Reading Imperial Hubris and now i'm ambivalent about Iraq.....

[MsTryska]

I used to think we just need to pull out everybody, give the iraquis support for their reconstruction and call it a day.


However - i'm not sure that will work either. Primarily because Radical Islamists want nothing from us. Not out soldiers on their soil, not our money in their coffers, not our westernizing influence on their nation's leaders.

I don't see how we can resolve this iraq issue without losing face, or losing lives.

I don't believe we should continue "fighting the insurgency" - because that keeps adding fuel to the fire.

I also can't easily say we just pull out and forget about it, because it's not going to die down.

We wind up re-inforcing the bin Laden comments about being a Paper Tiger - we get punked essentially (and really if it weren't for the fact that i'm an American i would say that's jsut fine). However - getting punked means we're open to more terror attacks and increased oil prices.


it's become a total boondoggle, i hate Bush for putting us in such a precarious position, and i'm really losing hope right now. Does anyone have a light at the end of this tunnel? soemthing I haven't thought of? as it is right now - i jsut see things as lose/lose

we can't stay, because it leaves American citizens in danger and we can't leave - because it leaves American citizens in danger.

[seabeyond]

1. think individual. when done in lie, lack of integrity, what is the end

result. a mess. that is why people chose to do right. chose to do wrong, and you get wrong. that is what we have. we dont get to save face, we get to say we fucked up. we get to hold our head down in shame. we get to watch iraq be total chaos and a mess and loss of lives, an islamic state where many will lose all rights. and we get to own it, knowing we did that

this is our lesson

this is what happens when you fuck up. there is no saving face

[Cosmocat]

6. That is abosolutely right ...

There is no "saving face" here as long as the lie about why it happened is still what is presented ... The ONLY way to START to make this thing right is to lay the truth out ...

This is what people here in america don't get ... We bombed Iraq back into the 10th century, they still don't have electricity and water, they live in fear everyday ... We have engaged in locking up without due process 1000s of their young men ... AND, we lied about why we went in ... THEIR PEOPLE KNOW THERE WERE NOT WMD, THEY KNOW THEY WERE NOT PART OF AL QUEDA !!! And, the know this whole nation building thing is a lie, too ...

The ONLY way to start to make it right to these people is to tell the truth as to why we went in first place ...

[Dynasty_At_Passes]

11. Trust me, if we tell them the truth about why we went in, they will......

Hate us forever, and kill americans forever. :puke:

Its bad enough the United States already hates its own government forever after this bullshit, but making the damaging call of telling the Iraqi people and the Iranians why we went in will completely destroy us for 20 years more to come.....

If we tell them we went in to take over the straights, the caspian sea, and the oil fields under it.....Secure it all, and then give them a cut of the profits and basically bribe them off so we could have control of it all......

They will spit on every americans grave from here until the end.... :banghead:

There is no way to win anymore.....They will forever despise us, and not be able to forgive for years....Especially when we tried to enslave them to drill the wells, that became the last straw......And we did it in other countries like Nigeria too......Probably the only claim we have left is "it was to support paying for fighting terrorism"

Yeah really, what terrorism? Those "terrorists" could have been killed years ago, and hanged by now. Right, what we're in is a criminal enterprise. The terrorists are only another part of that food chain, and Cheney keeps the tin-heart of his winding the clock....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

25. There was no way to "win" from the instant the first invading...

...U. S. troop stepped on Iraqi soil based on a pack of NeoCon lies.

[dpibel]

31. You really think they've missed this?

You actually believe that the people of one of the most highly educated Arab countries think the US invaded to spread freedom and democracy?

Please.

And what is this "completely destroy us for 20 years more to come....."? Who on earth has the weaponry to "completely destroy" this country? It's not anybody in the Middle East.

Besides: the US has done a far better job of completely destroying Iraq over the past 15 years than Iraq could ever dream of reciprocating. That might provide some motivation for spitting on graves, even if the US did manage to keep that big secret you're worried about spilling.

[MsTryska]

8. whilst from a moral perspective i totally agree.....

I think that in context of Islamic culture - i think it may be in our interest to not lose face - in order to save more american lives in future generations.


altho i suppose the case could be made that soemtimes the path to victory is through surrender.


if Islam wants to fight us, and we don't fight - does that make the problem go away?

[seabeyond]

13. this is where so many are stuck. they are saying, we gotta do

something or there will be more loss of life, we will lose the battle against islam. well, we lost that when we decided to be lone rangers and ignore the rest of the world and do it our way instead of uniting with the world after 9/11 and take islamic fundamentalist down.

at that point we lost it. why it was so important

so many are saying if we pull out then we will have horrible results. you are right we will. that is why wo many world wide is pissed. but there isnt a magic wand to fix this.

if kerry had gotten in, at that point he could have gotten middle east leaders together and said, k, we want to fix it, we dont want to occupy, we want to find solutions, and we want to get out. we dont have financial interests here. then it might have been workable. but bush is trying to have positive results still sittin in greed and owning all and not taking care of the people

he wont get it. at all. just losss of life on a daily basis

we will not do it with bushco.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. That's Pretty Vague And Hypothetical, Is It Not?

This sounds akin to the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" argument. That type of circular logic can be used to rationalize any position, no matter how wrongheaded.

You want to protect future generations. How far into the future? How much protection? Protect us from which threats, and from which threats do we not need protection? See the traps into which this thinking can lead?

The extension of the logic that's causing your ambivalence would be to destroy everyone else to protect our interests and people long term. That way no disagreement over anything will ever cost more american lives. But, do we just nuke everybody and everything to "protect" ourselves in some indeterminate future?

At which point do we draw the line? I say the line is already drawn and we went over it when we invaded Iraq. At that point, there is no opportunity to make it right. It is now firmly within the realm of the wrong. We can only retract our errors and move on. Staying for the long term is not the solution.
The Professor

[MsTryska]

40. I don't get how you got

"nuke everyone" from "if we don't fight - are we still fighting?"

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Read The Post Again

The hyperextension of the logic leads to eradicate ALL threats pre-emptively. The logic you're using to get yourself in this ambivalence presupposes an attack, in some way, by somebody, in some indeterminate future, directed at an undefined segment of our future population. Can't you see that this is now so vague that it can be applied to any and all threats, real or imagined, long into the future?

If we take that logic to its hyperbolic end, we can only conclude that destroying everyone that might ever pose a threat sometime in the murky future, is the only solution.

When a logical position can be taken to that hyperbolic extreme, then it fails to be logical on its face. The idea that our only protection against the bad guys is to either conquer the world or take out everyone who MIGHT ever be a bad guy implodes the whole reason for staying in Iraq. We can't occupy everyone for eternity.

Your period of ambivalence appears to be clouding your reason. What i said the first time was a series of questions to provoke you into realizing what a weak argument it was that made you think that staying in Iraq for the purpose of combatting phantom enemies actually was. I hope you see better now, that the premise is grossly flawed, since it can be taken to the extreme of my example.

The Professor

[MsTryska]

55. but i'm not saying we should stay in iraq.

what i'm saying is we're fucked either way, and it's a hoepless situation that i can't for the life of me figure out a middle course for.


and I don't like it when I can't figure out a Middle Way.

[ProfessorGAC]

65. I'm Not Saying You Said That

What i'm saying is that there is no need for a middle ground. The "fucked either way" element of your dilemma is based upon a logical fallacy. The flaw is illuminated by the ability to take it to the hyperbolic extension that i did.

There is neither evidence nor certitude that getting out will lead to more attacks and more american deaths. But, staying guarantess both.

The dilemma appears to be rooted in the idea that the "damned if do" and "damned if don't" are of equal probability. But, like i said before, if that were true, then the only way we could ever ensure against attacks and american deaths is to conquer or destroy everything as an act of indeterminate "self-defense". I know you don't believe in doing that.

Hence, the middle ground isn't necessary. One option is far superior to the first, because the outcome of doing so is certain, while the other requires some vague and hypothetical set of possible, yet not probable, outcomes. I guess i'm saying you're spinning yourself into a tizzy over nothing.
The Professor

[MsTryska]

76. *lol* ok pollyanna -

do you have a more optimistic outcome?


i fully agree that i'm operating on worst-case scanrios - that's how i tend ot sort out how i fall on any given issue.

[ProfessorGAC]

80. No. The Options Are Limited, But Only One Is Certain To Work

So, as fatalistic as that sounds, there is no reason to even consider middling options. One is guaranteed to work. The other might be bad and it might be ok. I'll take certainty over speculation every single time!
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

97. Well-stated, sir. It's a global "no-win" assured by war crimes.

Betting lives and treasure on the crooked roulette wheel of war and obsessing on 'getting even' is the guaranteed path towards total moral and ethical bankruptcy. The only sane option in a 'no-win' game is to not play it.

[dpibel]

34. "If Islam"

Yup, everybody who practices that religion, all billion plus, are just spoilin' for a piece of us.

How is it that we so easily say that the policies the US is pursuing are the product of a lunatic fringe who has seized control of this country, but we find it so hard to recognize that Islamic fundamentalism is just as far out on the fringe?

If you excuse yourself from complicity with the policies of the Fierce Warrior Chieftain (and perhaps you don't), how do you then tar all Muslims with the same extremist brush?

[MsTryska]

42. the people willing to kill and be killed

believe they are fighting for the survival of Islam.


and there are many who are moderate who feel at least sympathy for their views - moreso, considering our latest actions in the Islamic world.

[dpibel]

57. A couple of points

First, it appears that there are many willing to kill or be killed (or have others kill and be killed) who believe they are fighting for the survival of America. See how that works?

Second, how are you so certain about motivation? I'd lay some pretty long odds that a whole lot of the people who are willing to kill or be killed are willing because they'd like a foreign invader out of their country. It's just possible, doncha think, that nationalism can play as big a role as religion?

[MsTryska]

60. absolutely.

For the "insurgents" nationalism is playing a huge role - however those "insurgents" are also getting help int he forms of funding and training from the network of mujahideen all over - who are fighting for the Muslim cause.


from what I understand it is part of Muslimg ideelogy and the true meaning of Jihad - if your brothers are at peril from infidels it is every Muslims job to pitch in where they can - so to try to boil this thing down to pure nation-state warfare doesn't work in this scenario - because Islam is in the mix.


and incidentally i'm not saying that that's bad or good - it jsut makes the situation more complicated and delicate.

[sendero]

9. Well said..

.... and absolutely true. What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

[shadowknows69]

2. We have gotten punked in Iraq

mostly from the punk that sent us there but the way I see it we're going to continue to get punked as long as were there. at this point I say if we're a paper tiger then so be it. we need to have the ability as a supposedly civilized nation to step back from the brink of disasters, admit mistakes and HUMBLY re-join the players on the world stage.

[wli]

3. retreat to bases, airlift out

Where's the problem?

[KG]

4. the avg iraqi citizen probably don't give a fuck if america gets punked.

how come so many base what happens to iraqis on whats good for america?

[MsTryska]

7. well....because if Iraq is destabilized (and it is)

what happens is that all the radicals pour in - eventually take over - primarily because they are far more organized and well-funded thanks to oil money from other countries - and they gain yet another stronghold - that ties the entire region together.


then israel winds up in an even wors world of shit, oil prices go higher all around - more attacks occur on westerners - to get them entirely off of Islamic soil, and we essentially enter World War III.

[KG]

14. more RW fear-mongering talking points.

heard it all before.... :boring:

[MsTryska]

28. i'm sorry - the right-wing agrees with me that we're

fucked one way or the other?

or are you just stirring up shit?


do you have a solution that doesn't soemhow hand iraq directly over to Al Quaeda?


if so i'd love to hear it.

[KG]

41. so, the only outcome of a US withdrawal is an al-Q take over?

oh, and i guess the next thing that happens is that we're fighting the terrorists here, instead of over there, right?

gee, where have i heard that before? :eyes:

[MsTryska]

43. Or an Iranian Shiite takeover....

which pretty much amounts to the same thing. except with nukes.


pointed at Israel.

[KG]

47. you've got all those RW talking point down.

dick cheney would be so proud. :eyes:

[MsTryska]

49. gee thanks for painting me with the

"right-wing" tar-brush.


you inputs bordering on useless.


do you have soemthing constructive to add that can help me understand this, or not?

if not - step off.

[KG]

53. help you to understand?

looks like you've made up your mind to me, you support a brutal and wasteful occupation to 'save face', and use RW talking points to justify it.

[MsTryska]

56. then you apparently aren't very good at reading. nt

nt

[MsTryska]

52. incidentally the right-wing talking point on this

i believe is "it's okay - the Iraquis voted for a Shiite government - but they're not the same kind of Shiite's as in Iran so we don't ahve to worry".


if you're going to accuse me of being a republican at least get the talking points right.

[screembloodymurder]

156. The solution is an alternative to oil.

In the meantime, we could conserve gas by not driving our cars. Get a bike and f**k the oil companies good.

Support the troops, ride a bike.

[MadHound]

44. My my, how quickly we forget our history

Look at Vietnam, we followed the policies that you suggested there, and look what happened.

Look friend, it doesn't matter what we do, when we pull out, as soon as we leave, there is going to be chaos and civil war. Any government, no matter how democratic, no matter how much it is brought into being by the Iraqi people, is going to be considered illegit and illegal by the people at large there simply due to the fact that it was brought into power under the auspices of America. Thus, it is going to be torn down when we leave. All of our efforts to bring stability and order to the Iraqis is going to be for naught, because we are establishing stability and order with the barrel of a gun. As soon as that gun is taken away from the equation, Iraq is going to explode. We can't prevent it, we can't stop it, all that we can do is one of two things. Keep on with what we're doing in a futile effort to stabilize the country and ME as a whole, thus bringing about more death and destruction to a country already wracked with despair. Or pull out now, thus saving those lives, and pay back massive reparations as a token of our repentance. Either option still means that we're going to see chaos and civil war in Iraq when we're gone, but at least with the second option we will prevent even more death and destruction, and will show the world that we are apoligetic and contrite.

As far as saving face goes, well that's left the building long ago when we illegally and immorally invaded a virtually defenseless country in order to steal their oil. We are already a pariah nation in many eyes, pulling out now with massive reparations is one of the few things we can do in order to start rebuilding our reputation.

[MsTryska]

48. I don't think I suggested a policy yet.....

I ahve no idea what we should be doing, and pretty much every option is looking bad at the moment.


I also think y'all are missing the point of the my "saving face" part.


I'm not talking about the rest of the world at all - i'm speaking specifically about Middle Eastern tribal perceptions regarding "face", "pride" whatever.


They are who we are at war with - whether we realize it or not. the Mujahideen believe they are in a battle to protect Islam from the West.

if we lose face in this battle, we give them the edge - altho in further thinking about it - perhaps we should just give them the war - so that they can go back to fghting amongst themselves.


but that puts Israel in a dangerous position.

[MadHound]

63. Oh puhleeze

We have invaded and occupied a ME country in order to steal their oil, and you're worried about "saving face" I'm sorry, but we lost all face, all of our good reputation in the ME long ago. The only way to start getting our reputation back is to get the hell out of Iraq now.

You're worried about terrorist attacks when we pull out, well gee, think about how many more we're going to suffer the longer we stay. Continuing to piss off people with our continued occupation of Iraq is NOT the way to win friends and influence people, especially in the ME.

And don't give me a sob story about poor picked upon Israel. First off, getting out of Iraq doesn't mean we're going to stop supporting Israel, I think that should be perfectly obvious after our fifty plus years of unstinted devotion to the Israeli cause. Second of all, Israel has proven time and again that they can and will take care of themselves.

Sorry, but what you are advocating is continuing to kill innocent people, continued destruction of a country that is already prone, and continuance of a policy that not only has lost us face world wide, but indeed has justifiably given the US the reputation of a jingoistic, xenophobic, hyper militaristic thief who will invade and conquer in order to get what we want.

You're worried about face? Hell friend, our reputation can't get much lower, yet your solution would do just that.

[MsTryska]

68. then you misunderstand the concept of "face" in this context.

i'm not talkign about our reputation with the rest of the world.


I'm speaking specifically this battle in the war with the mujahideen.

[MadHound]

87. No, I understand perfectly well the concept of face vis-a-vis the ME

And by continuing to occupy Iraq, our "face" in the ME diminishes each and every day. We had the reputation of a semi-honest broker in the ME, in fact we had enough "face" that we could bring about ME peace talks on a number of different occaisions. No more, for we our losing our status, our reputation each and every day that we remain in Iraq.

And I think that you are mistaken in thinking that we will invite more attacks here at home by pulling out of Iraq. In fact, as demonstrated by the London bombings, the longer we stay in Iraq, the longer that we piss people off in the ME, then the greater the chances are that we will be inviting more attacks here on our soil.

The people of the ME realize that we're the 800 pound gorilla of the world, and they aren't going to mistake our pulling out of Iraq as being motivated by weakness on our part. The only things that motivates the terrorists is fear and anger. Fear that we will continue to occupy Iraq, and go on to invade other ME countries, and anger at the death and destruction that we have already wrought.

Terrorism is the way that the militarily weak wage war against a stronger foe. If we pull out of Iraq, and make proper reparations to the Iraqi people, such a move will go a long way to quelling these people's fear and loathing. Staying in Iraq will do completely the opposite.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Iraq isn't going to be our next threat.

The country is destabilized and I think the infighting that will develop will make it difficult for them to focus on the U.S. The problem will occur if the Sunni's in Iraq begin to organize with the Sunni's in Iran. That alliance can be weakened by sending arms and aid to anyone who will fight them within Iraq.

The only way to really make any inroads is to appeal to their religious leaders; and of course, to be less dependent on foreign oil, since our country is stupid enough to put oil men in the Administration and to allow religious minority groups to inflict religion into our government making a holy war all the more probable.

So, I think we can make changes within our own country, that might alleviate some tension that we have created for ourselves.

[wake.up.america]

10. Sorry, Please forgive me.... Has anyone attempted to...

talk to the major players in Iraq and elsewhere in an attempt work out differences?

Or is it just a test of strength?

Perhaps I am naive.

But, I know this constant oneupmanship ain't hittin' it.

Like I said, if anyone has a problem with me, let's chill and find some means of avoiding an exacerbation of the problem.

I know Bush is no position to talk to anyone, his supporters would find it a show of weakness.



Yes, it is ironic Bush likes baloney sandwiches.

Can one say that an individual is ironic? I think something can be ironic, but not a person.

[MsTryska]

30. I wonder about that too......

can we have a sit-down with radical clerics?


i mean would we be able to actually come to a compromise of soem sort - or is it going to wind up like Israeli-Palestinian negotiations - constant stalemate?


granted all it takes is one party to compromise - but from what I understand from Imperial Hubris - none of these Radicals would be willing to negotiate with the "Infidel Dogs" because we have zero trust with them.


And also anyone that is willing to negotiate with us, is immediately marked for death.

[wake.up.america]

83. I mean, what is the reason for this insanity? Tell ya what, i sometimes...

raise my voice at my kids and wife. Why? Well, I could say I am trying to work and cannot concentrate. It is frustration, fear etc. That is the real reason.

Why is that the Freepers are so rude, crude and unattractive. Is it fear, is it an empty feeling in an empty world? Freepers are not happy people. Maybe they need a hug. (Boy, am I in trouble)

What in the world is going on? I am convinced the Freepers make absolutely no sense. So, what is driving them? What is driving Bush?

