The war

[Ghaleon]

Hi everyone and welcome to the 'serious
discussion' section of hookahforum.comI'm working on a sticky
that will contain rules and expectations; I hope to have that up by
the end of the day, hit me up with any suggestions.We
have
active members from all over the world on this forum, and I imagine
that most people have some sort of opinion concerning the American
lead war in Iraq.  So lets start there; was America justified in
abandoning it's inernational ties to start this war?  Is it a
lost cause? How involed should the U.S. be in the establishment of a
democracy?  It's a pretty flexible topic, take it wherever you
like.
  -Ghaleon

[Highpockets]

Terrible idea as it was pretty clear that Saddam was no threat. Furthermore, Iraq is now recognized as the new breeding ground for terrorists, taking over for Afghanistan. Since Saddam was at odds with Islamists, being a secular leader ruling with an iron fist, this did not and could not happen under his regime. Now things are in disarray there. Granted, he was an awful person, but the benefit of having him removed in no way justifies the cost in terms of money or human life.
Now that we are invested there and have created the chaotic situation though, I think the US needs to stay involved. The upcoming election seems like it is coming too early though, there is no stability, and people don't know anything about the candidates.

[NERV]

i tihnk te whole war was a farce to get the oil, if its truley a question of a threatening nation, north korea has nukes.

[E.G.]

[quote name='NERV']i tihnk te whole war was a farce to get the oil, if its truley a question of a threatening nation, north korea has nukes.[/quote]
Gotta' admit, I'm prone to think this way as well but... where's the oil?  AFAIK, we haven't started taking the oil for ourselves (yet).
Maybe we're waiting for a sweetheart deal after the elections?  Kind of doubt it though, as I suspect whomever is elected isn't going to be overly friendly with the US. 
Not that elections really matter -- what the admin offical say yesterday, something like the number of people voting really doesn't matter, it's the outcome that counts?  Hey, it works here, why not there?

[NERV]

well it could also be bush family grudge against saddam, either way
it's obvious that the war wasnt actually for the benefit of iraq or
safety of the US, that will just be an added result

[E.G.]

[quote name='NERV']well it could also be bush family grudge against saddam, either way it's obvious that the war wasnt actually for the benefit of iraq or safety of the US, that will just be an added result[/quote]
Now that I agree with... mostly.  I rather favor the grudge argument.  I think that Bush really did think he'd be helping the country as a nice side benefit, and perhaps he has -- I'm not sure.  I'm not convinced that the US is any safer.
We invaded a country for no discernable reason.  The major reason we went in was the weapons of mass destruction (I think -- it may have been to spread democracy, or maybe it was to route out terroists.   Sort of depends on which official is speaking when).  Our goverment has finally admited that there are no WOMD.
So, we stormed in, pissed off a bunch of Iraquis and other Mid-Easterns and added to our over-seas reputation of being a nation being intent on imperialism.  I think there tends to be some truth in the idea that the invasion is going to be used as a recruitment tool for new terrorists, and in the end will probably have made us *less* safe.
While we're at it... Whatever happened to Osama?  I thought that's why we started stroming our way across the Mid-East, right, to capture him.  According to Slate.com a Washington Post reporter asked Bush why we haven't caught him yet.  Answer: "Because he's hiding."  Brilliant
E.G.

[tuma al Zrai]

