Is Iraq going to be Bush's Vietnam?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by pseudobrit, Jul 10, 2003.

  1. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #1
    link

    US soldiers are dying at a rate of 2-3 a day. If the occupation continues for the 4 years the administration tells us it's expected to (without escalation) at the same uncontrollable pace (and I don't think this type of grassroots rebellion is suppressible), we'll see at least 3 or 4,000 dead US servicemen and servicewomen.

    It's not Vietnam's 60,000 dead, but in this day and age, how many dead kids are the American people willing to put up with? And for what reasons are we still there? There are no WMD, Saddam is gone (or if he comes back we've shown how easy it'll be to get rid of him again) and the oilfields are safely under the care of Halliburton.

    Of course it's worse for the civilians of Iraq, who are dying in much larger numbers -- about 7,000 at last count.

    It's becoming clear that the anti-war were right about the whole thing -- the Iraqi people didn't like Saddam, but they absolutely hate us.
     
  2. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #2
    in Vietnam, at least there was a local gov't supporting the US. at least in spirit. here, it seems that all the iraqi anger -- be it at hussein or otherwise -- is now being directed at the US troops. and that's not exactly fair, but that's the reality bush has to deal with.

    it's a PR nightmare. i wonder, even if the reconstruction were going much much better (could it be worse?) if the problem would still persist.

    i think the "go it alone" attitude was the wrong thing. the best thing to do now, which i believe the WH is considering, is to bring in the UN and/or NATO to make it more of a world effort.

    what's it going to take to fix it? ABC News reports Tommy Franks said the troops would remain at current levels (150k) until at least the end of the year. they also reported it's costing the US taxpayers nearly $4 billion / month to have them there. (franks also said troops could be there for four years)

    i'm not even sure that includes reconstruction costs. wouldn't that money have been better spent at home? pretty ironic if bush is building iraqi schools and hiring teachers, while in the US janitors and getting fired, schools crumble and teachers get overwhelmed.
     
  3. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #3
    Iraq is going to be Bush's Iraq; there's no point in looking for historical analogies -- it's going to be what it's going to be. If I do my arithmetic correctly, at the present casualty rate (about one ever other day), by the end of the year just about as many US military personnel will have been killed in Iraq during the peace as during the war. Should this occur, it will be increasingly difficult to explain to an American public who heard the President say the war was over.
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #5
    My theory posted here before the war - that the US couldn't allow the UN inspectors the few months they wanted to finish their work because the signs coming from intelligence were that no weapons existed (which would seriously undermine their case for invasion) - seems more probable every day.

    I don't appreciate being misled and taken for a stooge by my government. I think this will be looked back on in years to come as one of the most shameful incidents in US/UK foreign policy in modern times.

    If it turns into Bush's Vietnam, he won't be able to say he wasn't warned - millions around the world predicted the tragedy of unilateral action.
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #6
    Pseudobrit, you're absolutely right.

    I don't know about the falsified reports... It's hard to speculate but lets look at the facts...

    We have an occupying force that is TOO SMALL. Because of international pressure, I believe, the occupying force was dumbed down so as not to look like an oppressor to the outside world. Unfortunately, that's exactly what we needed. In the states, people generally respect the authorities because they have guns and power.

    Well in Iraq, they all have guns, even the 8 year olds and power means nothing to them anymore (their all powerful leader is now not so powerful). So what do we have... a guy with a gun... and a uniform with a US flag on it. They might as well wear a sign that says "Shoot me in the face" because that's exactly what's happening.

    As far as power, because of International pressure and because any use of force will get Amnisty International's panties all in a twist basically every target (ur... soldier) has one hand tied behind their back because you can't shoot unless you're fired upon. Well that's all nobel and all... unless their aiming for your face. It's kinda hard to fire back when you're dead.

    It wouldn't surprise me if Saddam is behind all of this. Saddam was not a stupid person. He's studied american war policy and tactics and he knows that if he runs a guerrilla war campaign against our troops and takes out enough men, Bush will get dumped for the guy who campaigns to remove our troops for Iraq and Afganistan. Saddam can just jump out of his hole and take power again. And honestly, who wouldn't elect a president that ran under the platform of "bringing our brave men and women home?"

    They promised us an Iraqi led government in June... It's July and our people are dying and not a single leader has been named. Pathetic.
     
  7. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #7
    i think the administration is finding out just how hard it is to make peace. war is the easy part.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Heck, the Romans found that out the hard way.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #9

    So did the British... the French... the Germans...
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    And for some reason, people tend to forget that in the preperation for wars.:(
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    I think as this "war" (or occupation or whatever you want to call it) drags on, more and more people from both sides of the political spectrum will begin disapprove of it.

    1) Our troops should not be target practice for 8 year olds, the problem is that...

    2) The UN should have been ready to move in and take over from day one and it probably would have, if...

    3) If the US had built a real coalition this wouldn't be a problem right now, but if...

    4) The administration would have had to let diplomacy work and allow the inspections to find nothing and still convince enough Americans that war was a good idea, which...