We really need to analyze this whole deterioration in America.

We need to get people together across the board. Not compromises, but a steering toward sanity.

I see trouble in River City.

[MsTryska]

84. hoo boy....i think if i understand you correctly -

you are asking "what's the matter with kansas".



i honestly just don't know.


seems like 9/11 radicalized america too and not in a good way at all.

[wake.up.america]

88. I think you understand me. I really would like to understand these...

"morons" who support Bush. Otherwise, it will be a devastating test of strength. These people have "God on their side".

[MsTryska]

94. it's funny because it reminds me of another quote

from another "Islamic Terrorist" from Imperial Hubris.


essentially he advocated nuking to hell any nation that didn't agree with him - when i get home tonight i'll have to find the exact quote - but it struck me as I was thinking - "how many times have i heard soemthing liek that come out of a wingnut's mouth?"

[MsTryska]

12. I somewhat agree.....as sort of a shadow battle

we should be weaning ourselves off oil entirely - but it's going to take time - and that fact that it will take time gives the Middle East time to shake everything out, and see who's left standing.


My great fear is that it will be the Radical islamists - with the combined power of wahabist groups from all over asia, kurds could be rendered non-existent. And the Radical islamists have no use for the US, no use for Moderate Islam, no use for Western Influence.


And they could be the next super power.

[Bridget Burke]

15. What's the origin of "Islamist"?

Especially "Radical Islamist"?

I've mostly found the term on right wing sites preaching Crusade. Could it be that many who happen to be Muslim resent Western Imperialism? Are the radicals offering the only way to combat the theft of their lands & resources?

Sounds a bit like the Communist Menace. A term used back when many who had no true love for Marxism fought alongside the Reds because they had the best organized opposition.

[MsTryska]

32. Well I'm not sure really - I've found it the best term

for who i'm referring too.


Growing up - to me it fas "fundamental islamists" as opposed to moderate islamists - and it meant Shiites as opposed to Sunnis (who were considered more moderate)

Now everything is messed up, and soem Sunnis are as radical as the Shiites.


I suppose I could use Wahaabist - but not many understand the full import of that term.


Basically i'm referring to Muslims who:

a. believe that Sharia law is the only law that should be followed as it has been handed down from Allah.

b. That the West threatens the Muslim way, by undermining Sharia law with it's liberal values.

C. That the West, both governmentally and economically should have no physical stake on Islamic Territories because It undermines God's Way.


do you have a better term? i'd be happy to use it, if you do.

[Bridget Burke]

37. I was just wondering how that word became common.

"Islamic" is an adjective. "Muslim" is the word for a follower of Islam.

"Islamist" is fairly new. It does tend to be used by those who want to invade the "Islamic Territories" that are rich in oil.

And the Shia are not necessarily more radical than the Sunni. Your "Wahaabists" are, of course, Sunni.

[MsTryska]

45. I know.....it used to be the Shia

that were the radicals compared to the Sunnis tho. (like in the late 70s early 80s).


but yeah - i'm sure i've absorbed the "islamist" bit from the media.


I jsut can't think of a better word. I suppose I could use Mujahideen since that's the arabic word that the various groups use for themselves.

[Bridget Burke]

118. Perhaps you need more than one word.

The Ismailis are Shia but are relatively liberal. For one thing, they support the education of women.

[MsTryska]

120. I'm goinng with Mujahideen.

it's what these radicals call themselves, and it's as good a term as any.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Radical Islamists

What did Bush do wrong, very, very wrong, in Iraq that made the situation worse? Answer: His military strategy in Iraq was classic Texan-Angry White Man. How do you convince most of the dense Republicans in this country that "nuke-em!" isn't the best foreign policy because you take out innocent people and their surviving relatives grow up to hate us? Repubs can't comprehend this, because they believe all Muslims/islamics are bad and should be annihiliated.

So, once again, the change must come from within. We must help the Repubs understand that not all islamic countries will be evil, but we must also be wary of which islamics we should cultivate as allies. Certainly, avoid the Chalabi's.

[PaulaFarrell]

23. don't give in to the fear

It's easy to imagine the worst possible scenarios (I do it every day as regards global warming). That doesn't mean they're going to happen. Remember when Khaddafi was the big baddie, or just a couple of years ago when India and Pakistan were at the brink of nuclear war? Things change quickly. As long as you imagine the worst happening and then try to stop that by doing whatever, you are answering the wrong question. What happens after the US leaves Iraq is beyond our control. The real question is, is staying there the right thing to do? Obviously the answer's no. My belief is that the vast majority of people everywhere want peacful lives. When the US leaves Iraq, much of the support for the insurgency/terrorists will start to evaporate, as Iraqis try to rebuild their lives. There will almost inevitably be a civil war there, but I don't see how we can stop that now. Arming one faction or another will only prolong the conflict. We just have to live with the outcome of whatever occurs. Speculating that this is somehow going to lead to a radical Islamist superstate is just fear-mongering of the worst sort. It seems right out of the Cold War - can't let Vietnam become communist or the entire Pacfic region and then the entire world will be next - oops, Vietnam becomes communist, the world as we know it does not end. Aside from the fact that Islam is not exactly a unified force, it seems you think that there is some kind of megalomanic desire on the part of the fundamentalists to take over the whole world. As far as I can tell, they couldn't run one country (Afghanistan) let alone rule the world. They seem to me to be far more interested in cocooning themselves from the west than taking it over.

[MsTryska]

35. You make good points.....

i've been thinking about that since I made this post....If we ceased to be the "enemy" than the most likely thing to happen will be the usual tribal infighting. I don't believe that the Radicals want to take over the West - they just don't want us trying to take them over.

[Shipwack]

17. I agree, there are no good choices....

If we stay in, Coalition troops and Iraqi citizens die, anti-Americanism grows, terrorist organizations membership increases (or at least gain sympathy).

If we leave, the infrastructure is still shattered, there is still left-over animosity, conservative Islamic theocracy is in charge, women's rights are most likely trampled.

There is a -slight- possibility of making things right in Iraq, but it would require many more troops, more money, better management, and people in charge that aren't corrupt and also have a clue. That's not going to happen with this administration.

So, to me, the distasteful option is to leave so that no more troops die for whatever the cause-of-the-week is. Evil is going to be done either way, but it won't be us perpetrating it. We have no moral authority to be there, since we aren't going to take the actions to fix what we broke. A despotic government that makes women second class citizens is likely to be created, but it will be -their- government.

I personally think that a home grown government has a better chance to eventually become more democratic and free, and a democratic government that is forced upon (or even "given to")a people is more likely to become more despotic with fewer liberties. Iran was beginning to take baby steps in that direction, until we gave the mullahs talking points for their "evil Western values" speeches.

All the choices suck, and I'm not 100% convinced that leaving is the right thing to do, but at least no more troops lives will be squandered for lie... Which is probably selfish, but that's the corner I see myself in right now.

[MsTryska]

36. true.

obviously allowing iraquis their god-given right to self-determination is the most correct course.


and yes - it will wind up being the fundamentalists in charge for awhile - but also under Saddam - despite all the craziness, Iraquis lived in a quite "liberal" society - once the dust settles and the infrastructure is in place and the Universities are back open, are people still going to want to live like they did a Century ago?

especially when the rest of the world has moved forward?

[JHB]

18. The radicals aren't everybody

One of the most important things to do is take away the "pipeline" that feeds them, which in Iraq is mostly the occupation and the corruption of the "reconstruction".

We may not be able to just cut and run, but we CAN make a timetable for withdrawl. It might be the case that insurgents would use it to their advantage, but I think they'd be hurt far more by a concrete sign that we actually do intend to leave.

Another thing to do is a wholesale cleanup of the reconstruction contracting, taking it away from the profiteers and into the hands of people who are actually intersted in rebuilding their country.

[jonnyblitz]

19. Do the Iraqi's want us to stay or go? is this EVER considered?

Do people even ask them ? These are rhetorical questions, of course. I would be curious to know what the average Iraqi thinks about all of this and if there is a consensus one way or the other. :shrug:

[KG]

21. no. the 'stay the course' crowd knows whats best for those savages.

brutal occupation, theft of their resources, and subversion of their culture is all they desrve.

[H2O Man]

22. Sure.

In the book "Vietnam: A history in Documents," there is a note by Truman. He gives his opinion that "yellow people" aren't ready for democracy. It's that same type of errors in thinking that results in people believing that the Bush administration is going to help bring democracy to Iraq.

[H2O Man]

20. It's a fantastic book.

Much of your question about what is in our best interest is found in a brief quote, found in its introduction on page xxi: "We thank God for appeasing us with the dilemma in Iraq and Afghanistan," Ayman al-Zawa hiri said in late 2003. "The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw they will lose everything and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death."

The book makes clear that our choices are limited. We can hope that if we kill the correct number of Muslims, the rest will give up Islam and will worship the dollar instead. We can kill all of the who refuse to abandon Islamic culture. Or we can get out of Iraq, which would require that we have the maturity to admit that the Bush/Cheney invasion was dead wrong from day one on.

[MsTryska]

128. Well it's throughly wigged me out already

and i'm barely to chapter 3.


can i ask you if you found the writer's views on the mujahideen somewhat sympathetic?

[H2O Man]

133. I think he

is respectful, perhaps more than sympathetic. He is aware that the traditional resistance in Afghanistan would have won the war against the Soviet invaders, even without US support. He is also aware of the fact that Usama bin Laden didn't take US assistance, despite the myth that many subscribe to here.

When an intelligent person (and Michael is a smart man) studies an opponent for decades, and knows their strengths, their weaknesses, and their character, that respect grows. Later in the book, he makes clear that the US has only a few options: one, to engage in a long term war with a goal of killing a huge number of Islamic people around the globe; or two, recognizing that there may be merit to the six points that their war against the USA is based on, which can only be accomplished after we recognize they don't "hate us for our freedoms," but rather they hate us for our national policies.

As smart as Michael is (and I've recommended that people read this book, which is of extreme importance to understanding today's world conflict), it's interesting to note that others in the CIA considered him to be arrogant and frequently obnoxious. He is not patient with what he considers the incompetence of any recent administration, or in any agency, including the CIA. His intense personality, which is striking considering his gentle appearance, led a lot of people to ignore his message for years when our country might have recognized the growing conflict that we are engaged in today.

I'll be curious to know what you think of the book as you get further into it.

[MsTryska]

150. you provide an interesting synopsis....

i will definitely let you know as I learn more - i'll prolly wind up making a thread or appending to an open thread in the non-fiction books section.


I've moved into Chapter 4 on Bin Laden the man and the myth - and the respect, grudging admiration, etc - is really showing in this chapter.

I think my mind was blown most in the previous chapter regarding how AQ and the rest of the mujahideen operate - because I had no idea about this stuff - or even why they were operating the way they do. The tally list of US v AQ was really quite eye-opening.

I always thought this "AQ in UK"; "AQ in Iraq"; "AQ in wherever" stuff was just copycat behavior - I never entertained the possibility that whilst they may not be direct "full-contact" affiliates - they could be receiving training and directives to fulfill in their own parts of the world.

[H2O Man]

152. This is real.

Usama bin Laden is not something the CIA made up to help the Bush administration crush the constitution. He's not someone our intelligence agencies ever controlled, and he never took any aid from the USA while he was in Afghanistan fighting the USSR.

Polls show that he has a popularity with over 60% of Jordan. He has, by playing off the stupidity of a large section of our federal government -- of which this administration has become the icing on the cake -- gained a degree of power that few Americans appreciate.

The ignorance of our "general population" about Islam, and about what exactly a "defensive war" means (our nation's history has had very few defensive wars, and thus perhaps the confusion) means that most of us don't have a clue who we are fighting, or why.

The idea that he is a "mad man" who, as Bush claims, has moral rabies and wants to kill us simply because of our freedoms is stupid. The fantasy that he is a puppet controlled by the intelligence community is likewise stupid. Rather, he is an intelligent, dedicated warrior, who is intent on creating a war between our cultures, because he is convinced it is of divine will. He is a very serious opponent, and we need to wake up and recognize that.

[MsTryska]

153. well I'm seeing that just in some conversations

in this thread....

i brought up the idea of Oil Jihad and just how wide-spread sympathy for the Islamist cause is in the Muslim world and was told that I "am not in touch with reality" and that the islamists are fringe loonies and i engage in paranoid fantasies. *lol*

but OBL is a hell of a warrior - and although i really would prefer not to experience it, if i were an unaffected outsider, i would be curious to see how it all panned out. On the one hand a Second Caliphate could really motivate America to do things in a different way - especially as far as Energy Independence goes.

On the other hand - that would be at an incredible cost.

[K-W]

154. That isnt what I said at all.

i brought up the idea of Oil Jihad and just how wide-spread sympathy for the Islamist cause is in the Muslim world and was told that I "am not in touch with reality" and that the islamists are fringe loonies and i engage in paranoid fantasies. *lol*

That is just plain false. I agreed with you about those issues. I told you you werent in touch with reality because you claimed that Islamist groups were poised to take over the middle east. I never said islamists are fringe loonies.

You are taking my rejection of your very specific concept of what the Islamist threat is as a rejection that there is a threat. Which is certainly not my opinion.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

24. Responses in order of appearance...

I used to think we just need to pull out everybody, give the iraquis support for their reconstruction and call it a day.

However - i'm not sure that will work either. Primarily because Radical Islamists want nothing from us. Not out soldiers on their soil, not our money in their coffers, not our westernizing influence on their nation's leaders.

The Iraqis didn't want any of this from us in the first place.

I don't see how we can resolve this iraq issue without losing face, or losing lives.

We lost face the instant we illegally and immorally invaded and occupied another sovereign nation based on a pack of lies.

I don't believe we should continue "fighting the insurgency" - because that keeps adding fuel to the fire.

I also can't easily say we just pull out and forget about it, because it's not going to die down.

The Iraqis want us OUT of their country. The only ones that want us to stay are the ones that have basically sold out their own country to work for, and with, the U. S. occupiers. Whatever happens after we leave is going to be the business of the iraqis, not ours.

We wind up re-inforcing the bin Laden comments about being a Paper Tiger - we get punked essentially (and really if it weren't for the fact that i'm an American i would say that's jsut fine). However - getting punked means we're open to more terror attacks and increased oil prices.

I'm curious, but why haven't we been attacked since 911? And what did the Iraqis have to do with terrorism prior to 911?

it's become a total boondoggle, i hate Bush for putting us in such a precarious position, and i'm really losing hope right now. Does anyone have a light at the end of this tunnel? soemthing I haven't thought of? as it is right now - i jsut see things as lose/lose

"Losing hope" about what? For what were we supposed to hope after attacking, invading, and occupying another country based on a pack of lies?

we can't stay, because it leaves American citizens in danger and we can't leave - because it leaves American citizens in danger.

No, we can't stay because we shouldn't have been there in the first place. And just how is continuing to illegally occupy Iraq protecting any one in the U. S.?

[MsTryska]

39. see my response#38. nt

nt

[K-W]

26. There are flaws in that perspective.

I used to think we just need to pull out everybody, give the iraquis support for their reconstruction and call it a day.

Sounds good to me.

However - i'm not sure that will work either.

Actually it will work perfectly. Withdrawing the troops is 100% likely to end the occupation.

Primarily because Radical Islamists want nothing from us. Not out soldiers on their soil, not our money in their coffers, not our westernizing influence on their nation's leaders.

Im not sure what you mean. Who are the radical Islamists you are referring to? Certainly very few Iraqi's want our soldiers on thier soil. I would imagine a vast majority of them would be happy to take our money. Im not sure why you are focusing on what the radical Islamists would want, they wont end up in charge if we leave.

I don't see how we can resolve this iraq issue without losing face, or losing lives.

Well, when faced between a choice of losing face and losing lives, I never hesitate to support losing face. Do you really place the face of your nation as a higher priority than the lives of its citizens, and the lives of Iraqi's?

But regardless, we dont have to lose face, that is absolute nonsense. The world is AGAINST our occupation. We lose face by staying there. If we stay in Iraq we lose face AND we lose lives. If we withdraw we lose NIETHER.

I don't believe we should continue "fighting the insurgency" - because that keeps adding fuel to the fire.

You are right.

I also can't easily say we just pull out and forget about it, because it's not going to die down.

You are using a completely unrealistic standard. It isnt going to die down. Nothing that will happen will result in it dying down. But it certainly will never die down or even begin to die down as long as Iraq continues to be occupied and controlled illegally by the United States. Before we can even begin to address the situation there, the foriegn occupier needs to exit.

We wind up re-inforcing the bin Laden comments about being a Paper Tiger - we get punked essentially (and really if it weren't for the fact that i'm an American i would say that's jsut fine). However - getting punked means we're open to more terror attacks and increased oil prices.

Now you are standing reality on its head. First off, sitting around in Iraq pissing the entire world off and losing a war against an insurgency isnt exactly proving us to be much of an actual tiger, but regardless, it is nonsense to suggest that us withdrawing would trigger and increase in attacks, when the exact opposite is true. Terror attacks increase the more we involve ourseleves in middle east affairs and will decrease if we involve ourselves less.

Even if bin laden and some others are hell bent on destroying the United States, the network that gives him that chance is made up of people motivated by real US actions. The Iraq war is feuling Al Queda.

it's become a total boondoggle, i hate Bush for putting us in such a precarious position, and i'm really losing hope right now. Does anyone have a light at the end of this tunnel? soemthing I haven't thought of? as it is right now - i jsut see things as lose/lose

For the people of Iraq, this is lose-lose, but the fact of the matter is they cant win right now. We destroyed thier nation, and they are going to have to rebuild and we destabilized thier society and they are going to feel the consequences. But whats done is done. We invaded, we destroyed, we occupied. There is no easy fix. They have to be allowed to find thier way forward.

For the people of the US, you are incorrect. Withdrawing is an easy win for us. We stop losing lives in the war. We decrease the threat of terrorism. We can stop putting billions of dollars on the national credit card.

we can't stay, because it leaves American citizens in danger and we can't leave - because it leaves American citizens in danger

Leaving does not put American citizens in danger, it in fact it reduces the danger to American citizens.

[jonnyblitz]

27. great post!!

:thumbsup:

[MsTryska]

38. i somewhat agree....somewhat disagree....

a. i'm not willing to jsut say fuck it - we trashed iraq - but there's nothing we can do about it now, let's jsut leave and let them sort it out.



that's not fair at all, imo, and we need to do whatever is necessary or (asked of us by the Iraquis specifically) to make amends.

As for the Paprt Tiger bit - getting out of Iraq isn't going to make the Issues the radicals have with us go away. Iraq is but one battle in a long war. And The Radicals see it that way. As the quote above from Zawahiri clearly shows.

[K-W]

50. Occupation is not aid.

a. i'm not willing to jsut say fuck it - we trashed iraq - but there's nothing we can do about it now, let's jsut leave and let them sort it out.

Nor am I. There isnt much we can do about it now, but Im sure there are things we can do to help. But we cannot even begin to have the discussion of what we can do to help until we stop hurting them.

