that makes up for it. The Asians will never give in if US starts a war in Eastern Asia. They will fight to the death. The Koreans and other Eastern Asian groups are very determind when it comes to war. And I respect that about the N and S Koreans and other Eastern Asian groups. Now there has not been a War between the two Koreans in a while now. That is a good thing. And if Bush has atlest the IQ of Beevis or ButHead he will keep it that way. Allso, Isn't there enough lives being lost in Iraq. Why would anyone want more lives being lost in N Korea or Iran.

--------------------
Look Ma, I'm banned!
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Friday, March 22 2002 08:00

Pages