DM's Beatles forums
Other forums => Current Affairs => Topic started by: somedude210 on September 14, 2007, 01:28:05 PM
-
justified or not, what do you think about the war, the new surge or any recent developments.
-
I guess technically it's not even a war. The armed forces of the sovereign state of Iraq gave it up years ago. This is really civilians attacking an occupying force. A bit like the French Resistance, without the sexy chicks and berets. Britain never accepted that Northern Ireland was a war (they did not want to elevate the "enemy" to a status above that of criminals) yet the situation is remarkably similar. But I guess we/you have to call it one to give it a little credability.
And coming up with the word "surge" was a bit of genius. So much less embarrassing than "reinforce" with all its conontations of failure.
I find it hard to decide who's winning or loosing (or what winning or loosing actually means), but if you put a gun to my head, I'd say we're loosing. There is clear daylight between the US and UK now. The UK has definately lost its appetite (and ability) to continue the fight and is desperate for a way out. It is the hottest issue in the US with an election approaching.
-
It's become a 'war' of attrition. Eventually the US will have to give up on a battle they can't win, and maybe accept that it's not in everyone's culture to accept democracy. You'd have thought Vietnam would have taught them something.
-
Yep. I think we need to remember that as British we have to say "us" and not "them".
But then we had Malaya (an "Emergency", not a "War") to prove that an insurgency could be beaten. And I guess that the US can say that in 1941 no one would have anticipated Germany and Japan becoming capatilist democracies and trusted allies under US occupation.
And to be honest I don't think imposition of democracy was ever a US aim in Vietnam. They would have been happy with a right wing military dictatorship if that meant the defeat of the communists.
I love a quote from an Isreali general when asked about the difficulties of defeating a civilian insurgency. "Isn't it like looking for a needle in a haystack?" he was asked.
"Easy" he said. "You just burn down the haystack."
-
Our own senators (finally!!!) are starting to bring up the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. This undeclared war (police action?) is a losing proposition for anyone who doesn't have oil interests. Someone tried to tell me that we were fighting a righteous action because Saddam gassed the Kurds. :o I can tell you, the average American thinks the Iraqis flew the planes into the Twin Towers and a Kurd is something you find in cottage cheese. It's the ill-informed being steered by the self-interested.
There's a new movie out in the regular theatres on this topic, called No End in Sight. My parents saw it yesterday and found it "compelling. Especially moving was the young Marine who did good work in Iraq, worked with local Iraqis, and saw it all fall apart."
Summary:
The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraqs descent into guerilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy, NO END IN SIGHT is a jaw-dropping, insiders tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the spring of 2003), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of occupation of Iraq through May 2003), as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers and prominent analysts.
-
It seems that the U.S. is thoroughly invested in maintaining a foothold in the region. I can't see them giving it up, unfortunately, whether Dems or Reps are in power. Sad but...
:-/
-
We desperately need a third party in this country--one that represents the PEOPLE.
-
the president has no intention of pulling us out....the lying bastard, people hail him for pulling out one, ONE military unit that was going to be rotated out anyway. we cannot maintain this. we have our armed forces doing 5 and 6 tours of duty, well beyond the maximum number of tours a unit can do...let the generals do their job, they know how to run the military, thats why they're generals and you're the f***ing president
-
a poliitical fund raising travesty......but the terroists probally need to be contained at some point...
-
...let the generals do their job, they know how to run the military, thats why they're generals and you're the f***ing president
Doesn't your constitution make your head of state also the commander in chief of the armed forces? Tis a monster of your own creation.
In the UK the prime minister has no legal right to tell the army anything operationally. That is why we were spared the horror of Churchillian tactics in WW11.
Hitler was CinC and HoS, and his inability to seperate the 2 roles cost him dearly.
Stalin soon learnt to bow out and left all military decisions to his generals. And won.
-
mm, funny that. well remember that when that idea came about, most presidents would have military experience anyway (since i mean, our first president was the general in charge of continental forces during the late stages of the revolution)
-
Actually I think you'll find that heads of state as commander-in-chiefs is common. Queen Elizabeth is ours. (Technicaly the prime minister is just the head of the government appointed by her - hence the modesty of 10 Downing Street and the luxury of Buckingham Palace, and Britains disquiet over Blairs presidential style)
It makes good constitutional sense. It should in theory prevent the military overthrowing the regime, as it is the regime that gives it it's orders. A military operating independantly of the state is a scary thought.
-
indeed it is. but it is when you cross those lines and make the military political, you start to completely f*ck up the country.
case in point: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/20/countdown-special-comment-the-president-of-hypocrisy/
-
There is a good practical reason for the head of state to have control over the military. To react quickly to immediate threats without bogging down in political debate. Defend the country first, then sort out the policy later. Unfortunately, this can be abused by a bad egg in power.
