Cutting and running

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Blue Velvet, Nov 15, 2006.

  1. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #1
    Saw this piece in The Guardian this morning and thought it deserved quoting for truth as the true scale of the almighty ****-up that we have collectively unleashed becomes clearer by the day.

    Bold emphasis mine BTW.


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1948057,00.html


     
  2. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #2
    I don't think anyone knows what to do about Iraq. There aren't really any ways out. Stay and keep making things worse, or leave and... make things worse. So we're stuck at an impasse. Even the commission isn't quite sure what to do, and according to Tony Snow, most of the Dem plans are off the table as far as Bush is concerned, even if they'd work, which they probably wouldn't.

    So all that's left is to be angry at those who got us stuck there and screwed everything up so badly... but I'd say we have that down pat already.

    Iran has become something of a boy who cried wolf. We couldn't do anything if we wanted to. And even if we did, no one trusts these guys to handle it.
     
  3. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #3
    Blue Velvet, your sig sums up the situation perfectly. It's a very strange world...
     
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    Sure is easier to point fingers and assign blame than to come up with a solution, isn't it? (Not that I pretend to have a solution...)

    What looks probable to me, over the next several years, is that Iran will be able to export its "Shiite Revolution" into a great crescent. The crescent would include Iraq south of the Kurdish area, Kuwait, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. This would give them control of the majority of available oil.

    I plead "not sure" about Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Could be squabbling between Iran and Syria over the control of Lebanon. Palestine would be an Iranian ally, most likely. Could be that Jordan would fall by default.

    And genocide in Israel...

    The only real difference I see is the timeline, had we not gone into Iraq. Saddam would eventually have died or been assassinated. The same crescent would have ensued, but staved off by maybe ten or so years.

    'RAt
     
  5. Blue Velvet thread starter Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #5

    The point is, is that the idea of a solution, any solution, is far-fetched. No-one is in control of the situation at all. Leave, stay: no difference.

     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    It will take another Saddam to run this region, so why did we go into Iraq? Oh yeah to remove Saddam. 400 billion for....? missing wmds? Let the Iraqi's split up the country. Our troops are sitting ducks for a faulty foreign policy.
     
  7. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #7
    Do you really think the 100% Sunni population in Kuwait, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia would fall under the influence of the Shi'ites and welcome it?
     
  8. freebooter macrumors 65816

    freebooter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Location:
    Daegu, South Korea
    #8
    Why did they destroy Iraq? For one reason, check the current price of oil. Compare that price to the price before they began destroying Iraq.

    http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm

    Then consider who stands to gain from this so-called "War on Terror." Not the Iraqi people, obviously.

    Oh, and how're things in Afghanistan lately? Pretty good if you are in the "poppy" business...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/w...aca21e09c8576e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
    ...not so good if you are a woman:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6100842.stm

    Thank-you New World Order.
     
  9. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #9
    i don't know, without the intervention we likely wouldn't have reinforced/reintroduced the strong anti-american sentiment in the region and things could have proceeded more towards the democratization of iran rather than the opposite direction.

    Remember the liberals/reformists were in the upswing in iran, until the demented 'axes of evil' speech and the subsequent conservative resurgence which eventually led to Ahmadinejad election.
    Any possibility the invasion might have played a role in consolidating the backward switch and the power of the mullas?

    Factor in that the iraqi adventure interfered with the proper completion of the afghanistan mission (which could have been an exemplary success story if we stayed committed to it), not to mention with the possibility to actually achieve some success (i.e. capturing UBL) in reducing terrorism rather then increasing it, and it's obvious the golden opportunity that was squandered by the morons in charge (here and abroad).
     
  10. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #10
    Some have suggested the Vietnam war is not like the war in Iraq.

    I was in the Mekong Delta from 1969 through 1971. I became friends with an extended Vietnamese family. I was watching local TV with them one evening (mostly short musicals) and asked my friend Liem, "Why are Vietnamese songs always so sad (I was 19 and naive)". He told me, "Steve, the history of Vietnam, as far back as anyone can remember, is filled with tears. We were invaded by the Siamese, the Mongols, the Chinese, the French and the Japanese. And through this we always believed someday we would win our freedom". That evening I knew we could never win the war in Vietnam.

