Is the US losing its hold on Iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ugg, Jul 18, 2003.

  1. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #1
    link

    link

    The first link from CSM says that the US is turning to the UN and may need to concede control of Iraq.

    The second states that the US has a three month window of opportunity to get things under control in Iraq before chaos reigns.

    Wolfowitz made a statement saying that there was no way to foresee the unrest that took place. Sorry, forgot where I read it, but he basically exonerates gw & co.

    All the fingerpointing in the world doesn't do anyone any good. Iraq is a mess, the soldiers are tired, don't speak the language, fed up with continual extensions to their tour of duty with no end in sight. Even if the UN does get involved ( I can't wait to see gw have to suck up to Chirac and Schroeder!) France and Germany are already overextended with peacekeeping duties elsewhere. The UN would be able to provide administrative assisitance but not much in the line of peacekeepers.

    For a whole passle of reasons the infrastructure of Iraq is a mess and there is no end in sight. Lack of food, water, medicine, gas, etc.

    Who is going to win the struggle? The US along with the UN or the extremists?

    Unless there is some major breakthrough in the next few months, Blair and Bush are out of office for sure and their successors will be left with the mess that is Iraq.
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    The French and Germans and others who were snubbed in the build-up to war have little incentive to offer aid to the US now i'm afraid. What would be more enjoyable to them now than to have the US essentially beg publicy for help? And without international troops soon, where are we gonna get another 150,000 troops to relieve the ones who are there now over the next, say 12-24 months? And at $4billion a month, how long will we be able to afford this?
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #3
    Re: Is the US losing its hold on Iraq?

    I hope there is going to be a greater role for the UN! The only chance for a stable secular Iraq lies in getting more and more international participation in a temporary administration of the country. Coupled with a real plan for economic investment along the lines of the Marshall plan there might be a possible outcome that could actually be helpful. Problem is this means Bush will have to go to the American people for funds on a scale that won't be politically popular. Same should be done in Afghanistan. The Iraqi war was wrong and a horrible precedent, but now we should try to committ the resources to make reconstruction a real possibility not just rhetoric. Ugg, I think you're right that it will likely be left to B & B's successors to sort out the mess.
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #4
    The Iraq war was the right thing to do and a good precedent, and, yes, as much international support as possible should be gathered to go about the rebuilding of that country. There is already a positive outcome in Iraq, what remains is to build on that positive outcome.
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #5
    The history of international law in the 20th century was to outlaw wars of aggression. GWB violated international law when he refused to follow the UN and lauched the war against Iraq. It is clear that there was not a reasonable concern of a Iraqi attack on the United States.

    It is not enough to say Saddam was evil. He was. As I have said in other threads, he was just as bad when the Reagan-Bush administration decided he was their great friend and armed him during the Iran/Iraq war. Because we think we wear the "white hats" and have all the answers to the world's problems doesn't give us the right to do what we did.

    The doctrine of preemptive warfare or the Bush doctrine destroys every basic notion of International relations at least since the founding of the United Nations. One only has to imagine what it would be like if China or Russia advanced the same idea what our response would be. If that is a "good thing" then we have very different goals in mind. There must be equality of nations in international law. No one nation or group of nations should be allowed to dictate to others the choices they can make.

    The precedent Bush has made runs counter to that principle. For our nation to trumpet its right to trample those principles is a disaster for our relations with other countries and undermines our democratic traditions at home.

    I don't care in the least what fate awaits a man like Saddam. I'm sure most of the people of Iraq were very, very happy to see him leave, regardless of what they think of us. Whatever death awaits him he richly deserves, but I tremble at the fate of our country in the hands of arrogant ideologues that now form government policy.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Maclarny

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2003
    Location:
    MN
    #6
    We already can't afford it.
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    Positive outcome? Sure, let's create a situation where our soldiers are killed on a daily basis, where the locals hate us, and where we can bleed the country dry of whatever assets it has. Great. Let's build on that! Yippie!
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    The situation we are in now sounds like the low-grade war I heard being complained about as a reason to go to the "high-grade war".
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    Yup. We were already loading up the First Bank of Future Generations credit card to the limit.

    And then we went and splurged on a war spree.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #10
    mcrain, we shouldn't just accept everything we read in the papers or see on television about things being as bad as they are said to be. The news that we don't see splashed across the headlines is better than the news that we do see. Just remember that a couple of months ago, it was said we would be fighting house to house and lose about 2,000-3,000 in Saddam's last stand in Baghdad. Rebuilding Iraq is not an easy task, but it is something that can be done.

