Iraqi Death Toll

[jdobbin]

This means that the heads of state for over ninty countries have aided the US in this endeavor. Not the UNSC. Basicly what I am saying in response to your post about the General is agreeing with JBG in that the military, intelligence and strategic portions of the invasion could have gone a lot better than they did, the overall rationale and objective is a good one and is widely supported.

If the objective was to make Britain safer, the General said the other day, it hasn't worked.

[KrustyKidd]

If the objective was to make Britain safer, the General said the other day, it hasn't worked.

You misread the War on Terror totally as the objective is not ot make it safer in the here and now but to safeguard it for future generations so they won't have to face a nuclear armed Islamic Jihadist armed world. What we face here today is nothing to what our children and grandchildren would face if we did nothing.

[jdobbin]

You misread the War on Terror totally as the objective is not ot make it safer in the here and now but to safeguard it for future generations so they won't have to face a nuclear armed Islamic Jihadist armed world. What we face here today is nothing to what our children and grandchildren would face if we did nothing.

Now that is something I never heard the Brit General say.

[bradco]

Now I know the Bush Administration calls the Iraq war a part of the war on terror. But is it? And why?

1. Saddam was funding terror;
   
2. Saddam was suppressing the Shi'ite and Kurd minorities;
   
3. The invasion breaks up the geographical contiguity of the "ummah" (a desireable objective in itself);
   
4. While democratization has not gone perfectly it's now in the Muslim vocabulary and debate stream;
   
5. I suspect things are going a lot better than MSM portrays. A village developing a civic culture is not news; a roadside bomb is; and
   
6. Most importantly, the West cannot allow the "mouse to roar" with impunity.
   

Some good points in 1 (as long as you mean funded the terror he subjected his population too...I dont think he funded any terror outside Iraq, at least I havnt seen any proof) , 2, 3(if that really has an effect on terrorism) and 4 (to the extent 4 has an effect on terrorism, Krusty Kid gives an interesting and probably correct reasoning to as why in his previous post).

I guess I just dont particularly like a broad based war on anything that causes terror. Thats a lot of things. Biggest problem for me is that combining the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan into the same war is incredibly misleading. Ive seen a few polls that a large amount of Americans believe that Saddam had funded Al Qaida, which as far as Ive seen has never been proved and is likely false. I think that this is caused by the Bush Administration lumping these conflicts into the same "war". These two conflicts were fought entirely different, done for different reasons and justified with different reasons and legal arguments. Therefore they should be seen as different wars. Afghanistan was a war of self defense. Iraq was, well to be honest Im not really sure what Iraq was about. I guess preemptive self defense against a threat that was later shown to be non-existant. Unfortunatly, any terror by Saddam on his population was never used as the main reason for going to war. Since terror was not used as the reason to going to war I question Iraq being included in some broader war on terror. I would have loved a legal argument of a right to humanitarian intervention (to stop Saddams terror) to have been advanced. But it wasnt.

[jbg]

Hence, the side benifit of creating a democracy which is Arabic and Muslim which powers itself by oil would be an example to other nearby countries that Jihadists find a nest in.

That's hardly a "side benefit". That's closer to the point of the matter, as well as your other points about geography.

[KrustyKidd]

These two conflicts were fought entirely different, done for different reasons and justified with different reasons and legal arguments. Therefore they should be seen as different wars.

No. Differewnt battles in the same campaign against Jihadists. You can't attack Saudi Arabia and they certainly were not doing anything to quell the movement there so, Iraq was a perfect opportunity with a legal justification (or in your case, an ambiguous justification) to move in and have a large force of US power directly across the border from SA basicly tellingthe Saudis that if they didn't deal with the problem, the US could.

Afghanistan was a war of self defense. Iraq was, well to be honest Im not really sure what Iraq was about. I guess preemptive self defense against a threat that was later shown to be non-existant.

If Bush thought Saddam was an actual threat, he would have gone in a long time before without UN resoutions. If they knew Saddam had WMDs ready to go there wouldn't have been much talking going on. EWspecially in the new reality of post 911.

[Black Dog]

No. Differewnt battles in the same campaign against Jihadists. You can't attack Saudi Arabia and they certainly were not doing anything to quell the movement there so, Iraq was a perfect opportunity with a legal justification (or in your case, an ambiguous justification) to move in and have a large force of US power directly across the border from SA basicly tellingthe Saudis that if they didn't deal with the problem, the US could.

You know KK, you like to trot this line, cribbed from your soooper secret KK decoder ring web sites, but you've never once given a reasonable explanation as to why having a force outside the country that is the real target is preferable to one inside the target state. IOW, if the Saudi palace coup you envisioned actually had broke out, it makes a helluva lot more sense from a strategic and logistical standpoint to have 100,000 U.S troops within the borders than hundreds of miles away in Iraq.

But hey, let's accept your premise and move on to the next:

The Iraqi people themselves are an asset int e WOT in that democracy is the wooden stake to their heart. A Jihadist can find recruits much easier in repressive societies who have no outlet for disention other than radicalism whereas in a democratic one, people find much easier ways to express themselves and, have a life and choices other than all or nothing. Hence, the side benifit of creating a democracy which is Arabic and Muslim which powers itself by oil would be an example to other nearby countries that Jihadists find a nest in.

A side-benefit, a "nice to have". But, here's the question: If the war's real objective was to pressure the Saudis and that mission was accomplished, how much more blood and treasure should be spent for a "side benefit"? Or do you endorse your buddy george Friedman's view that: "The war is with the jihadists around the world; Iraq was just one campaign, and the occupation of the Sunnis was just one phase of that campaign. That phase has been lost."