    In 1990 I was visiting friends in Stoke-On-Trent. Tito had died, or was close to death. My friend, Alan, is a scholar in Eastern European studies. He told me, "Tito has been holding a diverse mixture of peoples under sway for several generations. I fear there is going to be a bloodbath as old hatreds resurface without anything to control them". Alas, his prediction proved true.

    America has such an arrogant view of itself in the world it would be laughable, were not the suffering caused by its' misguided foreign policy. The hatred amongst Iraq's waring factions goes back to biblical times. Yet, we think we can go in there, rattle our sabers, and erase two millennia of history. When Bush was promising this new democratic, enlightened Iraqi society, I felt like weeping. I knew the pain and suffering that was about to follow.

    Turn and run? They are making it sound cowardly. We cannot control the future of that region through force. It will never work. When asked why were were not achieving final victory in Vietnam, Admiral Zumwalt responded, "No one has given me orders to bomb Saigon". His point was, the war was futile. There would always be an enemy until the last occupying army left.

    This is the same type of war we are fighting again. We cannot win it except with genocide. I will not join Bush, Exxon, Fox and Murdoch in supporting such a policy.
     
  11. beatsme macrumors 65816

    beatsme

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #11
    wasn't this Alexander Haig's rationale for wanting to nuke Tehran during the hostage thing?

    the scenario sounds highly unlikely to me...
     
  12. gekko513 macrumors 603

    gekko513

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    #12
    From the articles some newspapers in Norway have been running in the last years, I get the impression that the people of Iran are generally quite moderate and are on average becoming higher educated every year. I think unless the situation in the rest of the middle-east disrupts the course Iran is heading in on its own, the country might just have a good chance of turning into a fairly moderate and stable democracy in the long run, nukes or no nukes. Now obviously the situation in Iran isn't simple, and there are many fundamentalist in power, but the nation has a lot of good things going for it. As an example of how the society there is changing, women are on average better educated than men and they're starting to expect not only a role as a wife and mother, but to have jobs, also in positions of power.

    I'd say Iran might turn out be the key to a change in the direction the middle-east is heading at them moment.
     
  13. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #13
    Excellent post, thanks for sharing.
     
  14. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #14
    I'll take that as a rhetorical question. When the Shia hits the fan, it's seldomly evenly distributed. The question now isn't whether or not there will be civil war, but rather how ugly and devasting a war will be fought over Iraq's dead body and how pervasive the fallout will be throughout the entire region? There are those whose analysis of Iraq's future with or without U.S. presence is not a very optimistic one and I tend to agree with it, at this juncture.
     
  15. beatsme macrumors 65816

    beatsme

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #15
    interesting point made in an earlier post about Tito/Yugoslavia and holding together completely disparate national interests through brute force. Very similar to what Saddam did in Iraq.

    Hmmm...two countries born of the Ottoman Empire...curious, no?
     
  16. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #16
    Tito died in 1980.

    Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia had banded together willingly in the aftermath of WWI. Their only hope of independence was strength in numbers as Italy was slavering over all three countries. Prior to WWI, Slovenia and Croatia were under Habsburg rule. After WWII, it was pretty much the same situation.

    Iraq and Yugoslavia are not directly comparable. Tito was very well loved by the majority of southern slavs mainly because he did not favor one nation over the other. His parents were Croat and Slovene but he was adamnant that no one nationality take precedence in his government.

    The right for each country to secede from the State of Yugoslavia was built into their Constitution.

    The reason for the messy dissolution of Yugoslavia was mainly economic. In 1989, the Slovenes made up roughly 8% of the population but contributed ~30% of the GDP, the Croats made up 11% and contributed ~18%. The vast majority of that contribution was through exports or tourism, which meant lots of foreign currency. Think of an extreme red state, blue state situation. Although Macedonia was the first to secede, Slovenia and Croatia were quick to follow.

    Due to the fact that Serbs had never been able to develop a functioning economy, the Yugoslav Army was packed with Serbs. The Serbs have had a chip on their soldiers for 600 years and Milosevic exploited that chip and the rest was history. The fact that Serbia and Croatia were on opposite sides during WWII didn't help matters much either.
     
  17. beatsme macrumors 65816

    beatsme

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #17
    the point was that both countries were/are little more than lines on a map, both were held together forcibly (in Yugoslavia's case by the Soviet Union...IMHO it would be fair to say that by 1946 Tito was little more than a pawn of the USSR), and that both can trace their origins to the geopolitical re-organization of Europe/Middle East after WWI. I do not dispute that the circumstances in each country are unique in and of themselves.
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    The Guardian piece it seems to me belabors the obvious, and is a bit over-amped in its conclusions. Iran's interests in the region are obviously their own, but they are also concerned about an Iraq left in a state of perpetual turmoil. They might not welcome participation with the U.S. and other nations in formulating a solution, as though we are suddenly all old fine friends, but they also will not "roar with laughter" at the diplomatic overtures. I'm not sure which caricature is more offensive: the one the piece offers of U.S. and the U.K. interests, or the one it suggests for Iran and Syria.
     
  19. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #19
    I distinctly remember those of us saying this would be the outcome in Iraq were labelled "terrorist-lovers" and "morons" and told we were "out of our minds". The big, bad Iraq-Al Qaeda alliance was coming to nuke us. It must be true, George says so.

    Very clever though. After the Soviet Union's collapse there was a chance that the global arms trade would take a dive. Well, this will keep the shareholders happy for 50 years. Lots of dollars in missiles.

    Next prediction? Tony Bliar gets nice cushy position with GHWB's Carlyle Group after leaving office. £2-3 million a year.
     
  20. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    Your assertion is false. The Soviet Union had little or no sway over Tito. Tito aligned himself with socialism but in 1948 Yugoslavia was expelled from the Comintern. Tito became very good at playing east off of the west and he received many millions in aid from the west especially the US. He was never trusted by the Soviets. Yugoslavians also had passports and the right to travel where they wished.

    As I stated earlier, the southern slavs knew their only hope for independence was to band together, it was Tito's personality that allowed these disparate ethnicities, cultures and religions to function as a group. It was his death along with the economic disparities that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia.

    Iraq was created by Imperial fiat, Yugoslavia by independent countries seeking protection from Italy, Russia and possible from Austria. There's a huge difference.
     
  21. beatsme macrumors 65816

    beatsme

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #21
    my poli sci 160 professor and I disagree with you. C'est la vie :)
     
  22. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    "Do you really think the 100% Sunni population in Kuwait, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia would fall under the influence of the Shi'ites and welcome it?"

    Probably wouldn't welcome it, no. But from what I've read and am reading, from time to time, the people of Kuwait don't care overmuch for their rulers, and a large number of Saudis would like to see the royal family go away.

    Any major turmoil in Saudi Arabia would open many doors, with no good results that occur to me, just offhand...

    'Rat
     
  23. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #23
    My point was not to get Yugoslavian history exactly correct. It was simply an example of how US foriegn policy is often based on "BA", Before America. The divisions between regional peoples go so far back, we cannot easily fathom why a quick accord cannot be reached. Our strategy is often predicated on a arrogant belief we can solve problems which are centuries old.
     
  24. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #24
    Why was Yugoslavia a founding member of the non-aligned movement then? Why did Yugoslavia start developning market socialism in 1950?

    Look through some of the documents from the national security archive to see just how frosty the relationship got in the 1940s and 50s.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

    And Plinden and 'Rat:

    Saudi Arabia is about 10% Shia. Kuwait 40%. UAE 16%
     
  25. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #25
    The Dayton Peace Accord was desperately needed to stop the continued slaughter of Bosniaks. It was an imperfect document and its existence is why Bosnia is having such a difficult time right now. It's doubtful that at the time, a better document could have been created. Not all solutions are perfect at the time of creation nor can the failure of the Dayton Peace Accord be blamed solely on America. Few Americans supported Bill's foray into the Balkans, but there's no doubt that he did do the right thing because Europe wanted nothing to do with the problem. Had he not stopped Milosevic....

    The Chetniks and the Ustase conflict stems from WWII. Hardly a centuries old situation.

    Iraq and Yugoslavia don't belong in the same discussion. Tito was not Saddam. At the end of WWI the states of the Balkans had a long history of being at least semi-independent whereas the peoples of Iraq were just beginning to form a national identity.
     

Share This Page