The Americans have fundemental flaws in their perception of Iraq a a whole. The idea was that every one will smile and not shoot, and the oil fields will not have to be guarded as haliburton raped the country. The "nation" of Iraq is not a nation at all. It's a patchwork of different tribal relations, created in the 20's to serve Anglo-French oil interests and held together by brutal tyrants. What can I say, the Bush syndrome hits the homeland. It's really sad-Iraq has not know good governing for longer than 2 years scince the days of the great Caliphates. The Mogols came and burnt, the Turks stayed for 500 years of brutality, the British destroyed the future of Iraq, without access to the sea, Iraqi oil had to pass through non-Iraqi hands. The Kuwaitis grew rich, protected by their colonial pay-masters. Then they linked Iraq with the Hashemites in Jordan, trying to force the poeple into being a bulwark against Arab nationalism. Then along came Saddam, and the American honeymoon with the Baathists. Noone ever speaks of this, buts its just denying history. Halabja was gassed with American weapons, and Iranian soldiers were targeted with American Satelites. All this turned sour, after Saddam disobeyed a dirrect order and invaded Kuwait, hiding behind a facade of Nasserism. It's true that Iraq is a breading groung for terror, but not in the common scense. When a young man in Cairo or Tunis or Amman sees live coverage of a raid that's labeled 'precise", and hears American Generals calling dozens of dead Arabs called "collateral damage", it hits a nerve. imagine 50 Americans draged through Bagdad, the effect it would have on Americans thought and understanding. It's like in 1996, The UN santuary of Qana in south Lebanon was housing 200 civilians hiding from bombs. The Israelis bombed the shelter, and planes straffed ambulances and survivors. This was all happening live, on Satelite TV. This is what drives terrorism. You should read Bin Ladens' speach from October 2001, alot of it makes real scense, he's not the raving lune hes made out to be. Now the idiots in the Pentagon are seriouslly thinking of implementing the "Salvador Option", death squads from the days of the central American Contras. Some others wan't to take on Iran, the 800-pound Gorilla in the corner of the middle east, mostly because Iran is the only state to make Isael tremble and America blush. All the while North Korea tests real warheads.

[tuma al Zrai]

I'd just like to add to my previous post that more and more videos turn up in which a young Iraqi says "ana al shuhada al qhi", basically i am a martyr. They say this without a mask, and it shows that increasingly, Shuhadas ("martyrs") view themselves as dying for the divine, not just their country or people. It means that Islamists and nationalists are being fused together by the American presence, meaning that the Americans create their own demons in the country. You reap what you sow.

[MR Bubble]

Alright, time for the not-so-old retired military guy: Now, I can express my feelings on it all and not have to worry about the "Good order and discipline" and all......I think we (most of the American public) were taken for a ride. I saw it in the Army many times: New boss in charge, makes the old boss look like a loser, and gets away with turning the unit upside-down. Bush is the same way. Hated Clinton (who I thought was a very good Commander-in-Chief) and created the WMD thing to get people seeing him as all-knowing, wise and bla, bla, bla... The betterment of the Iraqis' lives is just a by-product of the war. Well, what's done is done. Can't go back in time. (Trust me, I always pray to go back 10 years and it doesn't work) Now, we need to stick thias thing out. The elections are a good thing. I don't credit Bush or any of his talking heads for it though. If you go in and dork up a country's government (no matter how flakey it was), and their security, don't you think it is the moral thing to help them re-establish a government and assist them in elections? Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Daddy Bush, Bill, and all their running oponents would have too. That is, if they were so dorked up to ignore the U.N Security Counsel, the State Department and invade them in the first place. So, Little George isn't doing something so profound by pushing so-called democratic elections off on them. It is only the natural thing to do. Hey, I'll even switch directions and talk about the election here. I followed the elections very closely. I tend to keep my mouth shut and listen to gather information. There was nothing Senator Kerry EVER said that caused me to believe he would NOT do a better job in completing what Little George started. "I voted for it before I voted against it" was nothing but a smear tactic used. I listened (actually LISTENED) to what he said. Made perfect sense to me. We missed out on a lot better package.
Anyway, Since we have realized that elections in Iraq should be a natural process, part of reparations for us going in, and not some profound good pre-intended action by the Administration, how do I think it will work out? Well, the talking-heads think we will get showered by roses, free falafals, and respect galore. I think not. I don't think democracy (as we know it) will take hold so easily (if ever) in the mid-east. The Kurds want hard realestate. The Shias (spelling deficiencies, I hope, will be excused) and the sunnies have their own, different brand of Islam. The Shias want a Shiaet religious leader in charge, The sunnies would rather kill the Shias that even imagine a Shiate leader and on, and on, and on. I cannot find it in my heart to find any negatives about Islam. In fact, I think Islam makes perfect sense. The only thing that doesn't make sense is the way some distort it to get young kids fired up, fusing themselves with explosives because they think a holy struggle is war with anyone who isn't Muslim. Yea, right. So, with 3 major ( we know there are more than just three groups) groups of people, at odds with each other, how can you successfully elect a leader who (by blood) belongs to one party and everyone live happily ever after? Unless, of course, he turns into a leader who rules with an iron fist, executing anyone who speaks out,and creating a constant fear. Then, the U.S. can say "you have WMD!" and the follies start all over again. My heart goes out to my former brother soldiers. God's speed to you! And my heart goes out to the people of Iraq. Good luck to you!
Am I still loved?
MR Bubble

