Just how fast are things going in Iraq?

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
SanDeE*
So-Called Addict
Posts: 989
Joined: Sep 24th 2002, 4:40 am

Post by SanDeE* » Jan 24th 2005, 8:03 pm

Thanks for all this information, lance. The whole thing just makes me sick, but I'm glad the info is available to me. This situation can't be ignored.
Um, in my room, one seam is a little off and I stare at it constantly. It's, like, destroying me.

~~Kristin~~

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jan 24th 2005, 11:20 pm

Kristin wrote:Thanks for all this information, lance. The whole thing just makes me sick, but I'm glad the info is available to me. This situation can't be ignored.
Your welcome. Yeah, pretty miserable news but ya never know. The guys who dream up this stuff don't respond well to public scrutiny, light of day stuff. If enough people raise a fuss, well I try to remain hopeful.

:D

-LanceMan

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Nov 24th 2005, 12:39 am

Anybody catch Congressman Murtha's speech from last week?

:shock:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/polit ... itary.html

"When asked about Mr. Cheney's remarks on Wednesday, Mr. Murtha replied sarcastically: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Did anyone catch the comments that Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt made on the floor of the House?

:evil:

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... /511230369

One of Murtha's points was that the US military can't win on the ground unless there is a draft, which there isn't. Also interesting that Pelosi, Reid and others kept there distance. I thought I read somewhere that Murtha asked Pelosi to keep her distance because he didn't want his statement to appear one out of the left. Liberal bloggers have been pretty upset by the seemingly tepid support Murtha has received from Democrats.

IMHO I think "staying the course" is done. Heard on NPR today that the Pentagon and Sec. of State Rice are discussing a troop withdrawal scheduled next year. Seems to me not a question of whether the US will get out but when.

-LanceMan

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Nov 29th 2005, 5:09 am

Yeah, this has been reported over here too. It sounds like it got pretty heated. Certainly from the way the BBC reported it, they ran the two things juxtaposed, so it sounded pretty damning...

To be honest, I don't really know how I feel about an exit strategy. I mean, part of me thinks 'stay in there and finish what you started' - 'saving' the Iraqi people means giving them security so they don't have to walk around afraid for their lives. BUT if they withdrew, would Iraq plunge into a massive civil war? I tend to think it would, because there will be an almighty great power vacuum. The sad fact is, I don't know enough about the facts at this point, and I don't know if anyone does. I don't think it's necessarily about cowardice, it's about (or it should be about) doing what will restore security to Iraq. There are a lot of arguments floating about regarding what is best for the USA and Britain at this point (do we spend more money on this war? do more servicemen lose their lives?) which I think clouds the issue. We steamed in there, and let's face it, the final justification given was because 'it will help the Iraqi people'. So I think you have to stick to that aim, and angle your means towards achieving it. Anything else at this point will make it look like we went in for WMDs and the argument about saving the Iraq people was a smokescreen (which I tend to believe anyway). In a sense the administrations (and I include Blair in this) have tied their hands: they can't use the WMD argument anymore, because it's flawed. They have to rely on the morality of ridding the Iraqi people of Saddam (who, let's not forget, we put there and helped to keep there). To do this, they have to prove their invasion leaves Iraq better off. Which they can't do until Iraq is secure.

As an interesting aside, I'm studying Theories of International Relations at the moment, which makes this all VERY interesting. It really does represent a pivot point in world politics. There are many, many Americans in the class - I would say they make up around 1/3 of the numbers.

As another interesting aside, in class the other week, someone said 'I wonder what will happen when more Americans have died in Iraq than were killed on 9/11. Will there be a public outcry?'. I think that has to represent some kind of moral tipping point.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Nov 29th 2005, 3:14 pm

I think beyond all the politics is one basic formula for how long we will stay in Iraq. Will it cost us more to maintain a presence there to ensure lower oil prices, or will it be more expensive to withdraw and deal with higher prices?
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Nov 30th 2005, 5:23 am

Nothingman wrote: Will it cost us more to maintain a presence there to ensure lower oil prices, or will it be more expensive to withdraw and deal with higher prices?
Yes, I fear this may well be what it comes down to (representing the neorealist viewpoint in international relations). I rather suspect this will be a behind the scenes confidential calculation though, because to admit this will be political suicide. Of course, having said that, Bush can't serve another term (thankfully) and Blair has already said he won't stand again. Arguments about the 'should' of the situation have proven to fall on deaf ears repeatedly.

So, in a sense, we have the 'public' reason staying or going, and the 'real' reason. Just like everything else.

I find myself turning into such a cynic, and it depresses me. I want optimism! I want eternal youth! I choose Life! aaagh.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Dec 6th 2005, 1:08 am

Nothingman wrote:I think beyond all the politics is one basic formula for how long we will stay in Iraq. Will it cost us more to maintain a presence there to ensure lower oil prices, or will it be more expensive to withdraw and deal with higher prices?
The metrics are pretty harsh but evident:

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

We are losing 1,000 killed EVERY year. So if we stay for two more years at the current troop levels, 2,000 more families will be destroyed. Simple as that. Put another way, if we pull out now Iraq will be in civil war. If we withdraw in 10 years Iraq will be in civil war.

For an interesting perspective listen to what General Odom has to say on this subject:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5035613

Odom was once part of the NSA and was my brother's professor at Yale.

One of the interesting points he raises: the Iranian goverment and Iraqi Bathists has Al Queda. If it wasn't for the American presence Al Queda would find itself destroyed or expelled rather quickly by these two parties.

-LanceMan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests