| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Occupation enters critical phase |
| 2003-11-14 |
| In many respects, the current political conditions in Iraq are very similar to those of Vietnam 40 years ago. In Vietnam, one of the major goals of the various US administrations, from Harry Trumanâs to Gerald Fordâs, was to create a viable government in South Vietnam that had the support of the Vietnamese people but which would also be a proponent of US interests in Southeast Asia. In order to achieve this goal, Washington supported a handful of South Vietnamese leaders, from Bao Dai to Nguyen Van Thieu. Yet all of these leaders were corrupt and did not represent the interests of the Vietnamese people. No no no, Chalabi is different he may be a criminal and sentenced by a Jordanian court to 22 years in prison with hard labour, [ 31 charges of embezzlement, theft, misuse of depositor funds etc. etc. ] after the collapse of the businessmanâs Jordanian bank. But he is definitely not as corrupt as those Vietnamese and he represents fully the Iraqi people even if he was not in Iraq for 30 years. :) In Iraq, the administration of President George W Bush faces similar political concerns that successive US administrations faced in Vietnam, while at the same time suffering from what many Americans feel is an unacceptable casualty rate that was only seen in the later years of US involvement in Vietnam. There is growing concern in the US over the Bush administrationâs policy in Iraq; according to an ABC/Washington Post opinion poll released on November 2, for the first time a majority of Americans disapprove of the administrationâs handling of the conflict in Iraq. Additionally, the poll indicated that 60 percent of the US population find the current casualty rate unacceptable. Subsequently, continued US casualties have prompted the administration to pursue quickly a policy that has already been labeled "Iraqification", eerily similar to the failed "Vietnamization" policy of the 1960s and 1970s. The policy of "Iraqification" involves training Iraqi military and security forces in order to have them replace US forces; the intent is that Iraqis will eventually fight Iraqis for the interests of the US government. Yet there is no reason to believe that this policy will be any more successful than it was in Vietnam. As in Vietnam, the type of individual who is willing to fight his own population in the interests of a foreign power is often corrupt and fails to make an effective fighter. The success of this policy relies on whether the Bush administration can marginalize Iraqi guerrilla forces and prevent them from gaining support among the civilian population. At present, it is not clear whether the Bush administration is achieving this goal. While Washington has succeeded in establishing a central bank, circulating a new currency, restoring some essential services, and appointing a governing council made up of Iraqis, resistance to the US presence has been growing. The attacks by insurgent fighters have also become more deadly, culminating in the November 2 attack on a US Chinook helicopter that killed 16 US soldiers and wounded 21 more. The first week of November was the deadliest week for US soldiers since early in the war, with 36 soldiers losing their lives. And just this Wednesday, a truck bomb suicide explosion outside the camp headquarters of the Italian military police in Nasiriyah in southern Iraq killed 17 Italian personnel and at least eight Iraqis. In the past month, US officials admit, attacks on the some 130,000 US troops in Iraq have grown to three dozen a day. Contradicting Bushâs claim that the "desperation of resistance is proof we are winning", the continued and now increased resistance speaks to a different theory: that Washington thus far has failed to root out Baâathist elements and independent resistance groups, and has also been unable to prevent certain segments of Iraqi society from actively sympathizing with these fighters. The clashes between resistance fighters and US forces in the streets of Iraq continue to anger the Iraqi population, who blame the US for the current instability in the country. Recent polls from Iraq show that much of society now views US forces as occupiers rather than as liberators. These feelings of distrust can be expected to intensify the longer US and guerrilla fighters continue to battle in the cities of Iraq. The source of many Iraqisâ anger is the overwhelming force frequently used by US soldiers in response to attacks and civil disruptions. While this strategy is effective in large, open terrain such as the desert and when dealing with regular military units, it is typically ineffectual when used in dense urban environments filled with people carrying out their daily lives. Instead, this policy may virtually guarantee otherwise avoidable losses of civilian life and also add to an increasingly negative image of the US presence. The more Iraqis who have a negative image of the US presence, the greater the risk that otherwise uninvolved Iraqis will either cooperate, support or sympathize with anti-US guerrillas. This is already evident in cases of resistance by Iraqi civilians; for example, in the Sunni triangle city of Abu Ghraib, US troops have been consistently fighting both residents and guerrillas. Unless US forces are willing to lock down these cities completely, conducting operations in places such as Abu Ghraib seems counterproductive and may only embolden the guerrillas. In addition to stimulating resistance, operations in cities such as Abu Ghraib, along with the use of overwhelming force, hurt the image of US involvement in Iraq. For instance, New York Times reporter Alex Berenson recently reported that in Abu Ghraib US troops "fired on a photographer trying to cover the fighting and barred reporters from viewing the scene". While such controversial images may be suppressed in the US, they are not elsewhere; as well as on Arab television, European news networks frequently show videos of US troops responding with overwhelming force in the middle of busy market streets. Instead of attempting to prevent these images from reaching the outside world, greater peacekeeping training must be given to US forces to prevent their fighting methods from turning off not only Iraqi society, but also the wider world. The continued inability to pacify Iraq will lead to a failure of US objectives in the country and in the region as a whole. One of the main US objectives in Iraq is to create a viable Iraqi government that has the support of the Iraqi people, but that will also be congruent with US interests in the Middle East. It is not clear whether this objective is still possible. Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who served as a consultant to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, warned Londonâs Daily Telegraph that "any democratically elected Iraqi government is unlikely to be secular, unlikely to be pro-Israel, and frankly, moderately unlikely to be pro-American". Solution: find a pro American Saddam Feldmanâs statement points to one of the most fundamental dilemmas the Bush administration faces: that a democratic Iraq may be an Iraq unfriendly to the US. Furthermore, it highlights the difficulty that Washington is discovering in finding an Iraqi government that supports US interests while also garnering the support of the Iraqi people - a situation that Washington never managed to accomplish in Vietnam. In fact, even Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the governing council who is close to the Pentagon, stated, "The Americans, their methods, their operations, their procedures, are singularly unsuited to deal with this kind of problem." But the US cannot leave Iraq unless Washington is willing to face a loss of influence in the region and the world. If the US were to pull out of Iraq without establishing a strong authority there, the country would likely fall into civil war that could result in territorial fragmentation. The Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiâites in the south could easily plunge into internecine conflict; this perhaps explains why, since Iraqâs creation, the country has been largely run by authoritarian leaders who have repressed political dissent, thus securing the stability of the state. Furthermore, outside powers would inevitably become involved in any Iraqi civil war, creating the possibility of Iraqâs Shiâite south becoming enveloped in the affairs of Iran - a bordering Shiâite Islamic republic - or the Kurds of the north attempting to create a greater Kurdistan. These outcomes would be considered setbacks to US interests. The continued inability to pacify Iraq reflects the larger problem faced by Washington of successfully interacting with Arab and Muslim societies. Facing countries with values quite contrary to the United Statesâs, Washington has failed to provide these societies with a desirable cultural model to follow. Attempts to do so have only enraged Muslim societies and have resulted in a major polarization between the interests of Washington and the interests of these societies. In light of this, Vice President Dick Cheneyâs claim that "we are rolling back the terrorist threat at the very heart of its power in the Middle East" could not seem further from the truth. Subsequent surveys by various groups, such as the Pew Research Center, show that hatred toward the US has been rapidly growing in almost all countries throughout the world, especially Arab and Muslim ones that feel that the "war on terror" is simply a "war on Islam". This polarization will result in more attacks on US interests abroad and possibly at home. Even individuals such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are beginning to question official rhetoric. He admitted in his recent leaked memo that the US "lack[s] the metrics to know whether we are winning or losing the global war on terror". Because the US is too powerful for any state actor to attack, and because hatred for the US is spreading across the planet, individuals in a position of relative weakness will use the most effective means of damaging US interests: engaging in terrorist tactics. |
| Posted by:Murat |
| #48 Jarhead says that the difficulty would be determining who were enemies. Actually, it would not be. Determining who was responsible for the attack might be hard, but determining who our enemies were would not be. In the presumed disaster-scenario of an American city being nuked by a smuggled A-bomb with 100,000 dead, "With us or with the terrorists" would no longer be rhetoric. It would become an ultimatum. Every nation on earth would be informed that they would either cooperate fully with us, and I mean 100.0%, or they would face destruction. The first nation which so much as hesitated in responding fully to any request we made, no matter what it was, would be made an example of. I think the mistake Jarhead made was the assumption that in such a scenario we'd be looking for those directly responsible, and only strike them once we were sure. That's not correct. It would rather be the case that we would be looking for everyone who had either the intention or ability to carry out such an attack, whether involved in that particular attack or not. Once it had been demonstrated that any splinter nations who deeply oppose the US were capable of causing mass slaughter here, the US would immediately defang all of them, even if they could not conceivably be accused of involvement. This would include peremptory orders to India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and any other nation who had or was suspected to have developed nuclear weapons (except Israel!) to immediately (i.e. within two weeks) surrender them to us, along with all fissionables and any other material which might be used to prepare such weapons in future. No "inspections", no negotiations, no UNSC resolutions; a simple straightforward ultimatum with a hard deadline and no compromises accepted. They would get one chance and one only to completely divest themselves of nuclear weapons or the potential to create them, and any who refused would not live to regret it. In the aftermath of any American city actually being nuked surreptitiously, the new American nuclear doctrine would be that any nation not on a short list which gained nuclear weapons would immediately be destroyed. Nations who cooperated fully, unconditionally, willingly, rapidly, unhesitatingly would be safe, even if they'd been heavily implicated in the past. Any nation who refused to cooperate, or who delayed, or who only partially cooperated, or who tried to deceive us and got caught doing so would be in the crosshairs. And I want to emphasize that it would not matter in the slightest whether any given nation was complicit in the attack, or whether they were suspected of being complicit in the attack. If one of our cities gets nuked, the US government would proceed to make sure that it was not possible for it to happen again. |
