Iraq War

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

FreedomFighterXL
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:10 am

Iraq War

Postby FreedomFighterXL » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:47 am

(Update: Since this thread has had very little to do with the Iraq-Oil connection that some people bring up, I think it is appropriate to change the title so people are aware that this is about the Iraq war in general)



This is one of the most common arguments made by those who disapprove of the president, and I can't say there's any evidence to support it.

My question for all those who believe this idea would be the following.

Would our president:

Declare war on a country
topple it's dictator and it's sons
turn it into an occupation that
gives it a constitution
gives it's people the right to vote
gives it a security force (which is still in progress)
end up losing approval the entire time
results in the death of over 3200 troops
spends over 400 billion in the process
authorizes more controversial interrogation methods
take crap from protesters, and other countries
suggest the use of hydrogen as a future fuel (only once, but still)
Pushes forth the utilization of ethanol (cost: $1.50 gal)

all in the name of oil?

I hate to say this but this is just crazy that at least half the country thinks this. How would he benefit from getting oil when the above circumstances apply? :roll:

I won't criticize those that share this belief, I won't learn anything if I do that, but I do want some of your reasons for thinking this, because I just can't understand where this comes from. :?
Last edited by FreedomFighterXL on Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
O'Brien
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:05 pm

Postby O'Brien » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:59 am

I have to agree with you on how utterly simple-minded it is to bash the president by merely calling him oil-hungry. History might never know why Bush felt like sending troop to Iraq. Maybe he wanted to avenge his father? Or perhaps he feels he's on a quest assigned to him by God? Or is it because Bush was influnced by his advisors and corporate allies who viewed Iraq as a chance to make more money? Bush possibly might have even felt that the Domino Theory would be on his side in that a democracy in Iraq would mean terrorists would lose influence all over the Middle East.

For whatever reason though, one fact remains; Bush clearly is incapable of seeing just how bad the Iraq situation is. He and his cronies failed to plan out the invasion and occupation properly, and they don't want to admit any failure at all. Bush refuses to admit he's wrong, and he earnestly believes what he's doing is the right thing. This sort of mentallity is essentially the reason why Bush has let the Iraq war drag on and on.
Image

Every step back a step foward.
Every failure an extra opportunity for success.
Every day of defeat a victory!
Kyle the Skeptic
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:06 pm

Postby Kyle the Skeptic » Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:22 am

Technically speaking, the war was about oil, in the sense that Iraq's oil-based economy factored into the reasons why the Bush administration thought it would be okay to use military force in Iraq. However, it was not about oil in the sense that a lot of people believe. Paul Wolfowitz claimed that Iraq's oil would readily pay for the nation's own reconstruction in the aftermath of any war. To phrase it more cynically, he believed it would be okay to bomb the hell out of them, because their oil can pay for whatever damage we cause. Of course, this is a very different thing from going over there to steal (as in illegally remove) the oil by force.

The thing about the US oil economy is that the United States itself is its main supplier of oil. The problem is that demand is so high, it all gets used up. Canada is our second highest supplier, Mexico is third, and Saudi Arabia is fourth (if I remember correctly). Of the top oil producing nations in the world, Iraq comes in 10th.

You can find the statistics HERE.
HellStrykeXL
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:47 am

Postby HellStrykeXL » Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:31 pm

Allright FreedomFighterXL, you've convinced me to come back on here, and I see you really liked the last part of my user name. You really desecrated the views held by those who think Iraq was about oil, I respect that 100%.

O'Brien wrote:For whatever reason though, one fact remains; Bush clearly is incapable of seeing just how bad the Iraq situation is. He and his cronies failed to plan out the invasion and occupation properly, and they don't want to admit any failure at all.


That's bullsh*t, he sees family members of those who've fallen in action everyday, and as commander-in-chief, he can get a birds eye view of what's going on through the camera of any UAV, or spy satellite, along with some other things which cannot be named.

Do you really think he knew at the time that it would become an occupation? What exactly did he do improperly in the planning, are you some kind of military strategist? :evil: Point out the mistakes if you're going to make statements like that. I don't get how you could call a war that results in 10,000 of Saddam's troops surrendering in days poorly planned. As for rebuilding the country and training it's security forces (which is what I've spent most of my time doing), what can you say should be done differently in that aspect?

This sort of mentallity is essentially the reason why Bush has let the Iraq war drag on and on.


Oh sure, he doesn't want us to leave a country in defeat, let it destroy itself, and then become a haven for terrorists. If that's a bad mentality, then I don't know what to say.

To phrase it more cynically, he believed it would be okay to bomb the hell out of them, because their oil can pay for whatever damage we cause.