You for some reason seem to believe that military occupation helps countries. I dont know where you got this impression, but it is wrong. We can have a conversation about how to help Iraq if you want, but if you are going to operate under the assumption that occupying them helps them, then the discussion is piontless.

that's not fair at all, imo, and we need to do whatever is necessary or (asked of us by the Iraquis specifically) to make amends.


A good policy for us to persue after we end our illegal occupation of Iraq.


As for the Paprt Tiger bit - getting out of Iraq isn't going to make the Issues the radicals have with us go away. Iraq is but one battle in a long war. And The Radicals see it that way. As the quote above from Zawahiri clearly shows.

Actually, getting out of Iraq is going to make one of the issues the radicals have with us go away. Because one of the issues they have with us is our occupation of Iraq.

Perhaps you shouldnt take the words of Zawahiri as a good indication of reality. Al Queda does in fact view this as a battle in a war, because they are fanatics. The only reason we would choose to share this view, is if we too were fanatics or at least wanted to persue fanatical policies, like supporting illegal occupation as a benevolent force.

Here on planet earth the muslim fanatics are only a threat to us because they can draw support and recruit. The reason they can draw support and recruit is for 2 reasons. 1. The chaotic and despotic nature of society in the region. 2. Thier rhetoric ties into legitimate grievences.

Continued occupation is acting to exacerbate both problems. Leading to an increased terror threat.

[MsTryska]

54. Actually - i'm not saying that at all....

Nor am I. That has nothing to do with our discussion. There isnt much we can do about it now, but Im sure there are things we can do to help. But we cannot even begin to have the discussion of what we can do to help until we stop hurting them.

You for some reason seem to believe that military occupation helps countries. I dont know where you got this impression, but it is wrong. We can have a conversation about how to help Iraq if you want, but if you are going to operate under the assumption that occupying them helps them, then the discussion is piontless.


I don't believe we should be occupying them at all. however - i also think just up and leaving without offering any support at all is jsut as immoral. we screwed it up we need to make it right however they want us to.


as for the mujahideen - i think you underestimate just how much support, overt and covert, they have, and how far-flung they really are.

[K-W]

58. So you want to stop occupying them without leaving?

I don't believe we should be occupying them at all. however - i also think just up and leaving without offering any support at all is jsut as immoral. we screwed it up we need to make it right however they want us to.

Nobody is suggesting we leave without offering support.

If you dont believe we should be occupying them at all, then you support withdrawl, so Im a bit confused by your previous statements on this thread.

as for the mujahideen - i think you underestimate just how much support, overt and covert, they have, and how far-flung they really are.

No, I am not undersestimating how much support they have. You may notice that a large part of my last post was dedicated to highlighting the support they have, and why they have it, and how our current actions are increasing it.

[MsTryska]

61. i can't pick an either/or

both options are crappy.


i think we need to stop occupying the way we are now - but i also think we need to provide the protection (if they ask for it) of their borders and infrastructure re-building from those who would trash it for their own reasons.


i read this in the morning that might clarify soemwhat what i'm gettign at:

http://www.juancole.com/

[K-W]

64. The option of helping without occupying fits your criteria perfectly,

but you still seem resistant to say that we should end the occupation.

Why?

We can work to protect thier borders dipolomatically. We are uniquely able to get to the UN to committ peacekeeping forces and uniquely able to support peacekeeping operations should they be neccessary.

The occupation isnt a peacekeeping force even if it wants to masquarade as one. And our military isnt working to encourage peace and democracy in Iraq.

Jaun Coles concerns are very valid, but the US occupation is only making the problem worse. It will cause no more civil war to leave now than will be caused when we leave in 4 years, or when the insurgency forces us out. In fact, continued occupation is likely to make things worse.

There is, unfortunately no way, at this point to garuntee there will be no civil war, but the only chance we have is ending that occupation and offering our full support to the UN and to Iraq's neighbors to introduce a more legitimate foreign intervention in Iraq that actually stands a chance of stabalizing it.

[MsTryska]

70. i'm not resistant to ending the occupation at all.

I'm resistant to pulling out all our forces and saying to hell with it.

[K-W]

Well, ok, but who isn't resistant to that?

Except perhaps for isolationists, who are few and far between these days.

Juan Cole's big mistake is thinking that 'get our troops out now' means 'forget about Iraq'. It doesnt. It means get our troops out of the illegal occupation. It isnt a hypothetical position. It is based on the facts of the situation. Which is that this is an illegal occupation, serving only to worsen the situation in Iraq and the threats to America, and that our current administration has proven that it does not share humanitarian goals and cannot persue any foriegn policy honestly.

Whether or not we should be using our troops for the potentially noble cause of aiding Iraq is a conversation we cannot seriously have until we are committed to ending the blatently non-noble occupation.

But our brutal and illegal occupation isnt going to magically morph into a peacekeeping force if we give it time. And you have to face the very important fact that the US government and military are not benevolent and are a tyrannical force in Iraq.

Whether or not we can be part of the solution is an important discussion to have, but that issue is a joke as long as we continue to be a part of the problem.

[MsTryska]

77. i see your point....and maybe this discussion

is based on a misunderstanding.

when i hear people say "pull out now" - i presume they mean cease and desist all interaction with Iraq.

[K-W]

86. It does mean that. The mistake is in taking it too literally, and

taking it as an absolute.

Get out now is a slogan. And to assume that the person saying it means it in the most extreme way possible is to play into the hands of right wing propagandists. Objectively speaking it is almost garunteed that a person saying 'get out now' would choose to exit in the most humane way possible even if it meant keeping some troops in place for some extra time.

I think Juan Cole and yourself need to give anti-war people the benefit of the doubt that they would, by and large, prefer an exit plan that promised the least loss of life on both sides if given the choice.

Joining the calls to get out now does not mean giving up the idea of helping Iraq. Especially since we cannot ever hope to help Iraq until our nation fully embraces the fact that what we are doing right now needs to stop.

[rman]

75. terrorist attacks and oil prices are increasing since the invasion

And you say staying there will help reduce both?

[MsTryska]

78. no i'm saying we're fucked either way....

i don't think removing ourselves will necessarily stop terrorist attacks - particularly since we still support Israel.

i think what could happen is that the Mujahideens see a "cut and run" (hate to use the phrase but it seems ot fit) as us showing our weakness - we lose face - and they in turn find that terror does work. thereby increasing attacks, so that we cease supporting Israel among other things. (which is a discussion for a different time).


the other possibility is that whilst they may not use terror attacks to keep us in check, they do so by maniuplating oil supply, and frankly we jsut don't have the infrastructure in place to cope with that. (also a discussion for a different time)


yet and still - i find trying to stamp out an "insurgency" to be as much of a clusterfuck.

[K-W]

89. You are misreading the terror threat.

i don't think removing ourselves will necessarily stop terrorist attacks - particularly since we still support Israel.

A very good point, but we can certainly decrease the likelyhood of attacks by reducing our footprint in the region.

i think what could happen is that the Mujahideens see a "cut and run" (hate to use the phrase but it seems ot fit) as us showing our weakness - we lose face - and they in turn find that terror does work. thereby increasing attacks, so that we cease supporting Israel among other things. (which is a discussion for a different time).

While leaving might empower Al Queda, staying empowers them too. I honestly dont care if the attack is motivated by confidence or desperation. Either way Al Queda is going to try to attack us. We cannot change this and focusing on it misses the big picture.

The big picture is whether or not Al Queda is able to attack us. This hinges not on thier particular motivation at the time, but upon thier ability to sustain thier organization. This is why Al Queda wants the US to see this as a war against them. They are using this war to support thier organization.

Al Queda will spin any event to suit them. So arguing that we should not persue a policy because Al Queda will spin it as a positive for them is a road to nowhere. The facts show very clearly that our occupation of Iraq is strengthening Al Queda, our leaving Iraq would reverse this trend.

the other possibility is that whilst they may not use terror attacks to keep us in check, they do so by maniuplating oil supply, and frankly we jsut don't have the infrastructure in place to cope with that. (also a discussion for a different time)

Since Al Queda does not control a single ounce of oil, your fears in this regard are unfounded.

[MsTryska]

93. Mmm.....I think you are mistaken on the extent of control

the mujahideen (not just AQ) have in various governments.

[K-W]

96. Can you provide a link documenting this control?

Because as far as I know, I am not mistaken.

[MsTryska]

99. nope.

but there are several articles out there about various nation-states.


here's the deal - he who holds the land controls the oil. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran are all nations that have strong strong ties with the respective Radicals in their country. Pakistan will be toppling soon - Yemen send money, Jordan sends missiles - you can't possibly think that the Mujahideen have no bearing on what nation-states do?


if you haven't read Imperial Hubris already - i suggest you do.

[K-W]

101. OK...

here's the deal - he who holds the land controls the oil.

And the land is held by national militaries, not radical militants.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran are all nations that have strong strong ties with the respective Radicals in their country. Pakistan will be toppling soon - Yemen send money, Jordan sends missiles -

This is a non-argument. Not all fundementalists or all radicals work together or are linked. And even though nation states do, at times support or work with fundementalist groups, it does not follow that those groups control the nation states.

you can't possibly think that the Mujahideen have no bearing on what nation-states do?

Im not sure exactly what you mean by having a bearing on what the nation states do, it doesnt sound like something I think.

[MsTryska]

110. I disagree......

And the land is held by national militaries, not radical militants.

military belonging to nation-states which was arbitrarily created by Westerners. The borders are ireelevant to those who consider themselves borthers and sisters.



is a non-argument. Not all fundementalists or all radicals work together or are linked. And even though nation states do, at times support or work with fundementalist groups, it does not follow that those groups control the nation states.


you are not understanding how all this works together, it seems. the very idea of nation-states in this region is an outdated modality - tribal ties, kinship ties, religious ties that are wielding the real power - what you see as "nation-state power" are really corrupt regimes propped up by Westerners and are the very regimes the Mujahideen will target next, after sorting the US out.

