Will the USA be out of Iraq by 2009?

[Gilles de Rais]

My disagreement would be with whether having troops there secure any oil in any worthwhile fashion...

The US haven't invaded Venuezela or Mexico and those countries are probably more meaningful to the US oil supply. Venuezela is lead by a guy opposed to the US till the bitter end and that hasn't stopped him selling oil and the US buying...

Personally, i think oil supplies were a lot safer when the US stick was somewhere in a nearby closet (Turkey, SE Asia, sourthern Europe) than when it is actively employed and deployed (Saudi Arabia, Iraq) to disastrous effects...

[parihaka]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

My disagreement would be with whether having troops there secure any oil in any worthwhile fashion...

The US haven't invaded Venuezela or Mexico and those countries are probably more meaningful to the US oil supply. Venuezela is lead by a guy opposed to the US till the bitter end and that hasn't stopped him selling oil and the US buying...

That's because the supply lines from those countries haven't been threatened. It's the supply that is the critical factor, not who owns it. Chavez for instance has threatened to cut off the US, but how exactly does he do this? All the refineries capable of processing his oil are in the US.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Personally, i think oil supplies were a lot safer when the US stick was somewhere in a nearby closet (Turkey, SE Asia, sourthern Europe) than when it is actively employed and deployed (Saudi Arabia, Iraq) to disastrous effects...

Aye well, the wisdom of going into the middle east in such a gung-ho fashion will be a subject of endless debate for centuries. No matter what that debate decides however, the Rubicon has been crossed. The straits of Hormuz must be protected, and to do that Iran must be kept off guard and no matter how sickening, Saudi Arabia must be protected.

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by parihaka

That's because the supply lines from those countries haven't been threatened. It's the supply that is the critical factor, not who owns it. Chavez for instance has threatened to cut off the US, but how exactly does he do this? All the refineries capable of processing his oil are in the US.

Fully agreed on all points but when did Iraq/Saddam refuse to sell us oil? Let alone Saudis (OK, apart from the oil shock in 1974)... No, the region would have kept selling oil...

The straits of Hormuz must be protected, and to do that Iran must be kept off guard and no matter how sickening, Saudi Arabia must be protected.

No problem with protecting Saudi Arabia and i think they are taking tiny steps in the right direction... The problem is that the population, while disgruntled and rabble rousing, is part of the problem, not the solution... Hardly something the King can say or fix... Iran should be treated like any other regional power elsewhere... With care, sure, but also with respect. There is nothing fundamentally wrong or dangerous per se in them exercising a regional influence...

[Laughing Gas]

Funny that in "protecting Saudi Arabia", we removed our base from Saudi Arabia...

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by Laughing Gas

Funny that in "protecting Saudi Arabia", we removed our base from Saudi Arabia...

Well, i think they "protect" Saudi Arabia better that way, if you get my meaning...

[Laughing Gas]

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Well, i think they "protect" Saudi Arabia better that way, if you get my meaning...

Good point.

[ninjalooter1701]

[donquixote99]

I certainly figured the thing would be more shut-down than it is by now. But, George W's no Nixon....

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I certainly figured the thing would be more shut-down than it is by now. But, George W's no Nixon....

GWB is in a league of his own... And Nixon actually went down for the Watergate, didn't he? Another big difference...

[ninjalooter1701]

http://politicsandcurrentaffairs.com...highlight=#603

Even though there was an intelligence failure, and no WMDs have been found, you have to admit that some good has come out of the war. I'm not going to bring up the standard: "no more torture chambers" or the "mass graves", but Iran. Only months after the U.S. sent that hugh number of troops to the middle east did Iran agree to weapons inspections. You can make up as many excuses as you want, but they agreed because the U.S. was right out their back door.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

http://politicsandcurrentaffairs.com...highlight=#603

I was pretty obviously dead-wrong...lol. Thankfully I've awoken to reality.

Regarding the poll, I think if the surge had not been as surprisingly successful as it was, troops would have been removed from Iraq by the end of 2009.

[sarmajor]

Originally Posted by Justin

I was pretty obviously dead-wrong...lol. Thankfully I've awoken to reality.

Regarding the poll, I think if the surge had not been as surprisingly successful as it was, troops would have been removed from Iraq by the end of 2009.

It surprises me to hear that some people believe that the surge has been so surprisingly successful.

The insurgents are just using standard guerilla tactics.

While the enemy is stronger (more troops on the ground) they lay low until the inevitable time when they are withdrawn.

Coupled with the fact that they are probably reaping good financial rewards as payback from the sheiks who are being paid by the US government.

Enen those sheiks not making kickbacks are quite happy to keep a lid on things while they are receiving vast amounts of money (from a virtually bankrupt country) but that would change instantly when the money dries up.

Anyway it is now (and has been for some time) in the interests of the insurgents to not make waves.

They know, the US knows, the Iraqi Quisling government, you know and I know that time is on their side.

The US will leave Iraq much sooner than later so why would the insurgents need to incur casualties and go to a lot of trouble when they will soon achieve their ends. Why would they need to stir the pot and, in effect, oblige the US to remain (against their will) because they could not depart as 'victors'?