KtS, do you think we were bombing just any target with unguided missiles, or do you think the buildings attack were likely attacked for a reason? You do have a point though, the biggest reason why Iraq's oil fields were secured is because it would preserve a necessary asset Iraq would need to rebuild.
ShaneHaughey wrote:
Sizzling Lynn wrote:A guy in my grade eleven Bio class last year was dared to lick a rat's balls and he went along with it...is that considered manly?

No, that is the opposite of manly.
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6121
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Postby triplemultiplex » Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:49 pm

HellStrykeXL wrote:Do you really think he knew at the time that it would become an occupation? What exactly did he do improperly in the planning, are you some kind of military strategist? :evil: Point out the mistakes if you're going to make statements like that. I don't get how you could call a war that results in 10,000 of Saddam's troops surrendering in days poorly planned. As for rebuilding the country and training it's security forces (which is what I've spent most of my time doing), what can you say should be done differently in that aspect?


If the war planners had done their homework, things would be a lot different now. I don't see how they couldn't have anticipated becoming an occupation force. This was a country where a religious and ethnic minority oppressed the majority of the country for decades. Did they think the Shiites where just gonna be like, "Hey, no hard feelings, Sunnis."?

Then there's the "oh, no sh*t" concept that when you remove a dictatorial government like Saddam's, you create a massive power vacuum. And if you don't have enough troops in country to fill that vacuum, it will be filled for you by every local dick-cheese trying to make a name for himself. (I'm looking at you, Zarqawi (dead) and Sadr.

The Sunni/Shiite conflict is a centuries old rivalry and the fact that they either didn't know about it or simply ignored it is some pretty piss-poor planning in my book.

This war was concocted by a bunch of beauacrats trying to do it on the cheap. So what we got was a great plan to beat Saddam, and then no plan to deal with the aftermath. Just a lot of "They'll welcome us as liberators" and "Iraq's oil will pay for reconstruction".
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
Big-Will
Board Moderator
Posts: 18830
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 8:57 am

Postby Big-Will » Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:54 pm

HellStrykeXL wrote:Oh sure, he doesn't want us to leave a country in defeat, let it destroy itself, and then become a haven for terrorists. If that's a bad mentality, then I don't know what to say.

His second term is almost over, so if he wants to wrap this up, he'd better do it soon. The nation isn't going to elect a president who's going to continue this war. One way or another, it's giong to end. If that means Iraq is going to become a terrorist haven, that's a pity, but the reasons for going to war there have been made into lies, which are an insult in the minds of those who've spoken out against the war.
The South Park Scriptorium
The South Park Scriptorium on Facebook

Favorite Character: Butters
Need to look for something on the board? Use the search links below: US version
plk12345
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:16 pm

Postby plk12345 » Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:00 pm

maybe it wouldn't be so bad without these rules of engagement
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6121
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Postby triplemultiplex » Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:05 pm

HellStrykeXL wrote:Oh sure, he doesn't want us to leave a country in defeat, let it destroy itself, and then become a haven for terrorists. If that's a bad mentality, then I don't know what to say.


Iraq is already in the process of destroying itself and it already is a haven for terrorists now. So your scenario about us leaving has already happened while we're still there.
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!
O'Brien
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:05 pm

Postby O'Brien » Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:27 pm

HellStrykeXL wrote:That's bullsh*t, he sees family members of those who've fallen in action everyday, and as commander-in-chief, he can get a birds eye view of what's going on through the camera of any UAV, or spy satellite, along with some other things which cannot be named.

So Bush has access to all of these resources you speak of. Well, have we seen Bush modify his plans greatly based on what infomation he gets? That's the more important question, and so far his only answer is just deploy more and more troops. For some reason, Bush still thinks he can win in Iraq despite how the situation really is.

Do you really think he knew at the time that it would become an occupation? What exactly did he do improperly in the planning, are you some kind of military strategist? :evil: Point out the mistakes if you're going to make statements like that. I don't get how you could call a war that results in 10,000 of Saddam's troops surrendering in days poorly planned. As for rebuilding the country and training it's security forces (which is what I've spent most of my time doing), what can you say should be done differently in that aspect?

Please, there's simply no excuse for failing to anticipate any possible snags, just none. Too few US troops were initinally deployed to do a good job of policing the country at all, the Iraqi army was essentially disbanded and set loose so they could become future insurgents, and the American civilians that worked on Iraq's reconstruction were picked for their Party loyalty, not their competence. Who cares if the US beat the Iraqis in conventional warfare? What matters is that Bush just blindly assumed Iraq would be a cakewalk from start to finish.