Listen to them and what they say. they tend not to lie.


I'm not sure exactly what you mean by having a bearing on what the nation states do, it doesnt sound like something I think.

no it's really not soemthing you think - it's what's coming around the corner. The radicalization of Islam has happened from above and below - the mujahideen have friends/sympathizers all over the various nation-state governments. I really suggest you read Imperial Hubris to understand what I'm talking about.

it seems like you are applying Western Statesman-ship to a a Middle-Eastern tribal culture that holds Islam above all else. It's the fundamental mistake made by Westerners since the beginning of our involvement in that area, and it continues today.

[K-W]

115. I think its more a case of talking past each other.

military belonging to nation-states which was arbitrarily created by Westerners. The borders are ireelevant to those who consider themselves borthers and sisters.

Ok, but the land is still controlled by national militaries regardless of how those nations came about or how irrelevent they are to some people. On the issue of who controls the oil, they are very relevant.

you are not understanding how all this works together, it seems. the very idea of nation-states in this region is an outdated modality - tribal ties, kinship ties, religious ties that are wielding the real power - what you see as "nation-state power" are really corrupt regimes propped up by Westerners and are the very regimes the Mujahideen will target next, after sorting the US out.

Listen to them and what they say. they tend not to lie.


That is largely accurate but really doesnt address anything I wrote.


no it's really not soemthing you think - it's what's coming around the corner. The radicalization of Islam has happened from above and below - the mujahideen have friends/sympathizers all over the various nation-state governments.

Lets try to avoid vague generalities please. And yes, the militants have sympathizers all over the place. And they will have such sympathizers as long as some of thier goals match the goals of others. But the fact that people all over the Islamic world are sympathetic to them in thier current missions hardly translates to militant organizations controlling governments.

it seems like you are applying Western Statesman-ship to a a Middle-Eastern tribal culture that holds Islam above all else. It's the fundamental mistake made by Westerners since the beginning of our involvement in that area, and it continues today

Well, then you misread, because I wrote nothing of the sort.

[MsTryska]

100. actually i lied......

here's an interesting link that might be helpful:

http://www.progress.org/2004/water26.htm

[K-W]

102. Perhaps I missed it, but where on that site

is the evidence of the Mujahadeen or Al Queda controlling governments?

[MsTryska]

109. Mujahideen simply means

"Islamic Freedom Fighter"



i'm using it in place of "radical islamist" as someone mentioned it was too much of a right-wing loaded term.


the entire second section deals with Islamic Economics and Common rights.

incidentally Nigeria is a largley Islamic nation-state as well.

[K-W]

112. Which specific fact from that link shows it?

Mujahideen simply means "Islamic Freedom Fighter"... i'm using it in place of "radical islamist" as someone mentioned it was too much of a right-wing loaded term.

Actually Mujahideen generally refers to the fighters organized in Afghanistan to battle against Russian occupation.

It is very important to remember that Islam, like all major religions, has radicals that come in all shapes and sizes. They cannot be generalized together.

the entire second section deals with Islamic Economics and Common rights.

You suggested that you feared the groups currently planning attacks on us might be able to use thier control over governments to limit our oil supply. I am asking you for some documentation that the groups currently planning attacks on US have control over governments that could limit our oil supply.

I still do not see this in the article you linked, please do me the favor of quoting the relevant section in this thread if I have managed to overlook it until now.

[MsTryska]

119. I disagree again....

Actually Mujahideen generally refers to the fighters organized in Afghanistan to battle against Russian occupation.

It doesn't. Yes Mujahideen did fight in Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation. But it's blanket terminology for freedom fighter.

this may help:

http://www.free-definition.com/Mujahideen.html



It is very important to remember that Islam, like all major religions, has radicals that come in all shapes and sizes. They cannot be generalized together.


You suggested that you feared the groups currently planning attacks on us might be able to use thier control over governments to limit our oil supply. I am asking you for some documentation that the groups currently planning attacks on US have control over governments that could limit our oil supply.

I still do not see this in the article you linked, please do me the favor of quoting the relevant section in this thread if I have managed to overlook it until now.

I have no documentation other than what i have shown you (well without googling a needle in a haystack, and learning to read arabic) and what is in Imperial Hubris. (which is quite a bit - especially where Afghanistan is concerned)

[K-W]

124. OK

It doesn't. Yes Mujahideen did fight in Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation. But it's blanket terminology for freedom fighter.

this may help:

http://www.free-definition.com/Mujahideen.html

Actually, as your link proves me correct. I said that it "generally refers to the fighters organized in Afghanistan to battle against Russian occupation" which is most certainly true. That is its general usage even though it does just mean freedom fighter and your usage is not incorrect. I merely meant to suggest that it could be misleading as people generally associate the term with Afghanistan.

I have no documentation other than what i have shown you (well without googling a needle in a haystack, and learning to read arabic) and what is in Imperial Hubris. (which is quite a bit - especially where Afghanistan is concerned)

Afghanistan is a special case and the only reason radicals were allowed to take control there was that it served larger goals for the US and its regional clients.

Without any evidence to support your claim, I shall have to stick with what is supported, that Al Queda does not have the ability to cut off our oil supply through diplomatic or political means.

[MsTryska]

125. oy vey.

Your definition of Mujahideen is general usage AMONG westerners, yes.


But that is not the definition of the word.


as for your issues regarding Oil - i'll take it from a synopsis of Imperial Hubris on Wikipedia:

bin Laden has 6 goals as far as foreing policy is concerned:

(1) end U.S. aid to Israel;

(2) U.S. withdrawal from Arabian peninsula; - this means the bases in Saudi and Kuwait and the corporations all over the place.

(3) end of U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan - the insurgents are working on this one.

(4) end of U.S. support for Muslim oppression by China, Russia, India, etc.;

(5) Muslim control of oil and sale at market prices

(6) Islamist régimes instead of U.S.-protected Muslim régimes - this is bringing the next Caliphate into power.

right now AQ has a worldwide network - they are allied with Al-Ansar Islam. they are able to incite and inflame fellow muslims - recrtuitng them into becoming Mujahideen (as is their Muslim duty) - and even scarier - are able to provide Home-based training via the internet in bomb-making etc. I have no doubt in my mind now - that the London Tube bombings were carried out in exactly this way - because it would be quite easy to send instructions via mailing lists.


They are assemblign the warriors they need to bring the next Caliphate about, and sadly we're playing right along to stupid to notice.

As they recruit up and down the ranks (and don't doubt for a second - that there aren't high-powered AQ/Al-Ansar/insert your preferred mujahideen group here, in various Nation-state governments - then i don't know what to tell you, but do your research.

incidentally - here's that wiki synopsis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris

[K-W]

130. Indeed.

Your definition of Mujahideen is general usage AMONG westerners, yes.

Last time I checked we were speaking english on this forum.

But that is not the definition of the word.

Which is exactly what I said. Thanks for again correcting me when I said nothing wrong.


(5) Muslim control of oil and sale at market prices

Right. He sure would love to control the oil, but he doesnt.


They are assemblign the warriors they need to bring the next Caliphate about, and sadly we're playing right along to stupid to notice.

Lol. No, they actually arent, because that is a pipe dream of fanatics. What they are actually achieving and what they claim thier ultimate goal to be are two very different things. You are ignoring reality and chasing phantoms here.

As they recruit up and down the ranks (and don't doubt for a second - that there aren't high-powered AQ/Al-Ansar/insert your preferred mujahideen group here, in various Nation-state governments - then i don't know what to tell you, but do your research.

I have done my research. Why is it that you cannot produce a single piece of evidence to support your claims?

[MsTryska]

131. it's easy to ask for evidence of what's

coming down the pike....not so easy to produce the evidence that would be to your liking.


you can go ahead and keep thinking that everything is fine that it's jsut "fringe loonies" it's not really happening etc, etc - but mark my words - when we do finally pull out of iraq - it's gonna get real interesting - especially if the Kurds can't get the control they want. Then we'll have a government friendly with Iran, and friendly with afghanistan - because as soon as we pull out of Afghanistan - the Taliban will move right back in. And then when Iraq, iran and Afghanistan are under sympathetc governments to each otehr - it's a matter of destabilizing Saudis faltering government - and let's not forget the Chechens.

but whatever - you keep thinking there's not a problem.

[K-W]

134. Well, at least you admit you have no evidence to support your claims.

And any valid evidence would be to my liking, so feel free to post what you have, I am anxious to learn all this information I have missed.


you can go ahead and keep thinking that everything is fine that it's jsut "fringe loonies" it's not really happening etc, etc - but mark my words - when we do finally pull out of iraq - it's gonna get real interesting - especially if the Kurds can't get the control they want. Then we'll have a government friendly with Iran, and friendly with afghanistan - because as soon as we pull out of Afghanistan - the Taliban will move right back in. And then when Iraq, iran and Afghanistan are under sympathetc governments to each otehr - it's a matter of destabilizing Saudis faltering government - and let's not forget the Chechens.

You have completely lost touch with reality. The only people who would believe your prophecies are paranoid Americans and the terrorists themselves. Everyone in between knows how silly that is.

but whatever - you keep thinking there's not a problem.

On the contrary. I think there are very very big problems, real problems effecting real people. And one of the biggest of those problems is our brutal occupation of Iraq. So excuse me if I have little room for unproven claims and paranoid fantasies.

[MsTryska]

135. yeah yeah yeah......

this wouldn't be the first time soemone's accused me of "losing touch with reality".



the last time was prior to going into the iraq war, when i said, Saddam didn't have ties to Al Quaeda, Saddam didn't have weapons of Mass Destruction, and this war would do nothing but destabilize what is the one stable and secular government in the ME. I said it would tunr into a hotbed for radical islam and nothing good could come of that.