| Posted by: Steven Den Beste 2003-11-15 1:46:42 AM |
| #47 Slumming, roger. I understand your point. Been to Japan, Okinawa, Korea, know the WWII angle pretty well. I would submit the possibility of a terrorist action (w/a sovereign country tacitly backing them) taking American lives on par or greater to 9/11 being seen as worthy of 'total war' retaliation in the average U.S. citizen's eyes. However, the scenario I foresee would be more in line w/the "Clancy-esque" Sum of All Fears (book of course not that p.o.s. pc movie). Terrorist group acquires wmd of their choice (possibly low grade but enough to kill 3-5,000 U.S. folks), infiltrates southern border of U.S. as per normal illegal traffic. I'm originally from Detroit and know that a lot of Arabs could pass for hispanics. Sets the the thing off in Houston, Dallas, San Antone, etc. Again, this could be nuke, bio, chem, heavy duty dirty bomb, whatever. I don't think too far fetched or impossible of an op given our problems on the border. Wasting the CIA over this type of breach is still up for debate. The bottomline for us to figure out is who takes credit and where were they harbored? I'd say that whatever country harbored them (we'll use Yemen just as an example) gets EMP as per McLeod's post for sure. Massive conventional bombing retaliation, obligatory jdams, and t.hawks come next. Marine Exp. Unit gets there within a week, lands. Kicks in the door. Army too heavy off the bat too get there for at least a month minus 82nd or 101st. The nuclear component would more then likely come from Marine artillery pieces that have nuke tipped rounds. They exist. Yes, we would use them imho too eradicate small cities (as we push inward) that were terrorist strongholds. I could even see their use in the eastern Pak mountains for OBL/AQ extermination if we were so inclined. (That's another story w/obvious political complications too long for me to post here.) I think the American people would back this course of action. The center of gravity in all this (and the sticky part) is determining which country and too what degree did they allow terrorists to plot such an attack. It could be one hard to prove or very easy depending again on our intel and its ability to disseminate what info it collects. Also, for the very same reason, said countries in the ME may take extra pre-cautions to keep their 'dogs in line' in order to prevent such a response as I describe above. I agree in part that nuking the entire ME may not be our response for obvious reasons. However, I would not rule our nuke use on confirmed or highly probable countries that harbored or gave tacit approval to said terrorists. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-14 10:46:13 PM |
| #46 Provided this - that a WMD attack on say, New York City, is nuclear - then it's guaranteed that nukes will fly the other way. Guaranteed. America will be enraged - which is reason enough. But consider this - much of the rest of the world will be severely damaged as well. The Chinese economy? Likely to collapse. The Russians? Set back a further few decades. Europe? Probably a generational recession. The only way to retain any sort of confidence in the world economy would be an ugly, but certain response sure to end the threat once and for all. The Middle East will have, in a single act, signed its own death-warrant. -Vic |
| Posted by: Vic 2003-11-14 9:01:52 PM |
| #45 EMP? Maybe. Direct nuclear attack on a city? Not unless it was preceded by a nuclear attack on an American city by a recognisable enemy. Which really means a government that has nukes itself. "What if terrorists buy a device and set it off?" Then it's time to line up the entire CIA and execute them, because that would be a failure of intelligence beyond belief. Nukes have been around over fifty years, and no one has used them since Nagasaki. And please remember that at that time there was no concievable threat of retaliation in kind. The US government put out a booklet about twenty years ago called "On the Effects of Nuclear War." Should be required reading. |
| Posted by: Slumming 2003-11-14 7:50:56 PM |
| #44 I think it's safe to say a terrorist attack on the scale of 100,000 dead would mean WW3. And it would give new meaning to the phrase "with us or against us". Alliances would have to fall in line rather quickly. But suffice it to say, I can't even imagine a terrorist attack on that scale. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-11-14 7:42:25 PM |
| #43 You are all full of it about this massive retaliation thing. What Murat doesn't say, but possibly instinctively knows, is that the US would not have the cojones to "retaliate" against anybody, even if one or two Merkin cities were obliterated. Who would you all retaliate against? The US is not officially at war with Syria, Iran , Saudi or Pakistan. And certainly the US are not at war with the majority of those people. So retaliating as has been stated here would amount to no less than genocide against said people, and the American populace would be against such an option. Apologies to this poster, but you're wrong. If even a part of an American city was destroyed we would retaliate and hard. The terrorists and many others make a mistake if they think our only option is all-out nuclear retaliation. That's on the table, but not necessarily the first response. Scale of the damage to us would matter and the response would be in proportion to that scale and more. For example in one scenario, say 5,000 Americans dead, you could go for the EMP attack. Detonate nukes in the atmosphere and destroy all of the region's electronics. You could do that over Cairo, Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh without killing anyone, but literally frying everything with a circuit. Destroy airports. Attack and destroy major military bases. Result: no banking, no transportation, no health care, no communications. Crippled militaries. Thousands of mostly military casualites, but likely many