It is only in the very unlikely event that the US will not withdraw that the insurgents will once again pick up the tempo.

It is a done deal and everyone knows it.

[ShamsPiraniUKcapitalist]

In economic terms, it's already out. The USA has been politically and economically 'castrated'. Every troop in Iraq who isn't iraqi is now in a weak position, and no one will be faster to make concrete the US withdrawal than the troops themselves. Who wants to hang around and die over an oilwell when the chances of dying are rising every hour. Weapons cost money, money comes from rich countries, not the USA.

[Justin]

In economic terms, it's already out. The USA has been politically and economically 'castrated'.

On what are you basing this opinion?

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by sarmajor

It surprises me to hear that some people believe that the surge has been so surprisingly successful.

The alternative is to say that it has not been successful.

We can't do that.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by sarmajor

It surprises me to hear that some people believe that the surge has been so surprisingly successful.

The insurgents are just using standard guerilla tactics.

While the enemy is stronger (more troops on the ground) they lay low until the inevitable time when they are withdrawn.

Coupled with the fact that they are probably reaping good financial rewards as payback from the sheiks who are being paid by the US government.

Enen those sheiks not making kickbacks are quite happy to keep a lid on things while they are receiving vast amounts of money (from a virtually bankrupt country) but that would change instantly when the money dries up.

Anyway it is now (and has been for some time) in the interests of the insurgents to not make waves.

They know, the US knows, the Iraqi Quisling government, you know and I know that time is on their side.

The US will leave Iraq much sooner than later so why would the insurgents need to incur casualties and go to a lot of trouble when they will soon achieve their ends. Why would they need to stir the pot and, in effect, oblige the US to remain (against their will) because they could not depart as 'victors'?

It is only in the very unlikely event that the US will not withdraw that the insurgents will once again pick up the tempo.

It is a done deal and everyone knows it.

Probably the best assessment of the situation that I have seen Sarge.

Since we can not win our only option is to declare victory and go home.

Do you think that in time Iraq will one day be as safe a tourist destination for Americans as Vietnam is today?

[sarmajor]

Do you think that in time Iraq will one day be as safe a tourist destination for Americans as Vietnam is today?

Nothing (except death and taxes) is permanent in this world so it is inevitable that this will happen - whether tomorror, next year, next decade or when your great great grandchildren grow up and want to see the middle east.

I think that it will take a lot longer to come about than Vietnam ever did as the Vietnamese and the Iraqis are two entirely different people with different religions and a different outlook on life.

Vietnamese are generally peaceful agricultural workers who have a live and let live philosophy.

In contrast Iraqis (and most middle eastern arabs) are tribal wherein personal honour is very much in their makeup and where they subscribe to the adage of 'an eye for an eye'.

They have long memories and vendettas can last for decades.

Again, a great many Vietnamese are christians (turn the other cheek) whereas Iragis are muslims - a less forgiving religion.

All in all those who have suffered at American hands (and that includes a lot of Iraqis) will bear a grudge for a long long time - and their grudges often result in blood spilt.

Personally, if I were you, I would resist the impulse to savour the delights of Baghdad for some time yet.

[ninjalooter1701]

http://politicsandcurrentaffairs.com...?p=71507#71507

JP_26_2004

Regular Poster



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 280
Location: Bush country, Michigan

PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:01 pm
PostPost subject:
Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
TBC,

Thanks for your gracious comments. The pounding was worth it. I feel the tone is different on this board at this hour, and I believe it shows that we are all real people. Beyond the computer screen and keyboard, beyond the political spin and attacks, beyond flawed Bush and Kerry, we can agree that grace and humanity can exist on this board, and hopefully in this country.

Bush does have a long way to go to fix the problems in Iraq, but this nation has spoken, and I hope and trust Bush will make good on his word. And I would hope that you lefties could find at least one good thing Bush has done, or try to recognize one in the next four years.

I must admit, I got too emotional at times on this board. Anyhow, you lefties aren't so bad after all.

[bunkum]

Originally Posted by sarmajor

Nothing (except death and taxes) is permanent in this world so it is inevitable that this will happen - whether tomorror, next year, next decade or when your great great grandchildren grow up and want to see the middle east.

I think that it will take a lot longer to come about than Vietnam ever did as the Vietnamese and the Iraqis are two entirely different people with different religions and a different outlook on life.

Vietnamese are generally peaceful agricultural workers who have a live and let live philosophy.

In contrast Iraqis (and most middle eastern arabs) are tribal wherein personal honour is very much in their makeup and where they subscribe to the adage of 'an eye for an eye'.

They have long memories and vendettas can last for decades.

Again, a great many Vietnamese are christians (turn the other cheek) whereas Iragis are muslims - a less forgiving religion.

All in all those who have suffered at American hands (and that includes a lot of Iraqis) will bear a grudge for a long long time - and their grudges often result in blood spilt.

Personally, if I were you, I would resist the impulse to savour the delights of Baghdad for some time yet.

wow. i'm not sure i've ever seen so many breathtaking racial and religious generalisations all in one post before. way to go sarmajor