[tuma al Zrai]

Sunna and Shia Islam aren't differant branches, they just dissagreed on governance of the caliphate, killed a few of each other, and have had mutual animosity ever scince. the principles are all the same, hias go on Hajj and perform the same rites as Sunnis. Secondly, whst makes you think "democracy" in the western scence is not viable in the middle east? Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, and Syria all had democratically elected governments before they were shot down from outside the region, and Lebanon has been a republic since anyone can remember. Besides, the Kurds were fought with American suppport by Saddam at first, so please, noone say how they were abused so much by this evil, evil scapegoat. Besides, most of Kurdistan is in Turkey, but they weren't given their own state because the British and French knew that they were sitting on a jackpot of black gold. Seperated groups can't resist successfully, the Turks use American weapons against American "allies" in Iraq, the Kurds. The Turkmen have no claim to the region, they are Turkish settlers who stole lands durring the Ottoman occupation. The Assyrians and Chaldeans mind their own damn business, and they don't cause or receive trouble. The Shi'ites are always screwed over.They were steamrolled in Lebanon and were ignored in Iraq, but they were seen as troublesome by the Americans in the 80s because they were co-religeonists with Iran and Hezbollah. The Suinnis were the clear majority when Iraq was formed, and up until the early 70s. They only got into the majority because they had too many kids in two generations. And Shi'ites don't all wan't a damn theocracy, that's an old steryotype left over from the Revolution against the Shah. Most would be fine with a secular leader, but they almost always pay greatest reverance to the supreme Ayatollahs, Khomeinei and Sistani, but for religeos, not political, guidance.

[Aggroman]

I find it incredible that people still can't get past the fact that oil
is at the root of this.  his war and every American action in the
Middle East for the past century is directly or indirectly related to
oil. They are not there for the olives.  They do not
arm Israel with billions each year for sand. 

Setting up Iraq with a government that will "co-operate" with forgein
oil companies is critical for U.S. policy.  The "threat" that
Saddam presented to the United States is the same threat they've been
fighting in the Middle East for years: the threat of Arab nationalism
and its crazy notion that Arab's natural resources belongs to them, not
to Western multinationals.  This is why the United States
destroyed the democracy in Iran after Mossadegh moved to nationalize
the oil and this is why they hate Iran today.  You can look at
Latin America for a parallel to this attitude.  For years, any
nation (Nicauaragua, El Salvadore, Guatemala, Chile, etc.) that has
made moves to secure their own resources at the expense of American
companies (United Fruit in Latin America's case) has been
crushed.  The same is the case in Iraq.

To "take" their oil is as simple as having a "friendly" government like
the one in Saudi Arabia and the little Oil fiefdoms (like the one I'm
residing in) that will ensure that western oil companies can make a
fortune off of their reserves. 

That is the situation America hoped to create in Iraq through the years
they supported Saddam (right through his most monsterous
atrocities).  When it became clear that he would not co-operate,
he was crushed, just as is every other nation that dares to keep their
natural wealth for their people instead of giving it to the U.S. and
Britain.

No, E.G., they are not literally looting Iraq's oil reserves as we
speak.  They are setting up a regime that will allow companies
like Shell, Exxon, Chevron, etc. to do this.  That is why this war
and every other war in the Middle East (save Israel's wars of expansion
and occupation) is and will be about oil.

[Lakemonster]

Heres my take on it.
Saddam didnt fly airplanes in to our buildings.
Osama DID. Why arent we concentrating our efforts on him instead of tackling the straw man.

[Soup]

[quote name='Lakemonster']Heres my take on it.
Saddam didnt fly airplanes in to our buildings.
Osama DID. Why arent we concentrating our efforts on him instead of tackling the straw man.[/quote]
It is a case of "Why go out for steak when burgers are already caught"...ok, bad analogy, but it works.  Eversince Saddam was caught it was big news and Osama has fallen off into the back of peoples minds.  When was the last time you heard any new information in the search for Osama?