thousands of civilians too...though they would die for secondary reasons (car accidents, stray bombs, deaths in hospitals, etc.) Go up the scale a notch, say 5,000-50,000 Americans and you destroy all military infrastructures, the ports, industrial areas, even oil refineries. Throw in some EMP for good measure. Result: abject poverty for decades, tens of thousands killed. Want some more? Say over 50,000 Americans killed? Add scenarios 1 & 2 and sprinkle in the complete destruction, by conventional bombing, of the commericial centers of major cities and capitals. Result, anarchy, many hundreds of thousands dead. Stone age economy. Over 50,000 Americans dead? All of the above, and 250Kt devices detonated on every major city with a population over 100,000. Anyone who thinks that the American people wouldn't support such scenarios is living in a dream world. It would be DEMANDED and those politicians and others who demurred would be ruined. There is no question of this. |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-11-14 7:01:07 PM |
| #42 Jarhead: correct. I should have said no effect on convential wars short of total war. The balance there was 2,000,000 American casulties invading the home islands vs 150,000 Japanese. Plus WW II was a total war. Us vs them. Good guys vs Bad guys. 50,000,000 dead by the time it waqs over. Compared to that another 150k was a drop in the bucket. I still stand by the idea that thye won't be used by us (or the Russians) for anything short of total war, or a nuclear attack on us by another government such as the N Koreans. |
| Posted by: Slumming 2003-11-14 4:53:01 PM |
| #41 "The problem with nuclear weapons is that they have no effect on conventional conflicts." -Aside from ending WWII? "Can't hit entire populations because their governments are corrupt. Won't happen." -Though I do understand your underlying point. Again, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, two cities. I'd say the Japanese government was pretty corrupt at the time and by most standards fanatical. We did not need to hit anymore. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-14 4:00:37 PM |
| #40 The problem with nuclear weapons is that they have no effect on conventional conflicts. They are effective for MAD purposes, but that's about it. We and the Soviets had a nuclear standoff for forty years, during which conventional and non-convential conflicts raged back and forth across the globe. We never used nukes in any of those, and we wouldn't use them now. As Dr Strangelove pointed out, they are all doomsday weapons, to be used only when you're about to be wiped out yourself, and only to take the other guy with you down to hell. The Israeli's have several hundred of them, and it is clearly understood that's the time they would use them. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the aims of the al-qaeeda 9/11 attack was to try to provoke a nuclear response against population centers in the middle east. Then instead of having a small percent of people in the middle east advocating jihad, every man, woman, and child would be after us. This in turn would create chaos on a maassive level, which would suit al-qaeeda just fine. Can't hit entire populations because their governments are corrupt. Won't happen. |
| Posted by: Slumming 2003-11-14 3:47:18 PM |
| #39 Murat, da Contrarian: Check this out: The Three Conjectures. It isn't a question of who is linked to what, or whether we have the "stones" to retaliate. WMD is a suicide bomb for 1.3 billion. |
| Posted by: BH 2003-11-14 3:29:10 PM |
| #38 Murat: One of the big cultural differences between america and most of the rest of the world is how we play the game of brinkmanship. Far and near easterners will test our limits, and in general we don't respond, because we don't want the fight. This is bad strategy on our part, as it gives the Easterner no idea of where his limits are. Far to often this has led to everything from stabbings to nations being lost. Think about it, the terrorists traded two towers for two countries. Because they just didnt know where their limits where... |
| Posted by: flash91 2003-11-14 2:11:16 PM |
| #37 Iraq was wagging it' tongue after the UN weapon inspectors were sent packing. Clinton played up "they are in a box" angle. After 911 that wasn't our only option. WMD was a brilliant ruse to take out a ME thugocracy that was showcasing it's bully stance against the US. I'm stoked that we are actively going after, not only AQ whatever that really is, but shit hole governments of the ME. Murat rejoice dude, You'll someday be able to get a good paying job pumping Iraqi oil. You'll be dripp'n in Iraqi prosperity. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-11-14 1:44:58 PM |
| #36 Yeah RMcLeod, Explain also to me what the Iraq occupation has to do with the Al Qaeda attack or 9/11, Bush himself acknowledged there was no link, are you implying to know better? Fighting terrorism is a must no disagreement here, but occupation of Iraq is different and without a link to 9/11. Ok, Murat, I'll feed the troll. Please read this carefully, I won't say it but once. Bush is a helluva lot smarter than the dummycheats and most of his foreign detractors say. He understands things at the gut level, as well as the intellectual level. Here are the points this administration has made, over and over again. Unfortunately, all the "Bush is as dumb as rocks" crowd don't listen. Should I include you in that group? 1. The people that attacked the United States on 9/11 were Islamic fundamental extremists. Nothing other than what they think is 'right' or allowed. The United States is the "great Satan", because we think differently. Bush knows this. He also knows that these fundamentalists have no qualms about doing anything that would hurt the United States and its interests around the world, including working with anybody they thought could further their goal. Saddam Hussein was such a person. 2. Hussein has much to hate the US for, and would be only too glad to help a proxy inflict pain and injury on this nation. There are, and were, indications that Hussein helped with the planning and financing of part of the 9/11 attack, whether you want to believe that or not. Intelligence documents found in Iraq confirm this, but we already knew the link existed. Denying it is stupid, childish, and on the part of the dummycheat party in the United States, tatamount to treason. 