Oh sure, he doesn't want us to leave a country in defeat, let it destroy itself, and then become a haven for terrorists. If that's a bad mentality, then I don't know what to say.

There's nothing else the US can do now, Iraq is now FUBAR. The terrorists won't stop breeding until we leave, and they'll then go back to killing each other once we do so. If the terrorists were capable of coming here, they would have done so already.
Image

Every step back a step foward.
Every failure an extra opportunity for success.
Every day of defeat a victory!
FreedomFighterXL
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:10 am

Postby FreedomFighterXL » Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:14 am

HellStrykeXL? You're Back? Thank god. :D I really wish I had your occupation, and I'll likely send a few private messages asking you what you do and how you got there.

I'll use the same list format I used with the intro to this thread.

1. 3mx, no doubt has there been disagreement with the Sunni/Shiite divisions, they both have slightly separate beliefs, so them going at each other to some extent is recognizable. But then again, (and of course you guys are going to disagree with this) the same basic situation occurred with the civil war. We had two groups in the same country, who had somewhat different beliefs about what our country should do in terms of slavery for instance, and they fought each other out. But they still manged to form up a non-violent country.

Along with this, just what preparations did you have in mind?

2. When it was considered that we would be occupying the country, I don't think anyone could've known how long it would've taken or what the circumstances would be. It seemed a lot like we were making good progress at first, but now our country is running low on patience.

Yes, we are trying to keep the power vacuum filled, until a security force can fill it itself.

3. The idea that Iraq is destroying itself now is refuted by not only HellStrykeXL, but also by every servicemen I've gotten the chance to talk to. All you have are just a few acts of sectarian violence and that's it. Iraq now has a government, a constitution, and like HellStrykeXL said, a security force that can handle itself is now in progress.

None of these things were able to happen overnight, or at least in the amount of time that was expected, so we really don't have much of a choice but to give this country the future that it deserves.

So Bush has access to all of these resources you speak of. Well, have we seen Bush modify his plans greatly based on what infomation he gets?


4. There's a good chance that he has, but do you think there's really much that can be done? I think a lot of people believe that there are ways to make the situation in Iraq calm overnight, but the president just refuses to do so. If that were the case, don't you think he would make changes into action that would solve the problem, so he would get his 9/11 era approval ratings back?

For some reason, Bush still thinks he can win in Iraq despite how the situation really is.


And do you think you have a good idea of what the situation really is? Seems like a lot of people only trust what's on the news, and that's it.

That's the more important question, and so far his only answer is just deploy more and more troops.


5. I should note that the whole purpose of the troop surge was to finish off the insurgency, and to get enough servicemen in the country to actually patrol the streets (to prevent IEDs from getting planted). There just wasn't enough troops there to do a decent rebuild, and many generals on the ground admitted that the troops had a bit too much stress on their shoulders to do their jobs effectively, and that more would be needed to take care of the workload.

American civilians that worked on Iraq's reconstruction were picked for their Party loyalty, not their competence.


I had to reread this to make sure I read it right the first time, but do you seriously think that only incompetent republicans are rebuilding Iraq? :lol:

The terrorists won't stop breeding until we leave, and they'll then go back to killing each other once we do so. If the terrorists were capable of coming here, they would have done so already.


6. So you think that terrorists are breeding just because we're there, I can't understand that at all. And you've just admitted that once we leave, (if things aren't ready in my mind) they'll go back to killing each other, so what's your plan?

I should also add the reason terrorists aren't attacking the US: why would they take their time to try and cross into the US when the temptation to take on US troops is burning at it's brightest?

the reasons for going to war there have been made into lies, which are an insult in the minds of those who've spoken out against the war.


Lies? This is another statement put forth (I pretty much think it's just as crazy, but much simpler than the Iraq about oil thing, but do you really think (assuming your referring to pre-war intel) that the president can just look at an intel report and know it's false? It just doesn't work that way. When several of the world's biggest intel agencies (from MI5 to the CIA) say the same basic thing, what would you do?

Good Christ, this is the most I've ever typed up and posted in my entire life.......... :shock:

BigWill, I know this is off topic, but is this a new record? :D
O'Brien
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:05 pm

Postby O'Brien » Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:01 am

FreedomFighterXL wrote: There's a good chance that he has, but do you think there's really much that can be done? ..... If that were the case, don't you think he would make changes into action that would solve the problem, so he would get his 9/11 era approval ratings back?

Frankly, there isn't much of anything that can be done at this point. For sure, no magic solutions for Iraq exist at all. As for Bush's approval ratings, the president has said repeatedly that he doesn't pay attention to polls so I highly doubt he really cares for ratings at this point.

