What a triumphant march towards democracy

[JonnyBGood]

Seriously.






So as to actually have a point for the thread beyond providing you with a selection of the day's headlines I would like to ask anyone who (still) supports the invasion of Iraq how many lives the occupation is worth. At what point did this become an occupation (as I'm sure most of us can recognise it as) instead of a liberation?

[wu_trax]

it gets better every day, doesnt it? i can't wait to see what happens when falluja is finally 'free'

[Burbank]

day one jonny day one

[wu_trax]

it always was a occupation. the usa invaded a souvereign country, but that didnt have to be a bad thing. the problem is that the usa never had any plan about what to do after the country was occupied. you dont bomb a country back to stone age, treat the population like shit, fail to rebuild the country, let the whole country fall into chaos and then call the whole thing liberation. it just doesnt work.

[Burbank]

yes wu_tang it does, it is what the usa has been doing to central america for decades.

it is called making the nation ripe for investors

[Tactitus]

A runup in the violence prior to the January elections is hardly unexpected. After their failure to disrupt the Afghan elections this is crunch time for the jihadists--and I suspect they know it.

[Rids]

I still support the war in Iraq for it is giving me something to read about in the news instead of which celebrity is ****ing who.

[skiddy]

I support the war in Iraq.

If some foreign force invaded the UK with the aim of overthrowing the legitimate authority I'd be out there with home made explosives and cheap weapons attempting to disrupt their tasks.

Every day that the rebels manage to keep their fight going is a true step towards their freedom. Creating some form of government and upholding it with foreign military power is not the way to bring freedom to a country.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

A runup in the violence prior to the January elections is hardly unexpected. After their failure to disrupt the Afghan elections this is crunch time for the jihadists--and I suspect they know it.

yes, like that election changed ANYTHING in afganistan. Kazai is a joke.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

yes, like that election changed ANYTHING in afganistan.

Nevertheless, the Taliban vowed to disrupt the elections--and couldn't. Apparently, they took the elections seriously. Maybe they know something you don't?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Nevertheless, the Taliban vowed to disrupt the elections--and couldn't.

Are you saying that we can make an accurate comparison between the apparent strength of the militants in Iraq to disrupt and cause general mayhem, and the strength of the Taleban in Afghanistan to do the same?

Clearly, the militants in Iraq have proven themselves capable of being consistent in their attacks. The Taleban couldn't.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Burbank

yes wu_tang it does, it is what the usa has been doing to central america for decades.

it is called making the nation ripe for investors

Bingo.

The U.S had a plan, thats why they started to build their military bases right after the war was won (against saddam hussain).

[wu_trax]

im sorry, but i dont see the economical use in this. you cant make any money in a country that is in a state of total chaos.
there may be some strategic value in keeping soldiers in iraq, but i dont see how it helps to make the people of said country try to kick your asses out of the country.

[Sunday8pm]

I'm really wishing that Lib Dem's get a stronger vote because of all this shit, I'd hate to see the UK beomce 2 party politics cause of all the shower of shit that Blair and Iraq is.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Are you saying that we can make an accurate comparison between the apparent strength of the militants in Iraq to disrupt and cause general mayhem, and the strength of the Taleban in Afghanistan to do the same?

The only comparison I drew was in the importance of elections (symbolic or actual, it doesn't much matter). The Afghan elections were important enough that the Taliban vowed to disrupt them. The Iraqi Islamists will have to make the same attempt for the same reason. They can't claim to be any sort of popular front if the people are off voting for someone else.

[Nusselt]

I assume skiddy is being sarcastic, its hard to tell on the 'net

Anyway id say its an untriumphant long winded and messy march to democracy, obviously now they're there i hope the coalition manage to get it right and everything works out, but i think we'll probably be there till the end of the decade. All that aside politicians shouldn't be allowed to use 'end justifying means' arguments simply because you'd end up with a history of unaccounable leaders going on military adventures when ever they felt like it. We were told iraq was an imminent threat that had to be dealt with right now, thats clearly turned out to be bollocks, Tony Blair and George Bush should come out and say so. Diverting the argument to 'omg saddam hussein was evul and you wanted the iraqis to suffer' is unfair since i want the best for them now that we're there, but jesus some accountablity isn't much to ask for is it? Besides if we did invade cause saddam was an arsehole i want mugabe taken out, not to mention the saudi royal family.


Edit and cost of war to hit at least $1/2 trillion would make me some what happy

[skiddy]

Why the hell would I be being sarcastic?

It's their given right as actual iraqi citizens to fight for their own country.

[Burbank]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

im sorry, but i dont see the economical use in this. you cant make any money in a country that is in a state of total chaos.
there may be some strategic value in keeping soldiers in iraq, but i dont see how it helps to make the people of said country try to kick your asses out of the country.

wrong, all they need to do now is demolish any attempt at free elections, and destroy any unions.
it is called slave labour. and the us has been doing it for apparently a lot longer than these few decades. they took control of the philipines 2 centuries ago and did the same thing. read some noam chomsky on south and central america, its very enlightening. oh and if you think it is wrong, stop buying nike and the like

[Burbank]

damn right skiddy. at least someone has some sense. if the yanks were to invade australia i would do exactly the same thing. long live the iraqi freedom fighters

[G.K Zhukov]

Over 50% of the Iraqi people wants US+puppets to get out NOW.