I was called crazy for that - but 3 years later - well here we are.

My "paranoid fantasies" and i will just hang out waiting for the rest of y'all to catch up.

have a good day.

[K-W]

136. So because you have been right before, you must be right now?

Brilliant argument.

this wouldn't be the first time soemone's accused me of "losing touch with reality".

Ok...

the last time was prior to going into the iraq war, when i said, Saddam didn't have ties to Al Quaeda, Saddam didn't have weapons of Mass Destruction, and this war would do nothing but destabilize what is the one stable and secular government in the ME. I said it would tunr into a hotbed for radical islam and nothing good could come of that.

If someone had asked you to prove your claims, you could have, because everything you just said was well documented.

The fact that you got that right (along with a majority of the world), does not prove that you are right now. And when I ask you to prove your claims now I get nothing.

I was called crazy for that - but 3 years later - well here we are.

So your argument is that because you knew that the Iraq war was going to turn out this way (along with most of the rational world), you must also be correct about this... you must see the rediculousness of this?

My "paranoid fantasies" and i will just hang out waiting for the rest of y'all to catch up.

Since I dont plan on abandoning reason any time soon, dont wait up for me.

[MsTryska]

137. nah - i tend only to be right when i'm called crazy

it's always been that way.



I wasn't right about kerry winning the election - but then again i had good company on that one.


but i've been pretty consistent on various topics - for which i've been called crazy.

as i said - y'all catch up eventually.

[K-W]

138. I will catch up to what? I have implored you for the information.

I am curious and open to getting new information about this topic. I would like nothing more than to learn new information.
I enjoy being proven wrong.

But instead of posting any evidence at all you simply claim you are right, because you are right and I will just have to catch up to you.

Either your opinion is based on facts or it is based on fantasy and until you are willing to share the facts with people, they will have no choice but to assume it is fantasy.

[MsTryska]

140. then do your own research.

there are plenty of places to start.


imperial hubris
oil and islam
islamic economic theory
several different books by Dilip Hiro


then start studying the leaders of OPEC coutnries - figure out who's in charge and figure out who the Clerics - find out which groups consider themselves Mujahideen in these countries.


the information is readily available. find your own evidence.

[MsTryska]

139. Incidentally - here's a question for you

why are you so confident that what i'm syaing "is not based in reality" and strictly "crazy talk".


of what benefit is it to believe that this is just fringe-raving?


how would it affect your world-view to believe this would come to pass?

you seem emotionally invested in saying it isn't so - but let me tell you - you are only deluding yourself.


you want to base yourself in reality? start connecting the geopolitical dots for yourself.


it's not that difficult.

[K-W]

141. You refuse to support your claims. If your claims were based on facts,

why would you not simply reference those facts?

of what benefit is it to believe that this is just fringe-raving?

When did I say it was fringe-raving? I wish yours was a fringe opinion, but it isnt, in fact it is quite mainstream.

how would it affect your world-view to believe this would come to pass?

I dont base my worldview on beliefs. I base my beliefs on my worldview which I base on facts and reason.

you seem emotionally invested in saying it isn't so - but let me tell you - you are only deluding yourself.

I am emotionally invested in getting at the truth because peoples lives are on the line. I am certainly not emotionally invested in saying it isnt so.

It just so happens that it isnt so.

You are free to prove me dellusional, but my wonderous powers of prediction tell me that instead of proving anything you will just continue to insist that you are right.

you want to base yourself in reality? start connecting the geopolitical dots for yourself.

Actually I have been connecting the geopolitical dots for myself, its pretty much all I do all day. Which is why I have asked you to produce the dots that you connected to reach your conclusion.

Yet you refuse to supply the information. Why do you keep insisting I need to learn something, but refusing to provide the information?

it's not that difficult.

Actually its extremely difficult. Geopolitics is hardly easy. But you know what is easy? Posting some evidence to support your claims... easy, that is, if such evidence exists.

[MsTryska]

142. first off you presume i find this info on the web....

if i did then perhaps it would be easy....

but i get it from books - i provided you with a list of books to check out. feel free to do so on your own time.

[K-W]

143. I presumed no such thing.

I didnt ask for a reading list. I asked for specific sources of specific facts.

[MsTryska]

145. you asked me for links.

i don't have links.


i also don't have sources - as i don't have the books in front fo me to look at footnotes.


i gave you titles - feel free to look for the info yourself.

[K-W]

146. I am not your research assistant.

You made the claims, you back them up.

I asked for a link because this is an internet forum and it is the most common way for people to provide references. I did not presume that you had gotten your information from anything, I presumed that information this important would probably be online somewhere. I am, obviously, aware of the existance of books.

[MsTryska]

147. Nor am I your research assistant.

more importantly - you can choose to believe me or not.


I'm perfectly ok with you not believing me.


if you're curious to know - find out for yourself.


i've told you what i know, i've given you resources - what more do you want from me?



you want me to prove something to you - i don't feel the need to prove myself to you - we've reached an impasse.

[K-W]

148. Nor did I ask you to look up my sources. You asked me to look up yours.

more importantly - you can choose to believe me or not.

No, I cant. Because rational people, who respect the truth dont arbitrarily choose thier beliefs. I believe whatever the evidence suggests is the truth. Since you have provided no evidence, you have not given me any more reason to believe your claims than I have to believe in the tooth fairy.

if you're curious to know - find out for yourself.

I did find out for myself. I have read on the subject extensively, yet somehow did not manage to discover the facts you claim to have discovered, which I why I have asked you repeatedly to give me the source by which I could find out for myself.

You refuse to provide the source, I cannot therefore find out for myself.

i've told you what i know, i've given you resources - what more do you want from me?

You have done no such thing. You made factual claims and still have not referenced them. Telling me to read a pile of books because your sure its in there somewhere is not telling me what I wanted to know.

you want me to prove something to you - i don't feel the need to prove myself to you - we've reached an impasse.

I want you to prove your claims. You dont feel a need to, which indicates to me that you have no proof. We have reached an impasse because you want to be free to make very extreme claims without supporting them at all.

[MsTryska]

149. Since when were books not adequate sources?

i'm done with this conversation.



you seem to feel i need to prove soemthing to you.


i don't feel that way. If you are curious about this information - you'll find out more about it.


if not then you won't.


i have no control over that, nor do i want control over that - nor should i be burdened by you for it.


it really is that simple. if you don't believe it, that's ok. if you want to find out more about it, there are books available.

if you really just want to keep arguing - that's okay too, but this is my last response.

[K-W]

151. Huh? I never said books werent adequate sources.

And now you are just repeating arguments that I have already answered and discredited, so perhaps it is best if you leave this discussion.

If you ever want to have a serious fact based discussion let me know. In the meantime if you are going to make arguments about geopolitics and refuse to backup your claims, dont expect anyone to take you seriously.

[rman]

103. The control works the other way around

governments (or better: certain elements with governments) control various so-called terrorist groups. Though it's probably more accurate to say that (many) governments have been infiltrated by a global gang of elitist thugs - it's just that in some governments the infiltration is the dominating factor.

I have yet to see anyone even attempt to discredit the whistle blowers who say so. As of yet the nay-sayers are in full ignore mode on this.


"...money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money."

"...once this issue gets to be investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally."

"There is direct evidence involving no more then ten American names that I recognized, some are heads of government agencies or politicians - but I don’t want to go any further than that."
-- Sibel Edmonds

Which is confirmed by Indira Singh.

Sibel Edmonds and other Whistleblowers Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=344

[K-W]

106. Indeed, and this has been the case for decades.

No sooner had these groups and movements emerged than states were infiltrating, provoking, and steering them.

[rman]

107. I think the overwhelming absence of attention for this issue

is rather striking.

No accusations of conspiracy theory, no "it makes us look bad", no mockery or ridicule of any kind... just nothing.

Is it because this is the most ludicrous notion that people have ever come across - more ludicrous even then "Bush caused the tsunami"?
Or is it ignored in self-defense, to avoid the massive cognitive dissonance that would ensue for most people if they'd accept there might be something to it?

I really curious what the people who read about it and then don't respond, are thinking.

[MsTryska]

111. Wait...could you clarify what you are saying?

if i'm understanding it correctly you are saying that it's Westerners infiltrating these various nation-state governments?



that's a given - Bin Laden wouldn't have a bug up his ass in the first place if that wasn't true. I wouldn't call it infiltreating tho. I'd call it propping up, or perhaps puppeteering.


what i am saying is that the tide is changing - these puppet governments are getting infiltrated by radicals - who are steering into deeper waters and working from the inside to get the corrupt westernized governments out.

[rman]

114. no -

What i mean is that transnational individuals have infiltrated governments, government agencies, various institutions and many large corporations - everywhere. They also create institutions, corporations, and the occasional government in a far-away place.

What Sibel is saying is that she has evidence that there are ties between US officials in very high places, and terror financing (and money laundering, narcotics trafficking). This has been for a long time, and still is the defining force on the global stage.

[MsTryska]

117. ah i understand.....and I also agree. nt

nt

[rman]

123. It puts "we're open to more terror" in a whole different light;

It means that being open to terror has nothing to do with getting punked in Iraq, but has everything to do with how much these global elite thugs can get away with. The thugs are not bin Laden or any so-called "terrorists" - the culprits are in the US government.

[MsTryska]

126. Well don't discredit

the mujahideen - as well.

they are well aware of the global elite - and what us commonfolk are feeling are the pain brought donw on us, in response to the thugs actions.


Which is really what bugs me. I really wish OBL and his posse would take it out on those who are inflictign the damage, and leave hte rest of us well enough alone.