3. The United States is in this for the long haul. the War on Terrorism isn't just a war against Al Qaida. It's a war against fundamentalist extremists of one religous faith that believe they can impose their will upon the United States by force. There ae parts and pieces of that extremist group (and many others, some associated with al-Qaida, some not, but ALL included in the WoT) in many nations. 4. Bush attacked Afghanistan first, because that's where Al Qaida was the most prevalent, where their training camps were, and where there was little possibility of the local government doing anything about it. That forced Al Qaida underground, made it harder for them to plan and carry out operations, and made it more expensive for them to do ANYTHING. That was a major but indecisive blow. 5. Iraq was next because there were existing UN resolutions that gave legitimacy to the US use of force (despite what the idiotarians in France, Germany, and the US dummycheat party say). Iraq is also centrally located in the Middle East, has huge oil reserves, and has borders with several other state sponsors of terror, including Syria, Iran, and the financing of Saudi Arabia. Having the United States in Iraq puts heavy pressure on ALL these governments. The creation of a democratic, peaceful, and free Iraq threatens the totalitarian governments in the rest of the Middle East - "if they can do it, why can't we?" 6. With a strong military force in Iraq, the United States puts Iran between two large, well-equipped, well-trained, and EXPERIENCED military forces - in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Syria is isolated from the rest of its Middle Eastern cohorts, caught between Iraq, the Mediterranean, Turkey, and Israel/Jordan. Jordan is not friendly with Assad and his government, Israel would LOVE to destroy the Syrian military threat to their existence (and their sponsorship and aid to Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinial Liberation Front, and whoever else they can use as proxy to wage war on Israel). Syria is, and should be, nervous. We're already seeing some of the fallout in the Middle East from our actions in Iraq. Egypt is 'opting out' of the Arab fiasco. Saudi Arabia and Yemen are cracking down on extremists. Libya has changed its tune. There's a growing unrest in Iran. Pakistan is trying to ride the dual beast of Islamic jihad and friendship with America - poorly. The United States prefers to deal with people in an open and friendly manner. Kick us in the face, as Al-Qaida did on 9/11, and you see the other side of us - the mean, evil, wicked, bad, nasty, cruel and heartless side of us. "Better to be the friend of a dog than the enemy of a tiger." The United States can be as friendly as a young puppy. We can also make a tiger look like a pussycat in our ferocity. I strongly suggest you, and the rest of the world, read and understand what I've just said. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-11-14 1:33:59 PM |
| #35 Murat - please explain to us all what US financed terror you speak of. Besides the usual Joooos....... Every civilized country (even Turkey) has the right to defend themselves. |
| Posted by: Dan 2003-11-14 1:03:05 PM |
| #34 You do not understand the american people - if we are hit with wmd we will retailiate against all terriorist countries in the middle east. and the people of the united states will not loose any sleep over it. We are peace loving people but if it comes down to our cities and children or destroying syria, iran, sody, pakland ect - we will do it just like we would of destroyed the soviet bloc if our cities were targeted. and remember we were not officially at war with saddams iraq but look at where we are now. so do not take solice in the fact we would not retailiate with massive destruction - we will. |
| Posted by: Dan 2003-11-14 12:56:47 PM |
| #33 Murat's right in a way. How much US Foreign aid does Turkey receive? We are helping them oppress the Kurd's! It's not right! We should stop all foreign aid and pull our troops out of that shit hole of a country! I'm sure once Iraq is stable we can open a base there. |
| Posted by: Swiggles 2003-11-14 12:46:37 PM |
| #32 da Contrarian, I'm not so sure your scenario holds if there is in fact an attack on US soil that kills tens of thousands. OTOH I suspect that most of the terror cell leaders realize this and will try to keep the attacks below that threshold. If not, I do think you and many will be surprised at the upwelling of anger and demand for retaliation. LLL notwithstanding, the average American is beginning to realize the joy with which many celebrate American deaths. The average American doesn't ask him/herself what we've done to deserve that -- they reasonably conclude that those sons of bitches intend to harm their children and their way of life, and they decide to strike back. It's happened more than once in past history. It could happen again. |
| Posted by: rkb 2003-11-14 12:38:40 PM |
| #31 Murat: "Let your yes be yes and your no be no." That's my free advice for you today. For all of you who haven't lived through the previous Murat cycle (months and months ago), be advised that nothing you write will alter his mendacity in the least. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-11-14 12:21:16 PM |
| #30 Oh horse pucky! You are all full of it about this massive retaliation thing. What Murat doesn't say, but possibly instinctively knows, is that the US would not have the cojones to "retaliate" against anybody, even if one or two Merkin cities were obliterated. Who would you all retaliate against? The US is not officially at war with Syria, Iran , Saudi or Pakistan. And certainly the US are not at war with the majority of those people. So retaliating as has been stated here would amount to no less than genocide against said people, and the American populace would be against such an option. The whole LLL segment would be against it, including all the liberal media. The most that could happen is that a massive draft would be implemented so that all the problem countries would be occupied, and forcibly pushed into the 21st century, thereby draining the 'swamp' that is the ME. |
| Posted by: da Contrarian 2003-11-14 12:19:57 PM |
| #29 they won't have a choice because that's what the US people will demand. Still not convinced Murat? Checkout Bush's popularity ratings just after 9/11. Both Democrats and Republicans at par. You do understand that Bush has the support of at least half the population of the US? And that was pre-9/11. Bush does not exist in a vacuum you know. BTW, in answer to your question about why Iraq was invaded, even if it is about oil, let me ask you this: so what? What's your problem with Iraq finally being able to pump oil again into the world market? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-11-14 12:14:35 PM |
| #28 since most of the terror in the world is US financed. Dear Murat, now you've done it! Expect a "call" from your handler for letting the truth out. Should've kept this a secret. Whatever else you say, don't mention Shrub's, Capt. Morgan's, Wolfie's, CP's, and Stir Fry's involvement on the day of PoliceFireAmbulance. Or you'll have to be...er, um,... fired. |
| Posted by: CIA operative 8001 2003-11-14 11:54:27 AM |
| #27 Murat, listen to RMcLeod and rkb and the others, they are telling the truth. You are completely missing the point, you keep arguing the connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq, and justifications for the war, but what it really comes down to is: if the US gets hit with WMD none of that will matter. It won't even get to the debate phase. And it won't be because bush=hitler or Ashcroft is a nazi, or any of the other lefty conspiracy bs. It'll be because they won't have a choice because that's what the US people will demand. |
| Posted by: BH 2003-11-14 10:59:19 AM |
| #26 Good riddance Dan, Mail your representative that they should drop a nuke on Washington to start with, since most of the terror in the world is US financed. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-14 10:49:22 AM |
| #25 Coming from a culture where it is far preferable to lie than to admit a mistake, correct it and go on to accomplish the goal, he concentrates on trying to prove the US wrong. Another one of the annoying "habits" of people in that part of the world is blaming others for their own self-inflicted problems. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-11-14 10:11:21 AM |
| #24 Murat - Listen to what these comments are saying. No matter who is in office we would retailate with massive nuclear war. Iraq has everything to do with 9-11. Terrorism does not happen in a vacumm. States sponsor terrorism and Iraq is right in the middle of our enemies. Iraq was taken out becuse of Saddams beligerent history with us. We could not just go and take out the Sods - Iran is a big nut to crack (could still go either way). In Iran at least there is an opposition voice - in Iraq there was not. Syria is too small and landlocked. But Iraq is right in the middle of these bastards - have you heard the statement "All roads in the Middle East go through Bagdad". Taking out the Saddam put the fear of Allah in our enemies minds (you do not hear Iran and Syria calling the US the great satan like you used to). What we did is having an affect. Our war on terror is not agaisnt just Al-Queda - it is against ALL TERRRORISM. For too many years countries of the region hit the United States with no fear of reprisal - no more - we are going to take ALL OF THEM OUT! You still go back to oil thing - get over it. And Yugo war was not really a civil war but the last war of World War 1. |
| Posted by: Dan 2003-11-14 10:09:27 AM |
| #23 murat # 5 and 5 are connected, - those are the largely foreign Al - Qaeeda fighters. While possibly responsible for the more dramatic bombings, they probably represent a minority of the insurgents. They also MAY be coordinating with the Baathists. 4 - whats your cite? If that the Al-Sadr people, theyre not currently actively opposing the coalition. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-11-14 10:04:37 AM |
| #22 Dammit who let Murat into the Chocolate Covered Sugar Bombs? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-14 9:48:45 AM |
| #21 Steve Den Beste has an essay that hits many of the same themes as Ben did above. (Great minds run in similar channels.) |
| Posted by: Mike 2003-11-14 9:43:45 AM |
| #20 "Jarhead, Iraq and Jugoslavia have nothing in common to compare, Jugoslavia was civil war with attrocities, Iraq an oilwel." -Murat, please read my original post again and answer the question - instead of dancing like Fred Astaire. Now, I say again - a simple yes or no will suffice. Did you agree or not? I did not ask about what your opinion of Iraq was, but we can get to that. I knew I was asking too much of you. I'm not offended you couldn't even complete a simple task though. It's really not your fault afterall. Your just a product of your environment. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2003-11-14 9:39:19 AM |
| #19 rkb hit it on the head. We try to reason with people like Murat with truth and reality, when the mentality of most of the ME (and the Arabs in particular) is that lying to the kuffir (sp?) is not only acceptable but demanded by their moon-god. Personally, I ask who gives a muRAT's ass what an ignorant twit like him thinkgs? He brushes off what many of you are saying re a massive al-qaeda strike. It wouldn't matter if Al Sharpton was president, if one of our cities is attacked with a WMD, the population would demand a terrible retribution. But I don't think it will come to that, for two reasons: first, we'll succeed in Iraq. Second, assuming failure in Iraq, the WMD attack will be against Israel. And she will take out the arabs. I firmly believe that if we fail in Iraq, that the world will see what a modern nuclear weapon can do to a city. Horrible? Yes. Avoidable? Only if the idiots like murat and the rest of the ME wake their stupid asses up. |
| Posted by: Swiggles 2003-11-14 9:03:42 AM |
| #18 Murat seems to think that what is at stake right now is political maneuvering. Coming from a culture where it is far preferable to lie than to admit a mistake, correct it and go on to accomplish the goal, he concentrates on trying to prove the US wrong. I've worked with people like Murat from the Middle East and from Europe. On several occasions, we (my company and I as team leader) simply dropped them from the software development team and went on to do the job ourselves. In the short run they "won" because we didn't (couldn't, in their eyes) force them to do things our way. Since then, the company and the products we built by ourselves have been very successful, whereas our ex-partners have failed to launch an equivalent product, gain new major customers or achieve our financial success. As a result, the company I was with has been able to provide many more high-paying jobs and secure lifestyles while the unemployment in their countries has skyrocketed. Had those ex-colleagues from France, Germany and the Middle East been willing to admit when they didn't understand the requirements or to ask for training on new tools rather than try to bluff their way through ... if they had reported the actual state of affairs rather than pretending things were going well on their end ... we would have worked together to ensure that we all succeeded and that they too would benefit. You see, Murat, I am not particularly bothered when you point to setbacks or errors the US makes. I come from a culture where that is the first step to learning how to do a really great job of what we take on. In the meanwhile, Turkey is in denial about its vanishing chances of ever being accepted as a full member of the EU and it has destroyed its security partnership with the US. Doing so was certainly a choice you could make. Continuing to do so is also your free choice. The one choice you do NOT have is to avoid the consequences of those choices. |
| Posted by: rkb 2003-11-14 8:54:15 AM |
| #17 Murat, the big mistake we make is trying to justify the invasion of Iraq with the technical reasons such as WMD or Al Quaeda. These are irrelevant excuses. In the initial days of this WOT, Saddam was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. We invaded Iraq simply because it was there and we could. You did not get the message? OK, next is Syria. Still not sure? Watch Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Not because we dislike you. We just want you to leave us alone. Until you, your fellow citizens, your governments, your religeous leaders collectively realize that jihad is a failed cultural idea, the pain and suffering that you and other innocents blame on us will only increase. Do not complain. do not wax indignation, because frankly, we don't care. Just be a man. Leave us alone. |
| Posted by: john 2003-11-14 8:32:16 AM |
| #16 The US claims terrorist groups and Saddam fedayeen behind the attacks and rank them as follow: 1 The return party : This group consist of former Baas members and want Saddam reinstated. Mostly active in the middle and western parts of Baghdad, Sallahadin and Anbar provinces 2 army of Muhammad : Also this group advocates the return of Saddam, and believed to be formed by hundreds of former intelligence service members, their prime targets are those who are believed cooperating with the occupation forces and are one of the groups claiming the responsibility of the UN headquarter bombing. Active in Bagdad, Mosul and Fallujah. 3 the Fedayeen : militia that wants Saddam reinstated. 4 Muntada al Vilaya:: A radical shia Islamic group pursuing to fight the occupation and establishing a Islamic republic modelled to Iran. 5 Ansar Al Ãslam:: A Kurdish Sunnite group active in northern Iraq, believed to hold connection to the Al Queada by the US 6 Abu Musa Zerkavi:: A Jordanian radical with connections to Al Queada The first three work for Saddam agreed, but what about the other three? Are the Kurds and Shia also Saddam loyalists? |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-14 8:01:00 AM |
| #15 Jarhead, Iraq and Jugoslavia have nothing in common to compare, Jugoslavia was civil war with attrocities, Iraq an oilwel. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-14 8:00:00 AM |
| #14 Jarhead, Iraq and Jugoslavia have nothing in common to compare, Jugoslavia was civil war with attrocities, Iraq an oilwell. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-14 7:59:49 AM |
| #13 Murat, every time you post your shit people generously waste precious minutes of their lives explaining to you why the war was justified, but you ignore their arguments. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-11-14 7:23:57 AM |
| #12 Could you convince me of the opposite I tell Buldog, why don't you start with summoning the reason of the Iraqi occupation, instead of applauding the fabricated justifications. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-14 7:19:29 AM |
| #11 Iraq was attacked for supposed possession of WMD weapons that have never been found. When the supposed Iraqi WMD possession claim flopped people turned to the blah blah of freeing Iraq of a dictator and bringing democracy for justification. Murat, you just keep on reposting the same old numbskull crap, day in day out. We know you didn't support the war, we know you prefer fascist Ba'athism to prospective democracy, and we know you're an enemy of western liberal values. Do you honestly think that you're going to convince anyone here that you're right about these things? Why don't you give it a rest? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-11-14 7:11:14 AM |
| #10 Val, rkb, No Val, thatâs not true the Al Quaeda was hiding in Afghanistan and the Taliban formed their core and funding source, attacking the Taliban was justified. But on Iraq there was no single link with the Al Quaeda found, Bush confirmed this. One cannot attack and occupy a country on baseless theories without firm proof on harbouring or funding those terrorists you mean. There are PKK terrorists in Iraq and Turkey made raids on them in the past, but that fact is more to blame on the no-fly zone effect which ripped northern iraq out of the Iraqi government control, also here one could not accuse the former Iraqi government on harbouring the terrorists. Iraq was attacked for supposed possession of WMD weapons that have never been found. When the supposed Iraqi WMD possession claim flopped people turned to the blah blah of freeing Iraq of a dictator and bringing democracy for justification. So Val I donât buy your Iraq story of being a safe haven for Al Quaeda, if so why didnât the USA show any proof till now (because there ainât any proof?). Yes I found and still do find attacking and occupying Iraq a bad idea since no solid reasons existed but only fabricated justifications. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-14 7:01:06 AM |