And do you think you have a good idea of what the situation really is?

Do you really think it's a good situation in one area if car bombs go off almost every single day?

There just wasn't enough troops there to do a decent rebuild, and many generals on the ground admitted that the troops had a bit too much stress on their shoulders to do their jobs effectively, and that more would be needed to take care of the workload.

So you agree that the surge hasn't worked.

I had to reread this to make sure I read it right the first time, but do you seriously think that only incompetent republicans are rebuilding Iraq?

I'm afraid that it's not very far from the truth: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193_pf.html.

So you think that terrorists are breeding just because we're there, I can't understand that at all. And you've just admitted that once we leave, (if things aren't ready in my mind) they'll go back to killing each other, so what's your plan?

There sure wern't any terrorists in Iraq back in the old days of Saddam's rule. So of course our presence has sparked the rise of the insurgency. And who says we need a plan to stop the Iraqis from killing each other when we leave? America needs to grasp that Iraq is done for, and move on and let someone else take care of the mess. Harsh, but true.

I should also add the reason terrorists aren't attacking the US: why would they take their time to try and cross into the US when the temptation to take on US troops is burning at it's brightest?

With that logic, 9/11 couldn't have happened before the US military was chased out of Saudi Arabia. The bombers in Madrid and London didn't bother waiting for Spain and the UK to pull out from Iraq either, so what makes you think the terrorists are too lazy to strike elsewhere?

do you really think (assuming your referring to pre-war intel) that the president can just look at an intel report and know it's false?

The faulty intell was all Bush (and everyone else) had, but he basically went with it anyway.
Image

Every step back a step foward.
Every failure an extra opportunity for success.
Every day of defeat a victory!
FreedomFighterXL
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:10 am

Postby FreedomFighterXL » Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:50 am

Do you really think it's a good situation in one area if car bombs go off almost every single day?


You're missing the point here, of course something bad will happen everyday, that's not the issue here. What I was saying here is that people think the situation is total chaos, people dying left and right. You get the idea. But compare Iraq with Vietnam, the Korean war, or every world war that has happened. Iraq isn't anywhere near perfect. But to say that a war is total utter chaos because a bomb goes off or someone dies everyday isn't quite an accurate statement. Only 2-3 troops die everyday on average, not a very big number by historical standards.

So you agree that the surge hasn't worked.


I would suggest rereading my post. What I said was that prior to the troop surge there wasn't enough forces to effectively rebuild the country as liked. I don't see anything where I make such a comment. :roll:

As for the link you gave, good point, but do you really think there would be very many democrats in support of doing anything for the war effort? This sure doesn't seem to be the case with the current Senate, and the surplus of protesters out there. Do you think maybe the article might have been only pointed out the incompetent candidates for the jobs and none of the decent ones, just because he wanted to make a point?

There sure wern't any terrorists in Iraq back in the old days of Saddam's rule. So of course our presence has sparked the rise of the insurgency. And who says we need a plan to stop the Iraqis from killing each other when we leave? America needs to grasp that Iraq is done for, and move on and let someone else take care of the mess. Harsh, but true.


Oh sure, and they'll leave Iraq when we leave, I doubt it.

I personally think these people deserve better that to watch their country collapse. This is sick, these people have nothing, and are just beginning to experience what it's like to vote, to not risk torture and murder by Saddam just because of their beliefs, nonetheless, not have to cover themselves up in public (in terms of the Iraqi women). To experience that, and to have it crushed right before their eyes is something I personally would never let happen.

With that logic, 9/11 couldn't have happened before the US military was chased out of Saudi Arabia. The bombers in Madrid and London didn't bother waiting for Spain and the UK to pull out from Iraq either, so what makes you think the terrorists are too lazy to strike elsewhere?


Again, what I said was that when you have an entire army in a country, they are going to focus on what's in front of them. A whole maximal military force is much different then a few units stationed at some base. They don't really have much of a choice anyway, because once they get into the US, every phone call will be tracked, and in today's world a group of middle easterns suddenly moving into major cities isn't something that goes unnoticed. Plus, the bombers have been confirmed to have no link to Al-Qeada, or a Sunni insurgency. They are one of few groups who have gone Jihad outside of any group in Iraq, they aren't the result of the Iraq war.

The faulty intell was all Bush (and everyone else) had, but he basically went with it anyway.


I'd like some proof of that, or at least a link. I don't know of anyone who can distinguish a true intel report form a faulty one.
ShaneHaughey
Posts: 11192
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:36 pm

Postby ShaneHaughey » Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:22 am

Bush has done the best he can, and with the best advice he can get. The problems:

1- The United States Military is built to seek out, identify, and obliterate other armed force. However, it is not a police force and, therefore, the rules of engagement on the battlefield do not apply in urban, insurgent fighting. Different rules are needed in these areas as teh type of fighting is different.