[TahitiNut]

98. Yep. And not liking that answer doesn't mean it's not the answer.

People who didn't like the answer of 3.14159... tried to legislate another answer. No force of arms or tyrannical law will avoid the reality. It's get out now or even more death and destruction and get out later. Ultimately, it's get out and there's no upside. None.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. "Punked" hell. We got our ass kicked.

For the whole world to see. Our bungling politicians and military bit off more than they can chew when they invisioned cheering Iraqis kissing the troops hands and naming they're kids Dubya.

Funny thing about invading someone elses country, people tend to resent it.

The idea that we should stay and "help" is tantamount to saying that things would have gotten better in Vietnam if we had stayed and "helped".

Hubris got us in and defeat is getting us out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. The French Had To Leave Algeria...

The irony...

The irony...


I resent Bush for getting us into this mess... History will not be kind to those who perpetrated this fraud on the American public...

[rniel]

59. They learned from Afghanistan

Bin Laden wanted america to send troops to do the same thing to us they did to Russia back in Afghanistan. Bog us down in a guerilla war than ends up costing us so much in money and lives until we're not willing to keep it going and have to pull out.

He set the trap and we took the bait.

I just wonder if we spent all the money we had on better intelligence and better protection in our own country that would've been money better spent. I mean I agree we had to go into afghanistan and bomb the terrorist training camps and take the fight to bin laden, but the war in Iraq will accomplish nothing good for us.

[MsTryska]

62. or for the Iraquis for that matter....

as it is now with the "constitution" we're forcing on our political timetable - so many Iraquis will be worse off now than before we invaded.

[rniel]

66. On National Geographic channel last night

They layed out all the details in "Inside 9/11" of the history of this situation. This was the work of a small group of radical muslims scattered over several countries. How more effective it would've been to have those countries work with you to catch some of these guys, break up their financing. Bomb some strategic targets to keep innocent lives lost at a minimum. Keep most of the muslims on 'our side' rather than 'radicalizing' a whole new generation who will do anything to kill more americans.

Karl Rove wanted to have a "wartime president" and I think he said this long before 9/11 ever happened.

[dpibel]

73. Spelling police

Hate to do this in the midst of a heated discussion, but there's no "u" in "Iraqi."

[MsTryska]

79. you're right.

i can't break that English habit of putting u's after q's it seems.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

67. Vietnam: What was claimed would happen if we left? What happened?

[Bushwick Bill]

69. J.H. Kunstler (Registered Dem) Says War Is the Answer..

Kunstler says that to some extent we are all complicit in this war if we want to continue to live the easy motoring lifestyle that we do.

August 15, 2005,
Before I even get started, I will qualify my remarks this week by reminding you 1.) I'm a registered Democrat, and 2.) I'm not "pro-war."
<snip>

Which gets back to the war per se. Because if anyone asked me to define what the war is about -- and people have asked -- I would say the war is a desperate attempt by the US to stabilize the region of the world where two-thirds of the remaining global oil supply exists in order for Americans like Harry Shearer to continue enjoying a lifestyle of extreme car dependency. Now, this war may be an exercise in futility and ineptitude by the people running it, while it includes acts of valor or brutality by the soldiers engaged in it, and certainly produces a lot of personal tragedy for the soldiers and the Iraqi people.

But I have trouble imagining what Harry Shearer thinks the Middle East would be like now if the US had not overthrown Saddam Hussein and was not struggling to maintain this police station there in the hot center of things. Does he imagine it would be a tranquil scene, like the picture on a pack of Camel cigarettes? If Shearer couldn't get as much gas as he wanted on a given day -- even if he could pay high prices -- to fill up his Infiniti, or Beemer, or Benzie, or Toyota Landcruiser, or whatever he drives, would he be feeling quite so superior about the war? Has Harry Shearer seen any of his children join the army and go to Iraq to preserve his entitlement to drive all over Los Angeles in a spiffy car? Has Harry Shearer made any sacrifices so that he is less oil-dependent than he was before there was a war in Iraq?

Harry Shearer with his attitude of moral superiority reminds me of my neighbor here in Saratoga Springs, the lady with the "War Is NOT the Answer" bumper sticker on her Ford Expedition. For people who want to keep on enjoying an easy motoring utopia, war is the answer.

This, of course, is the predicament of the Democrats, my own party. They have no interest in modifying the nation's suicidal suburban sprawl lifestyle either, only in the easy pretenses of political correctness. Instead of twanging on WMDs and the depravity of the war in Iraq, I'd like to hear someone like Harry Shearer (or John Kerry, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid) stand up and pitch for restoring the US passenger rail system. I'd like to hear some of these assholes propose some meaningful changes that Americans can make in behavior so we won't be so desperate to engage in military contests over the oil we need to drive for sushi in Los Angeles.
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary14.html

[dpibel]

72. Agreed, except...

This is rather the crux of the matter, and Americans blithely deny how much havoc has been wreaked upon the world to ensure our way of life which is, according to DaddyBoosh "not negotiable."

I do think Mr. Kunstler is 'way off when he says this:

"But I have trouble imagining what Harry Shearer thinks the Middle East would be like now if the US had not overthrown Saddam Hussein and was not struggling to maintain this police station there in the hot center of things."

I imagine Harry Shearer thinks the Middle East now would be much like the Middle East was before the Fierce Warrior Chieftain got his war on: no model, but a hell of a lot better than it is now. We are aware, are we not, that even after a decade of the most brutal sanctions in the history of the world Iraq's infrastructure was in better shape before Little George's Big War than it is now? And this "police station there in the hot center of things" is policing just what?

[MsTryska]

81. I agree with you on that. nt

nt

[MsTryska]

74. damn straight.....

i totally agree with Kunstler - and I work everyday to address some of the issues he has in my particular city.


however the Oil problem is going to be solved overnight. We could make a serious move to ethanol and even that is a second-best option - altho fairly easily to implemtn now - but weaning ourselves of Oil totally is going to be a slow process.


So since it is a slow process we still have to be concerned about what's going on with the Oil supply.

[K-W]

90. I have a bridge to sell to anyone

who thinks that our troops are a stabalizing force in the middle east.

[beetbox]

71. Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

Google It

In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world's governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China – were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed inside a hostile Iraq. In 2002 I wrote an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced on September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN's Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq's oil export currency.<4> Indeed, my original pre-war hypothesis was validated in a Financial Times article dated June 5, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars – not euros.

The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar.

[MsTryska]

82. very interesting theory.....

and leads to another ball of string in it's own right.


which tends to depress me even further. *lol*

i will google it later today.

[Jacobin]

85. White Man Fix Brown Man Country Good.

Brown Man No Can Fix Brown Man Country.

White Man Have All Answers.

That is all.

[K-W]

91. Hear hear good chap, the barbarians shall be civilized

by the benevolent force of our bombs.

[jonnyblitz]

92. exactly.

:thumbsup:

[MsTryska]

95. *lol* we've done brillaintly so far haven't we?

i really hate that we are in the position we are in now.

[jonnyblitz]

105. it sucks doesn't it? it's a "lose/lose" situation it seems.

this is a good thread btw to read through no matter how one comes down on this. i think i will get the book you reference out of the library and give it a read. :hi:

[MsTryska]

121. absolutely! i found it in my library....

it's really helped me clarify what's really going on in the ME from the perspective of the major players on their side.


one unintended consequence i think tho, that if you consider yourself as soemone "against the man" - there are times where it becomes easier to empathize with what bin Laden and his ilk are trying to accomplish.

[radio4progressives]

104. Direct your anger to the DLC who is just as responsible...

[LSK]

108. i dont see how leaving puts Americans in MORE danger

They already hate us enough already. How the hell would leaving make them hate us more??? If anything, it would slow down Iraqi recruiting for the insurgents and potential terrorists. And IMO the violence would go down there.

[MsTryska]

113. i didn't say it would make them hate us more.

altho i think that us "trying to help" may be taken entirely the wrong way and seen as more "western interference"

and also pulling out entriely might send the message that daily carbombs are the way to make the west do what you want them to do, and efforts to destroy Israel will be next on the agenda.


either before or after toppling any "friendly" ME governments in existence.

[K-W]

116. So if we leave, they might do what they are already doing?

and also pulling out entriely might send the message that daily carbombs are the way to make the west do what you want them to do, and efforts to destroy Israel will be next on the agenda.

I hate to break it to you, but they already got that message, a long time ago, and there have been efforts to destroy Israel since Israel first started.

[LSK]

129. we are doing absolutely nothing to help them

If we were, we wouldnt be hiring contractors to rebuild their country, we would be hiring Iraqis.

[MsTryska]

132. exactly.....

and if we were to try to genuinely help - i don't think we would be trusted.

[OzarkDem]

122. Needs to be multi-national

That's been Bush's biggest mistake all along - not getting NATO and UN peacekeeping forces involved.

Reverse that policy, bring in UN troops, develop a plan all sides agree on and Voila! we're out.

[MsTryska]

127. hmm...there's a hopeful alternative......

I'd rather UN peacekeepers there to help out during the reconstruction than jsut us. I didn't think of that at all.


thanks!

[NuttyFluffers]

144. Keep It Stupid Simple -- Remember First Rule about Holes

When deep in one, stop digging.

It is wiser to quit when you are behind, take assessment, and then restart with a better plan, allies, resources, etc.

So. What have we learned? When what you are doing is creating a bigger implacable problem, what to do? First: Stop. Then: Assess. Next: Plan. Last: Act.

Stop here means getting all the troops out of there, because our very presence is an action (y'know, the act of occupation?). Very basic stuff. There is only one right answer for the first step to solving this -- we end occupation. We deal with part two when we get there. And now you know, so there is no more need for confusion.

[screembloodymurder]

155. This isn't about losing face, it's about losing lives.

How long do you think Bush would keep our troops in Iraq if they didn't have oil. We lost face when we attacked an innocent nation.