[Burbank]

they should do get 2 lists of signatures, one from the iraqi people who want the usa out
and another from the US people who want the US out (after careful explainations to the republican supporters)

[Boogster]

I don't see how Iraq is 'occupied'. The country is in the thrall of militants, seemingly, but not the American (British, etc) forces.

[G.K Zhukov]

Sorry Boogster, but I dont speak "bushish".

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Sorry Boogster, but I dont speak "bushish".

Apparently not. You just talk 'poo'.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Apparently not. You just talk 'poo'.

Your american right?

HELLO WORLD, WE HAVE ANOTHER QDEATHSTAR AMONG US.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Over 50% of the Iraqi people wants US+puppets to get out NOW.

Source?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Your american right?

HELLO WORLD, WE HAVE ANOTHER QDEATHSTAR AMONG US.

No. I'm English. I simply don't hate Bush, or his motives, as much as you.

[CamelToe]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Your american right?

HELLO WORLD, WE HAVE ANOTHER QDEATHSTAR AMONG US.

The correct English is "You're", as in "You are"... not "Your". Grammar Up.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I don't see how Iraq is 'occupied'. The country is in the thrall of militants, seemingly, but not the American (British, etc) forces.

Well Dictionary.com gives occupation as :
a. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
b. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

On a very formal level, how is this not an occupation? I suppose you could argue that the interim government are not a military government, but they weren't elected and were handed power via military action so I'm not really sure if that would be true anyway.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well Dictionary.com gives occupation as :
a. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
b. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.

On a very formal level, how is this not an occupation? I suppose you could argue that the interim government are not a military government, but they weren't elected and were handed power via military action so I'm not really sure if that would be true anyway.

The fact that the military does not excersise control over the government is very important point, especially on a formal level. The American war-effort was not aimed at conquest. Conversely, they are desperate to get out. The Iraqi government needs outside military help, but this does not mean that their country is being occupied.

[Burbank]

yes they need help controlling the people who dont want them in power. which is just about everybody.
and while you are correct about the soldiers wanting out, the millitary leaders themselves dont want out

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Burbank

and while you are correct about the soldiers wanting out, the millitary leaders themselves dont want out

I would disagree. I believe both Blair and Bush are sincere in their wish for the Iraqis to govern themselves. And even if their reasons for leaving were not entirely magnanimous, they would still wish to leave to avoid domestic political backlashes.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

The fact that the military does not excersise control over the government is very important point, especially on a formal level. The American war-effort was not aimed at conquest. Conversely, they are desperate to get out. The Iraqi government needs outside military help, but this does not mean that their country is being occupied.

Practically speaking I imagine the US generals say "jump" and the interim government asks "how high?" Personally I doubt the US wants "out" completely. Certainly they would prefer the insurrection to cease and the disruptions to end but Iraq is very important both strategically and geopolitically. Your argument is slightly circular as well. The iraqi government needs outside military help because the situation is dire and becoming worse. What is the cause of this worsening situation? The presence of foreign armed forces. If the sole desire was the stability of Iraq a far better approach than invasion would have been taken.


Regarding Tactitus' request for sources I found this (only 43% support the government, a tiny amount more blame the US than foreign terrorists for the current problems, and 45% as opposed to 41% feel their country is heading in the wrong direction). I cannot find a more recent poll on the internet than that one. The question "should the US and allies leave now" does not appear to have been asked.

[Burbank]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I would disagree. I believe both Blair and Bush are sincere in their wish for the Iraqis to govern themselves. And even if their reasons for leaving were not entirely magnanimous, they would still wish to leave to avoid domestic political backlashes.

want to know what i believe?

i believe 2 things

1. there is no spoon
2. you are a duped fool

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Your argument is slightly circular as well. The iraqi government needs outside military help because the situation is dire and becoming worse. What is the cause of this worsening situation? The presence of foreign armed forces. If the sole desire was the stability of Iraq a far better approach than invasion would have been taken.

Perhaps - but you did not originally ask: 'was the invasion of Iraq the best way to secure stability?' - you seemed to suggest that the military presence in Iraq amounted to occupation, which I disagree with. The forces are there because they need to be. Whether, hypothetically, this situation is circular is irrelevant. The US cannot simply leave in the hope that militant action immediately ceases.

[Nusselt]

Until the iraqis elect a democratic government, like dante said its difficult to argue against the coalition being anything other than an occupying power, saying that the coalition has benevolent intentions can't detract the fact that the de facto control of iraq rests with the coalition and not with the interim government nor is the government even democratically accountable.

A litmus test perhaps would be who is ultimately in charge of Saddam Hussein and those held with him?

[Zar]

the moment firms like halliburton are involved in iraq, if you haven't already questioned the legitimacy of the war, you have to be naive to not question it at all.