    5) probably wouldn't have happened because of the protests and the fact that "proof" about how dangerous Saddam was was being disproven as fast as the WH could spin it out , which brings me to a question...

    Why the f*** are we in Iraq? Why the f*** did we go to Iraq?

    There's not oil ready, the people are dying faster than they were under Saddam, there's lawlessness, there's no weapons of mass destruction, the region is further destabilised, the nation and regime of Iraq is and was never a threat to the US or the region, the people are suffering worse than they did under the tyrant and US troops are dying daily.

    So why are we there? What's the reason? When are we leaving? I think the administration owes us some answers.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #12
    Saddam is a bastard. Unfortunately, the white devils were probably the worst ones to remove him from power. tsk...tsk.
     
  13. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #13
    we should try this:

    "we're sorry, iraqi citizens, we messed up. we're leaving now, so you can have saddam back in power."

    i wonder how many people would get real nice real quick.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    NavyIntel007

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #14
    Dude, that's a great idea... we made a mistake... carry on under saddam...
     
  15. thread starter macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #15
    At this point I don't think that would work though; Saddam's already a joke to too many Iraqis and would have as hard a time regaining power as we do establishing it.
     
  16. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #16
    Probably not the ones doing the shooting, unfortunately.

    I think gw was very stupid for not letting the UN take over afterwards.

    1. It would have given the UN something to do and the world community wouldn't be bothering him.

    2. The potential post war costs in Iraq will far exceed what American companies will ever be able to pull out it in profit. He could have ensured that a few major contracts were given to US companies, thereby ensuring a decent return on his investment. He does have an MBA doesn't he?

    3. More attention could be focused on Afghanistan where Al Qaeda seems to be regaining strength. Osama in irons would ensure gw's reelction.

    4. It would be the UN's problem if they didn't find WMD, not gw's.

    5. A big returning military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue would have been priceless. As it is, there might never be a return and those who will be relieved at the end of the summer are POed that their tour kept on getting extended. They are not happy campers and that probably means that if they don't vote Democrat they might just stay at home and not vote.

    6. Fewer American lives lost.

    7. well, I'm sure I could go on forever, but politically he has committed suicide with his unilateralist policy and coalition of the billing.
     
  17. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    Bringing in the UN would only have made sense if the real, main objectives of the war had been curtailing WMD, removing Saddam and creating a democratic government in Iraq. In fact it is really about extending US influence and control in the Middle East. You have to remember that the people calling the shots on US foreign policy these days are not internationalists, they are unilateralists. They neither like nor trust the UN, if only because the UN, when all was said and done, could not have guaranteed a US-friendly government in Iraq.
     
  18. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #18
    Care to provide the numbers, or did you just make that up?
     
  19. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #19
    it's because hussein tortured them slowly.

    :)
     
  20. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #20
    It's a bit difficult since the US is still not releasing any figures on Iraqi deaths. Isn't the US responsible now for all govt. functions?

    News out of Iraq is still pretty sketchy when it comes to what people really think but the common refrain that has been repeated in numerous newspapers is: At least under Saddam we had jobs, water, food, electricity and women could walk the streets safely.

    One can only assume the lack of water food and security isn't extending the lives of Iraqis.



    www.iraqbodycount.net is reporting 6058 to 7711 civilian deaths attributable to coalition military action. They have a very extensive faq including methodology, sources, etc.
     
  21. thread starter macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    Iraqbodycount.net is reporting as many as 7700 civilian deaths. Coupled with soldier deaths, it's safe to say they've lost 10,000 lives in four months. That's about 2,500 people a month. We don't have any data on the frequency of Saddam's political executions, but I can't imagine they'd be much higher than that; that's a lot of killin'

    Wait until we try to start a government and leave and civil war breaks out.

    Congratulations, Bush! You've just given the US its own personal Palestine!!
     
  22. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #22
    iraqometer has iraqi soldier deaths at 10,200.

    a note about iraqbodycount -- i'm pretty sure that's civilian deaths since jan 1, not the start of the war. so if we call it an even 17,000 since jan 1, that's over 2800 iraqi deaths a month.

    also, the count at iraqbodycount is based on reported deaths. the true count, i imagine, is much higher.
     
  23. thread starter macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #23
    Only 83 years left and we'll have wiped out all 28 million of them!
     
  24. Inu
    macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #24
    Given they stop breeding. On the other hand, if they do, it wont take 83 Years, because the life expectancy (sp?) isnt that great down there...
     
  25. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #25
    So, you basically just made it up. You have no figures for how many people are dying in Iraq today, and you have no figures for how many people were dying under Saddam. You just have some estimates on casualties during the major combat. I seem to recall the prewar claims that that 500,000 Iraqis would be killed in the combat operations. Does that represent a deliberate lie or merely an intelligence failure on the part of the anti war types?

    Note: last time I checked, there is not massive starvation, or even minor starvation, in Iraq today. What's this talk about Iraqis not having food?
     

Share This Page