If Bush thought Saddam was an actual threat, he would have gone in a long time before without UN resoutions. If they knew Saddam had WMDs ready to go there wouldn't have been much talking going on. EWspecially in the new reality of post 911.

So you're saying they knew Saddam was no threat. Kinda undermines your claims that "Gosh, everyone thought he had WMD..."

[Black Dog]

Oh and speaking to the original point of this thread, two things jump out. First, it's telling that Iraq remains in such a state that no one can accurately calculate how many people have died as a direct result of Saddam's overthrow. Second: to those who question the veracity of the numbers the study came up with using accepted and common methods of statistical analysis, I ask: where's your study, what methodology did you use and what is your conclusion on the number of dead Iraqis?

(Addendum: does anyone have any credible numbers for how many peopl eperished under Saddam?)

[KrustyKidd]

You know KK, you like to trot this line, cribbed from your soooper secret KK decoder ring web sites, but you've never once given a reasonable explanation as to why having a force outside the country that is the real target is preferable to one inside the target state. IOW, if the Saudi palace coup you envisioned actually had broke out, it makes a helluva lot more sense from a strategic and logistical standpoint to have 100,000 U.S troops within the borders than hundreds of miles away in Iraq.

Welcome back. Missed you believe it or not.

Anyhow, explained this to you before. If inside, Al Queda used them as a rallying point saying infidels were in the holy land thereby gaining political capital off it. The whole point of 911 was not to hurt America but rather to get the US to attack or invade Saudi Arabia in retalitation. I understand that to people of the Muslim faith, Mecca which is in Saudi Arabia is considered kinda holy and, infidels being there make them mad. Pissed off people can be moulded into movements, particularily when they are already on the verge of being in the movement like the 60% of Saudis are, or were at that time.

I also explained the rest of it. Heck, tired of presenting the same point complete with links etc to you . Here, go through this thread agin, BTW, that thread was the second or third time I had explaind that to you complete with links and quotes so, please get your act together and just read them for a change befgore saying there is no proof.

KK basicly summing it up for Black Dog before his latest head injury (but after the first one)

The US cannot invade SA asa that would play into the hands of the Wahhabist Conservatives. That was the intent of 911 to percipitate an action such as that to unify the Arab masses under the Radicals. Instead, the US did the next best (or next lest worse thing) by invading Iraq and placing direct pressure on SA to clean up their AL Queda infestation or they would in cross border operations. SA did just that and has the radicals and AQ on the run in the kingdom for the first time in half a century.

If you continue reading further there are other articles and whatever that don't require you to bike around collecting pop bottles to pay for.

[Black Dog]

The US cannot invade SA asa that would play into the hands of the Wahhabist Conservatives. That was the intent of 911 to percipitate an action such as that to unify the Arab masses under the Radicals. Instead, the US did the next best (or next lest worse thing) by invading Iraq and placing direct pressure on SA to clean up their AL Queda infestation or they would in cross border operations. SA did just that and has the radicals and AQ on the run in the kingdom for the first time in half a century.

I hope you realize that the reason I keep asking for clarification is that your explanation doesn't address the question of how invading Iraq put any kind of squeeze on the Saudis. If you were simply arguing that the U.S. yanked its troops out of Saudi Arabia to remove that particular thorn in Osama's side (in other words, as a concession of sorts to the radicals), you might be onto something. Iraq would have then been invaded to give the U.S. a new base of operations in the region. That's a realistic strategy. But what you are saying is that Iraq was primarily a show of force, a way to show the Saudis that the U.S. means business. Which raises the question: if a U.S. invasion of SA is out of the question because of the effect it would have on the "Arab masses" or global oil prices, then surely a invasion or incursion from Iraq by U.S. forces would have the same effect, thus negating the benefits incurred in the first place. The Saudis, presumably, would know this, making the threat of a U.S. incursion from Iraq an empty one.

So, how did invading Iraq actually improve the U.S.'s position vis a vis SA?

Next question: do you agree with the analyst I quoted above who stated: "The war is with the jihadists around the world; Iraq was just one campaign, and the occupation of the Sunnis was just one phase of that campaign. That phase has been lost."?

[KrustyKidd]

I hope you realize that the reason I keep asking for clarification is that your explanation doesn't address the question of how invading Iraq put any kind of squeeze on the Saudis. If you were simply arguing that the U.S. yanked its troops out of Saudi Arabia to remove that particular thorn in Osama's side (in other words, as a concession of sorts to the radicals), you might be onto something. Iraq would have then been invaded to give the U.S. a new base of operations in the region. That's a realistic strategy. But what you are saying is that Iraq was primarily a show of force, a way to show the Saudis that the U.S. means business.

I explained this also to you in that thread. To have the US in force, able to utilize heavy armor, helecopters, and massive amounts of manpower against Al Queda targets of opportunity in Saudi Arabia whenever they present themselves is something the Royals would never live down. A foreign power taking care of problems that they refused to deal with themselves without actually being invaded and occupied. Kind of like Canada being so weak that the US has to enter whenever a certain problem with say ... organized crime comes up that our government refused to deal with.A national and, international embarassement.

Which raises the question: if a U.S. invasion of SA is out of the question because of the effect it would have on the "Arab masses" or global oil prices, then surely a invasion or incursion from Iraq by U.S. forces would have the same effect, thus negating the benefits incurred in the first place. The Saudis, presumably, would know this, making the threat of a U.S. incursion from Iraq an empty one.

Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Iraq is not considered the holiest of the holiest lands by the majority of Muslims as Saudi Arabia is. As well as also being considered an Aposphate, Saddam is also considered a complete non believer which does not get him very much sympathy from the Conservative Wahhabists.

So, how did invading Iraq actually improve the U.S.'s position vis a vis SA?

It showed the Saudis that the US could, and would do whatever it needed to do without their help. They need the US more than the US needs them sort of thing. Dealing with a completely new and, unknown US from not within their borders as protectors but, as determined enforcers of their new mission the Saudis knew they were serious. In what is known to intelligence circles as the 'Powell Paradox' the US was determined to avert war by proving themselves not dependent on Saudi aid for staging. This failed as the Saudis attemtping to avert attention from themselves to valve off US pressure, and their inaction on Al Queda placed a Palestinian/Israeli condition on aid which they knew that neither the Palestinains, nor the Israelis would ever accept.

Next question: do you agree with the analyst I quoted above who stated: "The war is whe jihadists around the world; Iraq was just one campaign, and the occupation of the Sunnis was just one phase of that campaign. That phase has been lost."?

No. The war is with the Jihadists but the occupation of the Sunni areas is not lost as they are still involved in the political process. If they were not, then I would certainly agree.

So you're saying they knew Saddam was no threat. Kinda undermines your claims that "Gosh, everyone thought he had WMD..."

Not really. Everybody did think he had them but he certainly didn't have them ready to go at a moments notice hence, he was never a threat militarily to the US. Hope that helps.

A side-benefit, a "nice to have". But, here's the question: If the war's real objective was to pressure the Saudis and that mission was accomplished, how much more blood and treasure should be spent for a "side benefit"?

Actually, I can't tell for certain which reason was the main one but, will list a few that I can think of;

- taking care of an outstanding thorn in the US's and UN's side that diverted resources, attention and would sooner or later have to be dealt with.

- prove to the Muslim world both friend and foe that America will stay the course and means what it says so that;

- Friends: will work with the US against their jihadists knowing the US will not desert them when they act.

- Foes: they will have no doubt the US will act hence, gpvernments and dictators intent on using anti westernism as an opiate for the masses will not be enlisting the aid of Jihadists to help them. In fact, they will shun them like the plague.

- prove that America can muster enough force to take on a nation that does not adhere to the will of the UN.

- create an Arab democracy complete with a bustling economy to set an example to the entire Muslim world.

- create a friend in the ME other than Israel.

- have an operating base in the heart of the ME from which further staging on the War on Terror can take place from.

Those were the reasons. And, if you pause for a few moments and think, they all make sense if you believe that there is an idealology intent on riling up Arab/Muslim masses against the US and West in order to unify them to capitulate weak and what they consider aposphate regimes. An interesting point is that Saddam was both an enemy to the US and, to the Jihadists so, it created an opportunity for both.

Or do you endorse your buddy george Friedman's view that: "The war is with the jihadists around the world; Iraq was just one campaign, and the occupation of the Sunnis was just one phase of that campaign. That phase has been lost."

Answered above.

[Black Dog]

I explained this also to you in that thread. To have the US in force, able to utilize heavy armor, helecopters, and massive amounts of manpower against Al Queda targets of opportunity in Saudi Arabia whenever they present themselves is something the Royals would never live down. A foreign power taking care of problems that they refused to deal with themselves without actually being invaded and occupied. Kind of like Canada being so weak that the US has to enter whenever a certain problem with say ... organized crime comes up that our government refused to deal with.A national and, international embarassement.

Oh, so your saying the radicals who hate America would be okay with armed incursions, but would draw the line at invasion. Uh...right. Again: how would that strategy produce a result different from an invasion or keeping troops in SA?

Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Iraq is not considered the holiest of the holiest lands by the majority of Muslims as Saudi Arabia is. As well as also being considered an Aposphate, Saddam is also considered a complete non believer which does not get him very much sympathy from the Conservative Wahhabists.

A Muslim country is a Muslim country. And Conservative Wahhabists may not have cared about Hussein, but the act of invading a Muslim country is no light thing.

It showed the Saudis that the US could, and would do whatever it needed to do without their help. They need the US more than the US needs them sort of thing.

I'm just not buying it.The U.S. would have had far more leverage by maintaining forces within the country than shunting them elsewhere (and, given the state of things in Iraq, there's no way they would be able to intervene in SA without cutting their prescence in Iraq).

Actually, I can't tell for certain which reason was the main one but, will list a few that I can think of;

- taking care of an outstanding thorn in the US's and UN's side that diverted resources, attention and would sooner or later have to be dealt with.

Yeah, that worked out well. They could have continued with the same level of containment or even scaled it back without increasing the danger Hussein's regime posed.

- prove to the Muslim world both friend and foe that America will stay the course and means what it says so that;

- Friends: will work with the US against their jihadists knowing the US will not desert them when they act.

- Foes: they will have no doubt the US will act hence, gpvernments and dictators intent on using anti westernism as an opiate for the masses will not be enlisting the aid of Jihadists to help them. In fact, they will shun them like the plague.

- create an Arab democracy complete with a bustling economy to set an example to the entire Muslim world.

- create a friend in the ME other than Israel.

- have an operating base in the heart of the ME from which further staging on the War on Terror can take place from.

Here's the problem: in order to acheive the ends above (that is: project a reputation) your original uindertaking needs to be successful. Even you can't deny that Iraq has gone extremely poorly and that the obvious lack of planning and preparation did more harm than good. Which is why "friends" like the weak regime in Pakistan are cutting deals with the likes of the Taliban out of basic survival. And why local militias in Iraq are taking the place of the ineffective central government.

Those were the reasons. And, if you pause for a few moments and think, they all make sense if you believe that there is an idealology intent on riling up Arab/Muslim masses against the US and West in order to unify them to capitulate weak and what they consider aposphate regimes. An interesting point is that Saddam was both an enemy to the US and, to the Jihadists so, it created an opportunity for both.

No, they still don't make sense. For starters, most of the above were not practical or feasible before (for example, turning Iraq into a viable democracy was a predictable failure). They are a helluva lot less so now. Instead of a united, bustling democracy in Iraq, they have an unstable failed state wracked with violence and providing a great labaratory for jihadists to try tactics and train recruits. That is to say, the original reasons have been rendered moot by the subsequent failures.

[KrustyKidd]

Oh, so your saying the radicals who hate America would be okay with armed incursions, but would draw the line at invasion. Uh...right. Again: how would that strategy produce a result different from an invasion or keeping troops in SA?

The objective of having US troops in SA was to defend the country, not attack it. Think about how the Muslim world would accept that if the US said "no, we are not leaving, as a matter of fact, we are taking over." It would seem if this occured that OBL would rise to power rather quickly around the globe as he would become the Muslim Churchill.

A Muslim country is a Muslim country. And Conservative Wahhabists may not have cared about Hussein, but the act of invading a Muslim country is no light thing.

Get real. With this rationale, Israel taking the Sinai in 67 is tantamount to them occupying the shrine in Mecca.

I'm just not buying it.The U.S. would have had far more leverage by maintaining forces within the country than shunting them elsewhere (and, given the state of things in Iraq, there's no way they would be able to intervene in SA without cutting their prescence in Iraq).

Didn't say that that is the way it is but, rather the way it was planned.

Yeah, that worked out well. They could have continued with the same level of containment or even scaled it back without increasing the danger Hussein's regime posed.

Why bnother when you can have both? Besides, sooner or later Saddam would have had sanctions lifted as well as the UN declaring him 'clean' even though he had every intention of continuing to use whatever he could to destabilise the region.

Here's the problem: in order to acheive the ends above (that is: project a reputation) your original uindertaking needs to be successful. Even you can't deny that Iraq has gone extremely poorly and that the obvious lack of planning and preparation did more harm than good. Which is why "friends" like the weak regime in Pakistan are cutting deals with the likes of the Taliban out of basic survival. And why local militias in Iraq are taking the place of the ineffective central government.

Yes it does however, most of the objectives have been met. In that, Iraq has been sucessful.

Show America has the will to help allies and destroy foes thereby providing a carrot and stick to all

Depose a regional threat

Force action from SA

Position US troops in the region in force

Aid their global and NATO mission by having another base which they can place strategic bombers

Create an Arab democracy

The only thing that has not occured here is stability. In that, staying the course and other catch phrases ring true until it is 100% proven that nothing will work.

As an aside, the US is often accused of destabilizing governments and setting up their own puppet. Here, they have carte blanche so, what is the problem do you think? It's simply too many groups trying to fill the void all at once.

No, they still don't make sense. For starters, most of the above were not practical or feasible before (for example, turning Iraq into a viable democracy was a predictable failure). They are a helluva lot less so now. Instead of a united, bustling democracy in Iraq, they have an unstable failed state wracked with violence and providing a great labaratory for jihadists to try tactics and train recruits. That is to say, the original reasons have been rendered moot by the subsequent failures.

Why is democracy a predictable failure? Are Arabs dumb as shit or, they just like to be run by somebody who tortures them? If the former, then it is hopless. If the latter then they ought to like being run by the government, and, pay taxes to boot!

As for the rant, that is the difference between you - the pesimist and me, the realist. You wish to simply quit, never seeing what it was supposed to be or, still can be while I believe it is still completely achievable. And if not, then sucesses still have occured.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KrustyKid,

As an aside, the US is often accused of destabilizing governments and setting up their own puppet. Here, they have carte blanche so, what is the problem do you think?

Generally, the US likes to set up pro-american gov'ts, and the problem here is trying to to set one up that is acceptable to both the Iraqis and the US. That is what lies before everyone, and it lies next to impossible (impossible because the answers to problems of those involved are based on religion and fanatacism, and not on logic and pragmatism).

The Sunnis and the Shiites each want control, and the Kurds want out. Saddam may have been brutal, but he was the temporary 'glue' that held the country together. With his removal, they became unglued (in more ways than one!), so what is the best way to stick them back together?

Why is democracy a predictable failure? Are Arabs dumb as shit or, they just like to be run by somebody who tortures them?

Neither, but the first one may be closest. If one takes one's religious text as the literal word of God, then there is no need to think.

[Black Dog]

The objective of having US troops in SA was to defend the country, not attack it. Think about how the Muslim world would accept that if the US said "no, we are not leaving, as a matter of fact, we are taking over." It would seem if this occured that OBL would rise to power rather quickly around the globe as he would become the Muslim Churchill.

Nonsense. They would, after all, be protecting the country from the terrorists, in the same way they would be if they were coming in from Iraq. Look, if the Arab world would not accept the U.S. acting against Al Qaeda from within SA, they wouldn't accept them acting against Al Qaeda from outside SA.

Get real. With this rationale, Israel taking the Sinai in 67 is tantamount to them occupying the shrine in Mecca.

Yeah, and nobody has a beef with Israel occupying Muslim land...

Why bnother when you can have both? Besides, sooner or later Saddam would have had sanctions lifted as well as the UN declaring him 'clean' even though he had every intention of continuing to use whatever he could to destabilise the region.

Sez who? Let's not forget that Saddam invaded other states twise: the first time (Iran) at the urging of the U.S. and with its support, the second (Kuwait) with the U.S.'s precieved approval. Accordin to the CIA, his main focus remained Iran. It's ironic that removing Sadam removed one of the major roadblocks to Iranian regional hegemony.

Yes it does however, most of the objectives have been met. In that, Iraq has been sucessful.

Show America has the will to help allies and destroy foes thereby providing a carrot and stick to all

Depose a regional threat

Force action from SA

Position US troops in the region in force

Aid their global and NATO mission by having another base which they can place strategic bombers

Create an Arab democracy

- The lesson from Iraq is not that America will help allies and destroy foes, but that America can be humbles.

- Saddam was never a regional threat

- It's debatable whether Iraq or simple survival motivated the Saudi regime

- Troops in force who are tied down

- Strategic bombers? WTF?

- Created an Arab democracy that's not functioning.

hy is democracy a predictable failure? Are Arabs dumb as shit or, they just like to be run by somebody who tortures them? If the former, then it is hopless. If the latter then they ought to like being run by the government, and, pay taxes to boot!

Given the citrcumstanmces, expecting a cunturally divided, economically unstable and violent place to turn into a secular pluralist democtracy was an unrealistic goal. The circumstances by which they attempted to do so made an unrealistic goal impossible.

Ts for the rant, that is the difference between you - the pesimist and me, the realist. You wish to simply quit, never seeing what it was supposed to be or, still can be while I believe it is still completely achievable. And if not, then sucesses still have occured.

I love it when starry-eyed, pie-in-the-sky fantasists try to pass themselves off as realists. Real realists recognized the folly of the Iraq war and the implausability of the "Bush doctrine" from the outset. I may be a pessiminst, but you are in denial.

[Black Dog]

Missed this earlier.

No. The war is with the Jihadists but the occupation of the Sunni areas is not lost as they are still involved in the political process. If they were not, then I would certainly agree.

First the Sunnis are not a homogenous unit. For all those that are participating in the dead end political process, there are others who wish to undermine it. You may simply dismiss those elements as "gangs" or what have you, bt the mere fact of their existence undermines your point.

[jbg]

An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.

It isn't a hard and verified number, but a statistical prediction. Could be lower or higher. None the less, it is an indicator of the catastrophic failure the Bush adventure has been.

Neither did the find WMD or WMD programmes nor have they liberated the average iraqi.

I'm hard pressed to suggest a solution other than invent a time machine and go back.....definitely "stay the course" ain't working

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6101001442.html

I also believe in diplomatic solutions. We should have just ask Saddam Hussein nicely to surrender his mustard gas, nerve gas, smallpox viruses, anthrax spores, SCUD missiles and nuclear triggering devices, start spending the country's money on social programs, and join with us in a round of either:

1. I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing;
   
2. Kumbaya; or
   
3. John Lennon's "All We Are Saying is Give Peace a Chance"
   

That would solve all the world's problems.

[jdobbin]

I also believe in diplomatic solutions. We should have just ask Saddam Hussein nicely to surrender his mustard gas, nerve gas, smallpox viruses, anthrax spores, SCUD missiles and nuclear triggering devices, start spending the country's money on social programs, and join with us in a round of either:

1. I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing;
   
2. Kumbaya; or
   
3. John Lennon's "All We Are Saying is Give Peace a Chance"
   

That would solve all the world's problems.

Have the U.S. soldiers found those yet?

[KrustyKidd]

Nonsense. They would, after all, be protecting the country from the terrorists, in the same way they would be if they were coming in from Iraq. Look, if the Arab world would not accept the U.S. acting against Al Qaeda from within SA, they wouldn't accept them acting against Al Qaeda from outside SA.

Acting against Al Queda from within SA in what would be against a popular movement in the eyes of the Saudis would be seen as interfering and an invasion from within. To explain it a bit further, it is a paradox; a ploy that if done properly, need not ever be done. The Saudis, seeing what the US did in Iraq knew they would act if they did not and so, with all contentions from Al Queda removed by the US vacating, let them little to bitch and moan about to rile up the population. Now, knowing the US would enter to take care of things which they did not, they acted themselves as, if the US did have to act, which the Royals believed they would, they would find themselves possibly in the middle of a coup. In other words, it was situation in which the US figured the Saudis would blink first on and, they did.

Yeah, and nobody has a beef with Israel occupying Muslim land...

Now I have it. You have no idea of what Mecca and all means to Muslims. You think it is no more importent than say - Kabul or Ismalia Egypt. FYI no non Muslims are permitted within Mecca which, like the entire country of Saudi Arabia is considered holy and off limits to casual infidels. Unlike almost all other Muslim countries.

Sez who? Let's not forget that Saddam invaded other states twise: the first time (Iran) at the urging of the U.S. and with its support, the second (Kuwait) with the U.S.'s precieved approval. Accordin to the CIA, his main focus remained Iran. It's ironic that removing Sadam removed one of the major roadblocks to Iranian regional hegemony.

Saddam had no intentions of expanding?

""- The lesson from Iraq is not that America will help allies and destroy foes, but that America can be humbles.""

Maybe. But after they help friends and destroy foes.

""- Saddam was never a regional threat""

Yes, fourteen resolutions made for nothing but to make paper and hot air.

""- It's debatable whether Iraq or simple survival motivated the Saudi regime""

Fifty percent popularity in SA and the Royals decide to clamp down on Al Queda when the US enters Iraq. Conicidence?

""- Troops in force who are tied down""

Troops in force who were not going to be tied down in the origional plan and, if and when the US decides the Iraqis can hold their own or, give up on them they will still have those troops there in their fortified bases to do the origional task if called upon.

""- Strategic bombers? WTF?""

Strategic Air Support.

Balad’s facilities and location make it more than just an ideal base from which to fight insurgents in Iraq. It is also perfectly positioned to project U.S. power throughout the Middle East, and it will likely do so for many years to come. Although this convenience might serve wider U.S. interests, it doesn’t sit too well with Balad’s Iraqi neighbors

""- Created an Arab democracy that's not functioning.""

More voter turnout than we had in our last election. Definitely not working.

Given the citrcumstanmces, expecting a cunturally divided, economically unstable and violent place to turn into a secular pluralist democtracy was an unrealistic goal. The circumstances by which they attempted to do so made an unrealistic goal impossible.

I can give you culturally divided but economically unstable is a situation that can be rectified in time. And, given the money flowing in due to foreign investment and the payoff from oil revenues to come it's a falacy to claim that was not realisitc and, still is. As per the circumstances, once again, seems that a sisty five percent turnout which dwarfs most western democratic societies proves that one wrong again.

I love it when starry-eyed, pie-in-the-sky fantasists try to pass themselves off as realists. Real realists recognized the folly of the Iraq war and the implausability of the "Bush doctrine" from the outset. I may be a pessiminst, but you are in denial.

As I said, most goals have been acomplished.

First the Sunnis are not a homogenous unit. For all those that are participating in the dead end political process, there are others who wish to undermine it. You may simply dismiss those elements as "gangs" or what have you, bt the mere fact of their existence undermines your point.

Not really. Give it time. You cannot make the government instantly strong and trusted. It takes time and, the insurgents do not have the resources the govermnment has. People gravitate to what protects them best which is the clan or, community. Ultimately, the government will strengthen and have more influence. Heck, you gave Sadam twelve years and still would have given him more, why is it you only give the Iraqi people three or four?

[Black Dog]

Acting against Al Queda from within SA in what would be against a popular movement in the eyes of the Saudis would be seen as interfering and an invasion from within.

Whereas military action from without would have been viewed as a big hug. Nope. Still don't buy it.

Now I have it. You have no idea of what Mecca and all means to Muslims. You think it is no more importent than say - Kabul or Ismalia Egypt. FYI no non Muslims are permitted within Mecca which, like the entire country of Saudi Arabia is considered holy and off limits to casual infidels. Unlike almost all other Muslim countries.

Right, which is why Afghanistan was such a big deal in the '80s. Oh wait...

Saddam had no intentions of expanding?

His waistline, maybe. But he was counting on getting back in the U.S.'s good books, as he felt they were natural allies against the Iranians who Saddam hated and feared the most.

Maybe. But after they help friends and destroy foes.

And fuck it all up.

Yes, fourteen resolutions made for nothing but to make paper and hot air.

A pretty apt description of the UN, according to people like you.

Fifty percent popularity in SA and the Royals decide to clamp down on Al Queda when the US enters Iraq. Conicidence?

You keep forgetting about that whole "Riyhad bombing" thing, not to mention the fact that the regimne was in far greater danger from Al Qaeda than from the U.S. prescence in Iraq.

Troops in force who were not going to be tied down in the origional plan and, if and when the US decides the Iraqis can hold their own or, give up on them they will still have those troops there in their fortified bases to do the origional task if called upon.

More voter turnout than we had in our last election. Definitely not working.

Sorry, but what was one have to do with the other? Elections ain't democracy, sunshine.

[KrustyKidd]

Whereas military action from without would have been viewed as a big hug. Nope. Still don't buy it.

Thought you understood that the objective was not to actually do it but be able, appear to be willing and have the moxie to do it. That is what effected the change and, the US really never expected that they would have to as they knew the Saudis would take action as any sane regime would in those circumstances. It appears that they did learn a lesson from the invasion of Iraq - the US now means what it says and will take whatever action they need to in order to get what they need in the WOT.

Right, which is why Afghanistan was such a big deal in the '80s. Oh wait...

Not quite. It was a US/Saudi engineered movement with each having their own reasons for pumping it. Not a broad based struggle across the Muslim world. The US used it to hurt the Soviets and prevent them from what at the time they figured was a play to move into the Gulf as they saw airbases being built in the western portion and the Saudis used it to rid themselves of radicals opposed to their regime as did many other countries. As proof, I offer the post war back stabbing of the fighters, many of whom had their passports nullified or 'lost; so they could not return home.

His waistline, maybe. But he was counting on getting back in the U.S.'s good books, as he felt they were natural allies against the Iranians who Saddam hated and feared the most.

Counting on getting back in bed with the US? Do you write this stuff or can you provide something reasonable to support it?

Black Dog replying to ""Maybe. But after they help friends and destroy foes.""

And fuck it all up.

They have certainly rewarded friends and punished foes.

A pretty apt description of the UN, according to people like you

The entire world considered Saddam a threat to regional peace and security and this is the best you come back with?

You keep forgetting about that whole "Riyhad bombing" thing, not to mention the fact that the regimne was in far greater danger from Al Qaeda than from the U.S. prescence in Iraq.

You are so full of shit Black Dog. Wasn't it earlier in this very thread that you were saying that AL Queda was nothing and now they were in danger from them?

(Black Dog repling to ""Troops in force who were not going to be tied down in the origional plan and, if and when the US decides the Iraqis can hold their own or, give up on them they will still have those troops there in their fortified bases to do the origional task if called upon."")

US is not leaving no matter what. You need links?

Sorry, but what was one have to do with the other? Elections ain't democracy, sunshine.

Democracy is choice. Even if all choices are bad or you are not safe, it is choice in what party you choose to rule the government. Democracy is not Saddam dictating over you and torturing your wife for pure terrorism of his people, even if you are safe.

[Black Dog]

Thought you understood that the objective was not to actually do it but be able, appear to be willing and have the moxie to do it. That is what effected the change and, the US really never expected that they would have to as they knew the Saudis would take action as any sane regime would in those circumstances. It appears that they did learn a lesson from the invasion of Iraq - the US now means what it says and will take whatever action they need to in order to get what they need in the WOT.

I would expect that the Saudi regime would have been as aware of the limitations of U.S. intervention as the U.S. Which makes the threat of intervention the esscence of an empty threat. Certyainly the regime was motivated to act from self-preservation, but the U.S. action on Iraq was not the driver. This explanation is simply too wrapped up in dodgy ideas about reputation and deterrence to be considered anything more than a theory, and a far-fetched one at that. Put another way: given an explanation which is based on solid strategic objectives (for example, Iraq was invaded primarily to establish a U.S. client state and a U.S. military base and was selected for its geographic position and military weakness) and a convoluted one based on "sending a message" (for example, Iraq was invaded to send a message to the Saudis that the U.S. has no qualms about invading or attacking other countries, a message which could not have been sent by acting directly against Saudi Arabia because direct action against them would have been ultimately harmful), I'm going with the real world every time.

Counting on getting back in bed with the US? Do you write this stuff or can you provide something reasonable to support it?

Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States, according to Tariq ‘Aziz and the presidential secretary.

...

In a custodial debriefing, Saddam said he wanted to develop better relations with the US over the latter

part of the 1990s. He said, however, that he was not given a chance because the US refused to listen to anything Iraq had to say.

...

In 2004, Charles Duelfer of ISG said that between 1994 and 1998, both he and UNSCOM Executive Chairman Rolf Ekeus were approached multiple times by senior Iraqis with the message that Baghdad wanted a dialogue with the United States, and that Iraq was in a position to be Washington’s “best friend in the region bar none.”

-Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD

The entire world considered Saddam a threat to regional peace and security and this is the best you come back with?

You said yourself Saddam wasn't a threat. Make up your mind. Your own words:

If Bush thought Saddam was an actual threat, he would have gone in a long time before without UN resoutions. If they knew Saddam had WMDs ready to go there wouldn't have been much talking going on.

The obvious implication being that the U.S was aware Saddam was not an actual threat.

You are so full of shit Black Dog. Wasn't it earlier in this very thread that you were saying that AL Queda was nothing and now they were in danger from them?

Al Qaeda is nothing to us, jackass. Doesn't mean they can't destabalize local governments. I've never questioned their ability to do that, only their ability to go beyond that.

Democracy is choice. Even if all choices are bad or you are not safe, it is choice in what party you choose to rule the government. Democracy is not Saddam dictating over you and torturing your wife for pure terrorism of his people, even if you are safe.

And we're back to Krazy Krusty land, where words mean what Krusty sez they mean. Fuck this.

[KrustyKidd]

I would expect that the Saudi regime would have been as aware of the limitations of U.S. intervention as the U.S. Which makes the threat of intervention the esscence of an empty threat.

Yes, quite empty. Taking three hundred thousand soldiers, armor, bombers, fighter aircraft and postitioning them ten thousand miles from their home base for six months in preparation for an attack in six or more different countries and then taking out an entire twenty five million person country's military in a week. Very limited to say the least

Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD

So willing to improve relationship that he wouldn't adhere to any of the conditins of the ceasefire nor any of the resolutions. Yes. Good point, Saddam was just trying to be a friend.

The obvious implication being that the U.S was aware Saddam was not an actual threat.

Not to the US. The region yes. If you disagree, then please bring your problem up with the UNSC who made fourteen resolutions based on this premise.

Al Qaeda is nothing to us, jackass. Doesn't mean they can't destabalize local governments. I've never questioned their ability to do that, only their ability to go beyond that.

Absolutely nothing to us. Just destabilize local governments until they get their idealology in power then, with money and backing from people who are of the same mind move onto the next one and expand. If having the entire Middle East, wherre much of the west and east get their oil from, in control of a global resource, then I suppose it means nothing. So, if say, they wish to punish the Great Satan and reward Finland, that's ok with you? Or, starve China into submission that's ok too right? How about they finance a movement to Islamitize Greece? You Ok with that one? They would have the money to do it and the will. But, they are only a small organization, much like the Nazi party was. No appeal to many (only fifty percent of Saudis and probably just as many from many of the local countries) so they are harmless.

And we're back to Krazy Krusty land, where words mean what Krusty sez they mean.

Here below is a definition of democracy, nothing is mentioned about safety or insurgent groups.

de‧moc‧ra‧cy  /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -cies.

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Fuck this

Best argument you've put forth in a long time Black Dog. Got me. Can't think of anything to refute your point.

[Black Dog]

Yes, quite empty. Taking three hundred thousand soldiers, armor, bombers, fighter aircraft and postitioning them ten thousand miles from their home base for six months in preparation for an attack in six or more different countries and then taking out an entire twenty five million person country's military in a week. Very limited to say the least

You contine to ignore the fundamental and fatal paradox of your argument. If the U.S. couldn't stay in SA and deal with AQ from within the country due to the boost it would give the jihadis, then the same limitations apply to U.S. actions from outside the country.

Absolutely nothing to us. Just destabilize local governments until they get their idealology in power then, with money and backing from people who are of the same mind move onto the next one and expand. If having the entire Middle East, wherre much of the west and east get their oil from, in control of a global resource, then I suppose it means nothing. So, if say, they wish to punish the Great Satan and reward Finland, that's ok with you? Or, starve China into submission that's ok too right? How about they finance a movement to Islamitize Greece? You Ok with that one? They would have the money to do it and the will. But, they are only a small organization, much like the Nazi party was. No appeal to many (only fifty percent of Saudis and probably just as many from many of the local countries) so they are harmless.

You sound hysterical. Take a breath. Wipe the spittle off your screen. Okay? Good. Now here's why the jihadis can't take over. Say Al Qaeda or some Al Qaeda-esque group topples the government of Saudi Arabia. The only question after that is whether the lifespan of such a regime would be measured in days or merely months. As the Taliban learned in Afghanistan,the problem with taking on the trappings of a state (territory, a military, and economy) is that you then have something more to lose.

Here below is a definition of democracy, nothing is mentioned about safety or insurgent groups.

Sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make you a chicken and holding elections doesn't make you a democracy. Voting for government that cannot provide the basic things governments provide is an excercise in futility.

[jbg]

Sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make you a chicken and holding elections doesn't make you a democracy. Voting for government that cannot provide the basic things governments provide is an excercise in futility.

For a contrary point of view, read the New York Sun article excerpted below:

Iraq is Succeeding

BY NIBRAS KAZIMI

October 25, 2006

URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/42234

There are legitimate concerns over where things stand in Iraq. Those who are genuinely worried about the welfare of the Iraqi people as well as about America's long-term interests should be commended for fretting over what is a fatefully decisive issue. However, these anxieties are being preyed upon and manipulated by dark and cynical forces whose affirmed goal, from the very beginning, was to declare the democratic experiment in Iraq a "failure." Within Iraq, the jihadists and Baathists are among these forces, joined by the intelligence services and news bureaus of regional state actors such as Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Inside Washington, these forces include some who are in the pay of the Saudis, and bureaucrats safeguarding their careers. Coming in third are those who would rather win local congressional elections than a very serious battle in Baghdad.

The "Iraq is a failure" crowd is not only craven but also mistaken. If pressed to the wall to give a verdict on Iraq, I'd say that Iraq is succeeding. A strategic corner in the counterinsurgency campaign has already been turned, but the tangible results will take longer to register in the public mind. Should America retract now and walk away from the victory at hand, many more Iraqi and American lives will be harmed and disrupted down the road.

Iraq is succeeding because the Iraqi state has weathered the worst of the insurgent storm and survived, and because the Sunni insurgency is fatigued. "What about all the bodies? What about all the bombings?" Indeed, it's the worst it has been, but not the worst it can be. I see many hopeful signs that cannot be dismissed. To me, the numbers of the dead — painful as they are — are not as critically dangerous as a much talked about shift in American strategy away from the goal of securing a democratic Iraq.

*snip*

Imagine how the battle of Stalingrad would have been covered by today's press and broadcast enterprises. The Russians ended up executing 14,000 of their own for desertion. About 50,000 Soviet citizens fought alongside the Nazis. Civilians continued to live in this most ferocious of war zones. A lot of negative spin could have been generated to weaken Russian resolve, at a time when the Stalinist regime deserved to be bad-mouthed. But even evil is relative, and it was clear who should have won and did indeed win.

The new Iraq is not Soviet Russia. In theory, the new Iraq is the grand hope of resurrection for a country and a region that has long been mired in brutality. It is a cause worthy of being fought for, or so it should be patently clear. Saddam Hussein has been brought to trial over two crimes so far, the relatively minor incident of Dujail and the genocidal campaign against the Kurds. Both highlight how the Baathist regime found its subjects guilty by familial association. Harm against a loved one was a technique that was thoroughly and easily employed to terrorize any would-be dissenter. These days, the family members of the court officials prosecuting Saddam are being systematically killed. Those doing the killing are the same ones who used to take orders from Saddam, but now don the insurgent mask rather than the epaulets of the Republican Guards. The nature of evil in this case should be clear.

I was pro-liberation and anti-occupation, but at least I could see that the American occupation of Iraq was the "nicest" such occupation in the history of mankind. The campaign was well intentioned, and the mistakes made resulted from ignorance rather than from malice. Aberrations such Abu Ghraib were quickly punished and apologized for, while the populations of Southeast Asia are still waiting for the Japanese to come clean. But more odd and unfair accusations are being constantly leveled against America's presence in Iraq with every turn, the latest holding it responsible for fueling sectarian strife. Sunnis and Shiites have been killing each other long before Columbus ever set sail. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been incessantly trying to ignite a civil war as part of its strategy to jumpstart an Islamic caliphate. Should America be blamed for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's dark vision and the lengths he was willing to go for it?

*snip*

And although one hears jingoistic and exaggerated statements made on editorial pages about the breakdown of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi state continues to function and improve its performance. Salaries are being paid, oil is being sold, and the incredibly complex monthly food-ration system is still up and running. The anti-corruption arm of the government is doing marvelous work in prosecuting the guilty, which is a first for the Middle East. Given that the insurgents kill municipal trash collectors for simply doing their jobs, it is no small feat that any garbage is being picked up at all. The insurgents continue to threaten teachers and professors, yet schools are open. It is these simple acts of courage — to keep going amidst all the threats of terror — which were on display during the elections, but they keep happening daily even when the cameras stop rolling.

There is plenty of heartache coming from Iraq. But there is also plenty to be proud of. It is a very simple choice: Do the bad guys — the Baathists, Al Qaeda, and the tyrants — win this round of the long war ahead, or will the regular Iraqis who are just trying to live a decent life emerge victorious. And you can bet your life that the outcome matters to those seeking to live similarly decent and terror-free lives in Manhattan, St. Louis, or anywhere else in America.

Mr. Kazimi can be reached at [email protected].