| #9 Eh,Chalabi was tried by a secret court in Jordania,which conviently handed out a conviction dozens of pages long just days after being formed.This despite the fact that the alleged crimes were wholly within the purview of ordinary criminal law.Fair trial,it was not.But then again the concept may not be familiar to you. |
| Posted by: El Id 2003-11-14 6:43:05 AM |
| #8 Ben is simply telling the truth, Murat. I was raised in small, working class town. My family were all Democrats, as I was for much of my life. And every one of them would DEMAND a massive retaliation against every country that fosters Islamicist terror if tens of thousands of Americans were killed in the sort of attack that al Qaeda promises. I too, with my multiple graduate degrees and my middle class lifestyle, would demand the same. My daughter was just a mile or so from the World Trade Center on 9/11. I will be damned if I will see her in a burqa or allow any additional attacks on us to go unpunished. And that means punishment for those who support, fund, encourage and enable the attacks as well as for those who carry them out. I'll say it again -- if the Islamic people and their governments do not rein in the terror, there WILL be death on a scale you can hardly imagine. Europe may (or may not) roll over and join a renewed caliphate under the threat of terrorist bombings, but the United States will not. Period. Finally, you are wrong about Iraq and 9/11. The connection is at least indirect and is pretty clear. Saddam Hussein may have had some indirect role in that attack, as there is some evidence he encouraged the first attack on the World Trade Center in the early 90s. But whether or not he was directly involved in 9/11, he was one clear sponsor of a variety of Islamacist terror groups. That support included money, safe passage and refuge within Iraq and, in the case of Ansar al Islam, chemical cookbooks for serious poisons, along quite possibly with sufficent amounts of biological agents to execute bioterror attacks. For a long time the US tolerated this activity. We protected the Kurds (as we did not protect the southern Shia, to my great dismay) with nearly 10 years of expensive, tiring overflights and vigilance. After 9/11, and with clear evidence that Hussein would connive to encourage terror attacks on the West, it was time to say "Enough!". Pray that the effort to establish a secure, stable and free Iraq succeeds, Murat. Because the alternative isn't for the US to go slinking home a la Vietnam. This time the alternative is much, much worse and it won't be the US that bears that burden. |
| Posted by: rkb 2003-11-14 6:32:48 AM |
| #7 On the contrary Murat, hitting Iraq was vital to taking out terrorist interests according to Dan Darling's take on it. Terrorists don't usually play out in the open where its easy to see their bases and attack them, this is especially true of a decentralized organization such as Al Quaeda. Tell me Murat if you think hitting Iraq was such a bad idea, what do you think Turkey would do when it was found out that there were Al Quaeda elements infiltrating their country for terrorist purposes and using their neighbor Iraq as a safe haven to fall back to, rebuild and plan their operations? |
| Posted by: Val 2003-11-14 6:06:50 AM |
| #6 Yeah RMcLeod, Explain also to me what the Iraq occupation has to do with the Al Qaeda attack or 9/11, Bush himself acknowledged there was no link, are you implying to know better? Fighting terrorism is a must no disagreement here, but occupation of Iraq is different and without a link to 9/11. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-14 5:34:27 AM |
| #5 Also Murat, I think you would do well to read the reactions here to this posting about 100,000 Americans dying from an Al Queda attack. Don't misjudge Rantburgers as out of the mainstream. Just the opposite. You want a true picture of how Americans feel, read the responses to that post. |
| Posted by: RMcLeod 2003-11-14 5:27:33 AM |
| #4 Sorry Murat, I don't think you understand. Ben is not being outrageous. It wouldn't matter if it was Rumsfeld or some Democratic president's defense secretary. The whole point of the Bush Strategy is to prevent exactly the scenario Ben describes. You don't understand the mood of this country after 9/11. You don't understand what it would be like here if something more terrible happened. The pressure to totally destroy the Middle East would be unstoppable if tens of thousands of Americans were killed in terrorist attacks. What do you think we would do? Give up? Make mean faces? There wouldn't be a choice for the political leadership. None. Not if an American city was smoldering or decaying from a bio-weapon attack. We don't want to get to that point, which is why Iraq MUST work. Dream on all you want, but the truth is that we would not retaliate with 150,000 troops. We'd retaliate with 15 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. You should be scared, very scared, about a failure in the Middle East. And please, explain your math. If I accept your 900 attacks monthly figure, what's out of line with 5,000 terrorists doing that? Most of these attacks involved very small numbers or remote control IED. You could pull that number off with half as many as Abizaid estimates. |
| Posted by: RMcLeod 2003-11-14 5:13:31 AM |
| #3 Yeah and the final solution is the nuking of halve of the world, you must be a classmate of Rummy, Benny. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-14 4:43:30 AM |
| #2 Murat, you really want to think this through. If Iraq fails, there is a "final solution" to the entire middle east threat the US sees, that only the US and few other countries can utilize. You really don't want it to come to that. You may not like us there, but, if the terrorists start coming here, political will and public support for a "final solution" to our problem will grow. |
| Posted by: Ben 2003-11-14 4:36:47 AM |
| #1 Abizaid: Iraqi resistance forces number at most 5,000: general Does the US have also generals who know how to count? Only 5000 people carry out an average of 30 attacks on coalition troops daily = 900 attack/monthly? Yeah sure, Saddam must have hired Rambo! |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-11-14 4:00:38 AM |