2- Money has been mismanaged. Much has been spent, but some of it has been put into the wrong departmehts.

3- It makes the country a beacon. If you're a terrorist, Iraq is what you want. Not only do you get to fight your enemy, but you can fight in such a way that makes you look heroic to many moderates.

4- Religion. Sunni and Shiites have loathed each other for centuries. This will continue after we're gone. What we didn't take into consideration was that hatred when combined with the favoritism shown to the Sunnis during the regime equals a bomb.


But guess what? What has happened since the invasion has not shocked me. In fact, I thought we'd have closer to 10,000 dead and with a bit more civilian deaths by now.

Welcome back, HellStryke!
That's how it's down here on the farm!
Kyle the Skeptic
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:06 pm

Postby Kyle the Skeptic » Sat Apr 28, 2007 2:58 am

Bush himself said during the 2000 campaigns that the role of the US military is to fight and win wars, not to shoulder the burden of nation-building. He should listen to himself (and his father) more often.

Also, regarding the civilian deaths, this does relate to the first point that Shane mentioned. Urban warfare requires different tactics. If you engage in search and destroy missions, or launch missiles on targets in places where there are large concentrations of people, innocent civilians are going to get caught in the crossfire, no matter how careful you are. The insurgents certainly aren't shy about ducking into civilian crowds for cover.

Leaving Iraq to take care of itself is not going to set off a chain reaction, or make things any worse than they already are. There'd be less incentive for terrorists to come into Iraq to shoot at Americans. Besides, it's what the Iraqi people want, and if they're supposed to be governing themselves, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to decide their own fate. I'd bet that Clinton would have known when to pull out (oh yes, pun intended :twisted: ).

Regardless, I was against going to war in Iraq in the first place because I had supported the war in Afghanistan. After all, the Taliban did harbor the group responsible for attacking the US, and they had a long list of human rights abuses under their regime. It was not necessary to divert money and resources away from that operation for the sake of the Iraq war.
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6121
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Postby triplemultiplex » Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:35 am

FreedomFighterXL wrote:1. 3mx, no doubt has there been disagreement with the Sunni/Shiite divisions, they both have slightly separate beliefs, so them going at each other to some extent is recognizable. But then again, (and of course you guys are going to disagree with this) the same basic situation occurred with the civil war. We had two groups in the same country, who had somewhat different beliefs about what our country should do in terms of slavery for instance, and they fought each other out. But they still manged to form up a non-violent country.


That analogy doesn't work. America's civil war is not rooted in a religious divide over 700 years old. We didn't fight ourselves over slavery many times in our history. We only did it once.

A closer analogy might be the Catholics vs. the Protestants in Northern Ireland.

At any rate, I would hardly call the US a non-violent country. Just compare our murder rate and incarceration rate to every other post-industrial country.

FreedomFighterXL wrote:Yes, we are trying to keep the power vacuum filled, until a security force can fill it itself.


Except we didn't fill the vacuum right after we toppled Saddam's regime. Too few troops meant no security in much of the country which allowed the insurgency to gather support.

FreedomFighterXL wrote:I should also add the reason terrorists aren't attacking the US: why would they take their time to try and cross into the US when the temptation to take on US troops is burning at it's brightest?


Do you like the idea of us sending our soldiers over there to be targets? Because I think that's pretty sh*tty.

FreedomFighterXL wrote:But compare Iraq with Vietnam, the Korean war, or every world war that has happened. Iraq isn't anywhere near perfect. But to say that a war is total utter chaos because a bomb goes off or someone dies everyday isn't quite an accurate statement. Only 2-3 troops die everyday on average, not a very big number by historical standards.


Apples and oranges. Soldiers in those wars didn't have access to body armor, medical technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, so has the soldiers' offensive capability, they have instant access to air support the vast majority of the time. The number of wounded soldiers is something like 8 times the 3,300+ killed. Apparently, vets wounded in this war have lost limbs at the highest rate since the Civil War.

I see Bush's "troop surge" as nothing more than passing off his war to the next president. Him and his kind will continue to pitch the "give it time to work" line they've been cramming down our throats for 4 f*ckin' years until his term is up. Then he'll shake hands with the next president and say, "It's your problem, now."

Regardless of how we pry this bear trap off our ankle, Bush's legacy will forever be the single worst foreign policy move in the history of this country. In your face, Lyndon Johnson!
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests