 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
We are one year into it, we literally crushed the militaries and people of Germany and Japan and unless we want to play that same game, which we can, then this will take a little longer, but hopefully fewer lives. |
Ah, but you forget the admins. own line: this wasn;t a war against the Iraqi people, since they were living under a terrible despot that was crushing them! So we liberated the people of Iraq, who unlike the people of Germany and Japan shared no blame for their leader's ills.
Maybe playing of that line, we can justify giving power over Asap to the blameless Iraqi people...but then, we did utterly end the military (we crushed it, then we let it go home) and all the burocracies of the old regimes fell apart (unlike in Germany and Japan were we sued many parts of the old systems that still worked after the war), so if anything, Iraq might be less ready for quick self-rule than Germany was in 1946, or Japan in 1946.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
The US must remain to clean the mess indeed. Especially now that coalition troops are beginning to be tired with it.
Unlike some in this thread, I don't think the violent groups are mainstream, and I suppose it is pretty clear the average Iraqi wants peace instead of fear (despite hating or distrusing the Yanks).
However, the Yanks should try to "win the hearts of the people" instead of behaving like they do. When you read Oerdin's blog, there are quite a few appalling things, which make it obvious many Iraqis will see no problem in the death of Americans (for example, when they drive without stopping at the red bulb, and take steps to make extra damage on the many cars they bump  )
I'd favor the three states course, but I don't know if it is feasible, if the Iraqis would accept being divided by the occupier. The Kurds will, but I don't think the others will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Ah, but you forget the admins. own line: this wasn;t a war against the Iraqi people, since they were living under a terrible despot that was crushing them! So we liberated the people of Iraq, who unlike the people of Germany and Japan shared no blame for their leader's ills.
Maybe playing of that line, we can justify giving power over Asap to the blameless Iraqi people...but then, we did utterly end the military (we crushed it, then we let it go home) and all the burocracies of the old regimes fell apart (unlike in Germany and Japan were we sued many parts of the old systems that still worked after the war), so if anything, Iraq might be less ready for quick self-rule than Germany was in 1946, or Japan in 1946. |
GePap,
Japan still had burocracies but Germany was devastated after the war. Iraq is much more complicated because of the three different factions, Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shiites. I think we made a mistake by not crushing the Sunni triangle and this is part of the result of that. Iraq will take a long time, but we have to do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
GePap,
Japan still had burocracies but Germany was devastated after the war. Iraq is much more complicated because of the three different factions, Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shiites. I think we made a mistake by not crushing the Sunni triangle and this is part of the result of that. Iraq will take a long time, but we have to do it. |
Germany was physically devastated yes, but the burocrats were there and were put back to work without too much lagtime. So overall, the Nazi state did not collapse utterly like the Saddam regime, AND many of the arms of the Nazi state were in fact much older systems under the Republic and Empire.
As for "crushing the sunni triangle" HOW? Without enough troops? and how exactly do you crush those you just liberated? And then, of course, you set up massive Sunni grievences against the new regime, just adding an underlying rift waiting to rear its ugly head.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
I like the three state idea as well. Other than Turkey's objection to a free Kurdistan, I don't know that any other ME government would have a problem with it (Other than the standard Pan-Arab argument). Plus, Turkey had their chance to have a helping hand in Iraq and walked away from it... |
Well. lets see:
Turkey, Iran and Syria would all work against an independent Kurdish state that may then act in ways, or act as a pull for their own Kurdish minorities.
Saudi Arabia and all the Gulf principalities, ruled by Sunni princes, would object to an independent Shi'ite state that could threaten them, with regards to their Shi'a minorities, or mayorities.
The Sunni of iraq would not take lightly to being given a rump state-and the Shi'ites would not want to lose control of the capital Baghdad
so in fact, the only people in Iraq who would want a split and work for it are the Kurds, and that would be a massive mess.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
|
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Germany was physically devastated yes, but the burocrats were there and were put back to work without too much lagtime. So overall, the Nazi state did not collapse utterly like the Saddam regime, AND many of the arms of the Nazi state were in fact much older systems under the Republic and Empire.
As for "crushing the sunni triangle" HOW? Without enough troops? and how exactly do you crush those you just liberated? And then, of course, you set up massive Sunni grievences against the new regime, just adding an underlying rift waiting to rear its ugly head. |
The Sunni Triangle is the support for Saddam, everybody keeps saying it is only a few in this area doing the damage, I don't think that is so, way too much support in this area, Saddam treated the people in this area much better than the north or the south so I believe they blame us for their collapse of their leader.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:35
|
|
GePap. given the ovewhelming support both on the governing council and from even such figures as Ayatollah Sistani, for the continued presence of Coalition forces, it is virtually certain that any new sovereign Iraq provisional govt will negotiate a status of forces agreement. This is NOT controversial.
What remains controversial is the exact makeup of the new govt. It is generally agreed that it will be an expanison of the current IGC, but it is not generally agreed by how much or by what method. That is something Lakhtar Brahimi of the UN is currently helping to negotiate with political groups in Iraq.
Your point about the status of forces agreement is a red herring. I know of NO serious commentator on Iraq who expects that to be an obstacle.
Clearly what is required is a commitment to stay the course both for the next 3 months, AND after (per a status of forces agreement with the transitional govt) The key question now is NOT international legality, but coalition, and especially American, willpower in the face of challenges on the ground in Iraq.
On this I am optimistic. The virtually certain Democratic nominee, John Kerry, has made statements on the necessity of staying the course and winning in Iraq. This not only enables George Bush to stay the course, but makes in very difficult for him to do otherwise.
Congratulations to Sen. Kerry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Yes, they did benefit form Saddam, and one wonders why the amdin. did not seem to think perhaps they would not appriciate being liberated as much as other iraqis.
But again, how would we "crush them"? |
Of course not all Sunni Arabs benefited - some were themselves the victims of torture, murder, etc.
Some tribes and clans benefitted more than others, apparently. Meanwhile some Sunni Arabs have done relatively well under the coalition, while others have done worse.
How do we crush the insurgents - the methods the Marines are adopting in Fallujah is to cordon off the city, then proceed a section at a time, looking for weapons, and insurgents. Meanwhile we should improve conditions in cities OTHER than Fallujah, showing the benefits to communities that cooperate. And more broadly we need a political arrangement that will give Sunni arabs a stake in the new Iraq, so at least those who benefitted relatively little under Saddam will support the new regime.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
|
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Yes, they did benefit form Saddam, and one wonders why the amdin. did not seem to think perhaps they would not appriciate being liberated as much as other iraqis.
But again, how would we "crush them"? |
Literally, you bring in the Abrams in and locate throughout the city, one rock throwing, any armed civilians you turn loose the chain guns, if an area is hot like parading civilians against the US presence you call in an air strike on the parading civilians. If the leader of Falluja says we are targets, you kill him, if there is an uprise you suppress it with firepower, they will give up or there won't be many left.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
|
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Of course not all Sunni Arabs benefited - some were themselves the victims of torture, murder, etc.
Some tribes and clans benefitted more than others, apparently. Meanwhile some Sunni Arabs have done relatively well under the coalition, while others have done worse.
How do we crush the insurgents - the methods the Marines are adopting in Fallujah is to cordon off the city, then proceed a section at a time, looking for weapons, and insurgents. Meanwhile we should improve conditions in cities OTHER than Fallujah, showing the benefits to communities that cooperate. And more broadly we need a political arrangement that will give Sunni arabs a stake in the new Iraq, so at least those who benefitted relatively little under Saddam will support the new regime. |
In Falluja, I don't think they are insurgents, I believe it is the people of Falluja.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Defiant
Literally, you bring in the Abrams in and locate throughout the city, one rock throwing, any armed civilians you turn loose the chain guns, if an area is hot like parading civilians against the US presence you call in an air strike on the parading civilians. If the leader of Falluja says we are targets, you kill him, if there is an uprise you suppress it with firepower, they will give up or there won't be many left. |
I am sorry, but I can onyl laugh at something so ridiculous! Oh yes, we went to war to Liberate, and lest back that up by committing massive war crimes, crushing all decent, and trying to best Saddam at his own game, only further north! Cause it shows how much better the US is morally!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:35
|
|
From AFP
[q[This is the first step in this long journey, which God willing, will lead, in the end, to the formation of this (interim) government on schedule," Brahimi said after a meeting with the US-installed Governing Council.
He hoped his efforts would also lead "to the well-prepared elections which will enable the Iraqi people to have a government that is elected through transparent, democratic elections."
Brahimi said he was received with a "warm welcome and... (in a) brotherly atmosphere... and we had a long talk about the mission which we are undertaking."
"This mission is... to assist in the formation of the administration, which will take over responsibility on the occasion of the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people, and to cooperate with the parties in preparations for elections due to be conducted early next year."
Massud Barzani, current president of the Governing Council, said "discussions with the United Nations focused on the question of elections and the transfer of power."
"This was an initial meeting, Mr Brahimi will need some time to conduct consultations with all the parties both in the Governing Council and outside the Governing Council," he said.
"We welcome... Brahimi and his delegation, and the Iraqi people welcome him as well," he said.
"The Governing Council has been listening to his valuable observations. There will be close cooperation between the Governing Council specialized committees and Mr Brahimi and the accompanying delegation." [/q]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Defiant
|
|
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I am sorry, but I can onyl laugh at something so ridiculous! Oh yes, we went to war to Liberate, and lest back that up by committing massive war crimes, crushing all decent, and trying to best Saddam at his own game, only further north! Cause it shows how much better the US is morally!
|
What war crimes, it is a war and we are losing lives, I suppose we should have been brought up on war crimes when we bombed Germany and civilians died. If they are parading against and mutilating our bodies, it is a combatent and response should be just as deadly.
The moral is lost when they start multilating our bodies and killing our soldiers, if it is a war, then it is a war.
We are not liberating the supporters of Saddam, GePap and that's who these people are.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-04-2004 20:35
|