    Also, it was a positive outcome. Saddam is gone. Yes, there are problems and difficulties, but the Iraqi people, the region, and the world are much better off for his being gone.
     
  11. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    Ditto for what the White House tells us.
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    I think we were also told we would be fighting a chem/bio war too. I suppose you think we should not believe those reports either? Or how about the stories in the news saying we knew Saddam had chem/bio weapons, and further that we knew where the were? Weren't you arguing your position from those very news reports? Now, I will agree with you that the media has a tendency to put the most shocking/bloody/tantilizing stories on the news, but that didn't stop you from believing them then. Why the change now?
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #13
    We did know from news reports that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. The news reports based this in large part on the weapons inspections. Given that Saddam was under sanctions because of his failure to comply, it also stands to reason that he was buying something for the 150 billion in oil revenues that he was losing. Saddam may have been bluffing. We do know from Iraqi statements that he sought to give the impression that he would use chemical weapons. So, my support for removing him by force wasn't based only on news reports that he had weapons. (For me personally, the nature of Saddam himself was always the more compelling reason to remove him, and that has been confirmed even more in the aftermath).

    We also saw news reports that the war was "bogged down" and the troops were stretched too thin, they were going to starve on the outskirts of Baghdad etc. etc. We were told that the battle plan had fallen apart. These turned out to be less than accurate. We are now being told that Iraq descending into chaos. All I am saying is that we shouldn't accept these reports as being the whole truth. Iraq now has an executive council. People in Iraq are almost universally pleased that Saddam is gone (according to Tom Brokaw's reporting from Bagdhad). People are not starving in Iraq. There are not massive numbers of internal and external refugees. Political parties are springing up overnight. Is fixing Iraq going to be easy? No. Can it be done? Yes.
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    So just which news reports should we be taking with a grain of salt? The ones that say Saddam was a bad guy? The ones that said he had weapons on a 45 min trigger? Or the ones that are pointing toward a Bush misstatement?
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #15
    The ones that say that Iraq is spinning out of control.
     
  16. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    But how do you know if those news reports are any more or less accurate than the other ones?
     
  17. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    Say what you will, but some of us have a much harder time averting our eyes from the unpleasant facts of the matter. I would suggest that you read the article I linked in another thread, "Stumbling Towards Peace." I think you will find that the post-war planning was simply inadequate to the task, and that even anticipated problems were not sufficiently taken into account in the planning stages -- which, on the non-military side, were far too brief. Even people close to the administration are beginning to admit as much.
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    I WANT YOU TO TELL THE FAMILIES OF AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO ARE DYING EVERY DAY THAT IRAQ IS UNDER COMPLETE CONTROL, and that the news reports that the situation in Iraq is less than stable and getting worse should be taken with a grain of salt.
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #19
    so you're saying iraq is under our control? this implies that our post-war strategies are going as planned or our goals are attainable...somehow i don't see this.

    unless the plan is to lose control to the point that a total occupational take-over is the only solution.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #20
    I wouldn't say that too lightly. The Bush Jr. administration seems hell-bent on spending every penny possible so that the government gets into a huge hole, so they can propose even more tax cuts and spending cuts across the board (which will allow them to cut programs they could never cut if proposed by themselves).
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #21
    nothing light about it. people get away with arson all the time...what's the difference if you burn down the government( or another country) so it can be rebuilt the way you want it. it's faster, seems like an accident and there's no other choice.

    everyone has the genetics to think about it...all it takes is a person who also has the genetic capacity to actually do it....and there's no reason that person couldn't be a politician or an advisor.
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #22
    I am saying that large parts of Iraq are under control. We just don't see excessive coverage of places where things are going well. While no post war plans ever go exactly according to plan, the goals are attainable. The US post war goals for Germany, for example, didn't come together as we would have liked.
     
  23. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #23
    3rdpath,
    Bush is not a small government conservative. He is not trying to burn down the federal government.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    Yeah, he's a big government conservative. As for him trying to "burn down the government," only time will tell.

    I personally don't think he's trying to "burn the government down," but I do believe he has as an ulterior motive to huge spending the desire to do across the board spending cuts which will allow he and his conservative pals to cut programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc... without looking like they are attacking those programs.

    I can see it now, "We're cutting all spending across the board, not just those specific programs you keep referring to."
     
  25. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #25
    I've heard some conservatives make that argument, but I doubt if it's true. And, yeah, Bush is a big government conservative.
     

Share This Page