;)
-
Damn, but the "surge" (love that word, just like "collateral damage" ) seems to be working.
BBC had a doco recently, following UK troops in action in Afghanistan. Whenever they stopped on patrol, the Afghan Army soldiers with them with would all sit down and smoke spliffs - even in dodgy combat situations. Presuming the Taliban don't touch the stuff it doesn't bode well for the future.
-
Presuming the Taliban don't touch the stuff it doesn't bode well for the future.
I wouldn't be surprised. Not much else to do on those long nights in the cave.
-
Controversy was created here when 13 sailors and marines, who surrended to the Iranian navy without firing a shot while on patrol in the gulf, were allowed to sell their stories to the media (they are still serving).
One of the sailors admitted crying himself to sleep after his Iranian captors said he looked like Mr Bean and took his iPod. Waterloo, Balaclava, The Somme...is anyone else embarrased?
-
Our own senators (finally!!!) are starting to bring up the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. This undeclared war (police action?) is a losing proposition for anyone who doesn't have oil interests. Someone tried to tell me that we were fighting a righteous action because Saddam gassed the Kurds. :o I can tell you, the average American thinks the Iraqis flew the planes into the Twin Towers and a Kurd is something you find in cottage cheese. It's the ill-informed being steered by the self-interested.
There's a new movie out in the regular theatres on this topic, called No End in Sight. My parents saw it yesterday and found it "compelling. Especially moving was the young Marine who did good work in Iraq, worked with local Iraqis, and saw it all fall apart."
Summary:
The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraqs descent into guerilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy, NO END IN SIGHT is a jaw-dropping, insiders tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the spring of 2003), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of occupation of Iraq through May 2003), as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers and prominent analysts.
Hi Hari - Admitting a lot of ignorance in the States about the issues in this conflict ... are you exaggerating here, or have you seen a poll that you could reference for us?
-
Damn, but the "surge" (love that word, just like "collateral damage" ) seems to be working.BBC had a doco recently, following UK troops in action in Afghanistan. Whenever they stopped on patrol, the Afghan Army soldiers with them with would all sit down and smoke spliffs - even in dodgy combat situations. Presuming the Taliban don't touch the stuff it doesn't bode well for the future.
Depends what one mean by "working".
Does the level of violence going down mean the expansion of the war (more accurate description than "surge" I believe) is working? Or is violence going down because there is an ever diminishing number of people left to slaughter by those who decree they are worshipping Islam in not quite the right way?
IMO, the only measure of success is leaving that country in a position to govern itself in a reasonable manner, with the rights of all the people in its borders respected. For that, a working government has to be developed. I don't think it is any more likely that this will take place soon than it was before the expansion.
Even then, I would reserve calling the end result a "success" until a reckoning with the costs of getting there is made.
-
Depends what one mean by "working".
I assume the purpose was to reduce the levels of partisan violence. I agree Iraq is no nearer self government.
I'm not convinced the US Iraq to be in a position where the US can leave now, not while there's still Iran and Syria to deal with.
-
I assume the purpose was to reduce the levels of partisan violence. I agree Iraq is no nearer self government.
I'm not convinced the US Iraq to be in a position where the US can leave now, not while there's still Iran and Syria to deal with.
I see what you mean, but IMO saying it's "working" because horrific violence levels that began with the invasion are down to 2005 levels is kind of like ... well, mopping up the blood in the operating room after the patient died, and then saying "See, the floor is clean now ... the operation worked!". In both cases, there was failure to achieve the goals initially set, no amount of doublespeak can alter that.
The administration here and its apologists and Quislings are out and about in the media making similar arguments about the "success" of the "surge", because violence is "down", but it just seems like another form of lying to me. Not busting on you at all, Kevin, I suspect from your prior posts that you are the furthest thing from a supporter of this catastrophic invasion.
-
Hi Hari - Admitting a lot of ignorance in the States about the issues in this conflict ... are you exaggerating here, or have you seen a poll that you could reference for us?
It was an actual poll, but it's been a while and I can't find it online anymore. It was appalling, like 60%, but those kind of things change depending on the news coverage. Most people don't have long memories, so they forget what they knew before and accept whatever the latest slant is.
-
It was an actual poll, but it's been a while and I can't find it online anymore. It was appalling, like 60%, but those kind of things change depending on the news coverage. Most people don't have long memories, so they forget what they knew before and accept whatever the latest slant is.
Yes, I think the "average American" has finally begun to figure out at some level that they have been lied to and manipulated by the administration. It's not enough for these Republican/Bush supporters to admit they were wrong, but I think it may be enough to keep them home during the next election ;D
Still not enough of a penalty for those devils in power the past 7 years to pay, but I'm comfortable at least in the belief that history will almost certainly consider this administration far and away the worst in American history. It makes Warren Harding's administration look like Lincoln's!
-
. Not busting on you at all, Kevin, I suspect from your prior posts that you are the furthest thing from a supporter of this catastrophic invasion.
No worries. If everyone agreed with me I'd have to find another forum. :)
My view of the invasion depends on what hat I'm wearing. My humanist side sees it as an afront to everything that is good and decent.
But if I become the cold detached ananlysist I can see the point in the US grabbing this oppotunity (no superpower opposition) in securing it's oil supplies. To control a third of the worlds oil reserves for the cost of "only" 4000 american lives is good maths. It cost Germany and Japan millions when they tried the same thing.
I'm a history freak so try and not get too emotional about this (I don't believe in "good" and "evil.")
But a supporter - no. (though it makes great TV)
You're gonna hate me for this, but I feel the same about global warming. While I know it's abhorent and awful, the evolution/history loving side of me is quite excited that in my lifetime I may get to see the greatest change mankind has endured since the last iceage. (I'm aware that this side of me is a little unfortunate, but I do my bit to save the world, and have words to myself about my attitude, but it's there.)
-
No worries. If everyone agreed with me I'd have to find another forum. :)
My view of the invasion depends on what hat I'm wearing. My humanist side sees it as an afront to everything that is good and decent.
But if I become the cold detached ananlysist I can see the point in the US grabbing this oppotunity (no superpower opposition) in securing it's oil supplies. To control a third of the worlds oil reserves for the cost of "only" 4000 american lives is good maths. It cost Germany and Japan millions when they tried the same thing.
I'm a history freak so try and not get too emotional about this (I don't believe in "good" and "evil.")
But a supporter - no. (though it makes great TV)
You're gonna hate me for this, but I feel the same about global warming. While I know it's abhorent and awful, the evolution/history loving side of me is quite excited that in my lifetime I may get to see the greatest change mankind has endured since the last iceage. (I'm aware that this side of me is a little unfortunate, but I do my bit to save the world, and have words to myself about my attitude, but it's there.)
To help me decide if the invasion is a "strategic" success, I look at the following questions:
1) In 5 years will our "control" of this oil supply be significantly better than it would have been had we not invaded? Will we feel better about our access to that oil with Iran pulling the strings than we did with Hussein in charge? Should we have deferred invasion until such a time that our oil supply was more imminently jeopardized?
2) Is the benefit of any long-term incremental increase in "control" of the oil supply clearly worth not just the loss of 5,000+ American lives and probably 100,000s of foreign lives (not to mention magnitudes of order more in lives ruined by crippling injury), but also the worldwide disharmony that results from a war that did not have broad global support?
Guess what I think the answers are!
-
No and no? (and if I had to put my money on it I'd agree)
C'mon China. The world needs someone to balance the books.
What gets me is that I was so full of hope when the Berlin Wall came down. The Cold War was won, progressives were in control of the west, democratic captilism seemed the only way the world could go....and look where we've ended up.
Can it be true that we actually need (maybe as a species require) conflict?
-
We do not need conflict and I will argue to the death with you over that!!!
...wait...
-
We do not need conflict and I will argue to the death with you over that!!!
...wait...
:)
-
I think this thread would be better titled "How do you think World War 3 is progressing?", because that's really what's been unfolding since 911 and the Dubya Shrub administration's catastrophic mismanagement of the aftermath. I think the invasion of Afghanistan was the right response to 911, but going into Iraq was a mad idea. Of course, the incompetent DS administration was bent on kicking out Saddam from the start, because of its fixation with controling oil supply. So any excuse was enough. Then we had the DS actually mentioning the word "crusade", at which point he and his whole lame-assed mob should have been kicked out of the White House, and replaced with people who could possibly repudate what was in effect a declaration of war on the whole Muslim religion. The basic problem is that it is simply impossible to wage and win this kind of war with conventional military means in the long term. From the get-go the best response would have been to examine the issues behind terrorism, and devise a strategy to "drain the swamp". I'm no expert, but to me a good start would have been to fix the intelligence failure which led to 911, and to strengthen ties to the Middle East by talking to moderate governments and NGOs. I can't see how the current situation will improve within many years. Pakistan and Afghanistan are in a hopeless mess, Iraq continues to suck up valuable resources, Syria and Iran are enjoying a free ride, and US support of Israel against the Palestinians is a still festering grievance stoking Muslim hatreds. I just hope the next US administration can find a way forward, because there is no end in sight for WWIII.