How not to win the war in Iraq

unless it's all about the oil. Then go ahead.

from JoeUser Forums
There has been a recent hubbub of activity around the forums about the war in Iraq. There has also been a few suggestions on how to win it, including using torture and targeting civilians. This is simply not the way to go about it, and here's why:

First, what are the objectives? There is more to this war than a body count. These are the possible objectives I have heard so far:
1. WMDs
2. "Liberating" the Iraqi people from Saddam
3. Fighting terrorism
4. Oil

Now, for the purposesd of this article, we can ignore number 1, as there were no WMDs.

Now on to number two. Liberating the the Iraqi people. Yes, Saddam is gone. However, the reason why he was so bad in the first place is that the tortured and killed innocent Iraqis. Now, if American forces target civilians, they will be no better than Saddam. Also, if they stoop down to the level of using torture, there will always be some innocent Iraqis that get detained. First, the torturer usually doesn't like it when the torturee says "I don't know. I had nothing to do with it." So now we have the problem of torturing and killing innocent Iraqis, which makes the American forces no better than Saddam and #2 can't be part of the objectives, because if Saddam had to be removed because he was torturing and killing innocent Iraqis, and is replaced with someone who is torturing and killing innocent Iraqis, then logically the second force that removed Saddam did not intend to liberate the Iraqi people from the torturing and killing.

Fighting terrorism. I'll start with an example:

Say aliens invade the US because they found out that Bush stole the election and they need to restore democracy to America (a little farfetched, but I'm just trying to put the shoe on the other foot).

Your house is targeted in a raid. It is destroyed and your kids are killed. What are you most likely to do?
A. Realize that your kids were killed in order to liberate them and support the aliens killed your kids and blew up your house
B. Respect the aliens and support them, as the only things you understand and respect are power and violence
C. Kick some green alien ass!

Your brother is detained on suspicion of "terrorist activities." You know he was innocent, yet he is tortured and killed. What are you most likely to do?
A. Believe the aliens who say he was trying to kill you
B. Realize that he was a danger to your liberation and had to be killed
C. Kick some green alien ass!

Targeting civilians and using killing and torture can only create more terrorists. This is obviously counter-productive, and shows that objective three isn't important because the tactics used will not help in completing objective three.

There is one objective that this will help complete, though. Objective four. Killing off all the Iraqis and supporting a government that will allow American corporations (say, Halliburton, for example) to take control of Iraqi oil under the giuise of reconstrucion, using means of torture, killing and targeting civilians will accomplish objective four, and prove that objective four was the only one that really mattered. Yes, you wil "win" in Iraq if you fulfill this objective, however you will not fulfill any of the noble objectives, and it will be a victory for neocolonialism and the American empire, not for Iraq.
politics
23,837 views 44 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, what are the objectives? There is more to this war than a body count. These are the possible objectives I have heard so far:
1. WMDs
2. "Liberating" the Iraqi people from Saddam
3. Fighting terrorism
4. Oil

are we still debating 20/20 hindsight stuff about wmd's? the whole world thought he had them.

Liberating my ass, we went to war on real bad intell, period, the liberating is just a bullshit excuse.

Terrorism? well saddam was supporting palistiian HOMICIDE bombers, and al zaquai was there before the war.

OIL? my ass, heh.... we bearly get 2% of our oil from Iraq.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
are we still debating 20/20 hindsight stuff about wmd's? the whole world thought he had them.


The world is more than the sorry excuse for a left you have in the US. Hans Blix didn't think he had them. A lot of people outside the US didn't think he had them

Liberating my ass, we went to war on real bad intell, period, the liberating is just a bullshit excuse.


That's the most intelligent thing I heard you say yet

Terrorism? well saddam was supporting palistiian HOMICIDE bombers, and al zaquai was there before the war.


He had no connections to Osama or 9/11 though. And it could be argued that by invading Iraq, the US has created more terrorists than Saddam ever could.

OIL? my ass, heh.... we bearly get 2% of our oil from Iraq.


There has been regime changes for less. Arbenz was overthrown because the United Fruit Company was pissed at him.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
He had no connections to Osama or 9/11 though.

And you can prove this how?
Hussein had a long history of ties with and support for terrorist organizations. While there may not be definitive links to Bin Laden himself (that we know of), there is no proof that there were none either.

There is another objective which you didn't list, which I personally believe was the real reason. Destroy the largest military force in the Middle East belonging to a country known to support terrorist groups in order to send a warning to other countries openly supporting terrorist groups.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Talk about flogging a dead horse. I bring this up all the time, the shoe on the other foot thing, and people are too ignorant to see the relation. Not me though of course. I like my otherfootnews site I'm working on. Like I've always said, with each innocent death there are at least 5 family members who will hate the US and seek revenge. As I would. As you would. As any American would be dutybound to do as well. Let's face it. A dead American in Iraq is the best thing for an Iraqi to strive for. I'd kill Iraqis if they invaded where I live. I'd kill Americans if they invaded where I live. It's honorable to fight for your nation's soil, and it's honorable to kill any foreign invader. Americans killing Brits was honorable at the birth of the nation. Polish killing Germans was honorable. Iraqis killing Americans is honorable. Laws of reality don't change just because you're an American.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
"the whole world thought he had them"
omg what a lie. American's thought they had them. Brits knew they didn't. Canada knew they didn't. Every single god-damned country surrounding Iraq knew they didn't have them. Hence they're having never asked the US for any type of security support. No, only the US were gullible enough to fall for those lies. Think about it. A sanction-decimated third world country making you scared like little kids. Ridiculous. With so much firepower, you'd think they'd have some mindpower to go with it.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

#2 by latour999
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





are we still debating 20/20 hindsight stuff about wmd's? the whole world thought he had them.


The world is more than the sorry excuse for a left you have in the US. Hans Blix didn't think he had them. A lot of people outside the US didn't think he had them



Start googling using "iraq intelligence agency wmd" Every GD intel agency in the world said he had them. A lot of people said he DID have them.
Same goes for you reiki-house. Before you accuse someone of lying, do your homework.


Every single god-damned country surrounding Iraq knew they didn't have them


Now THIS is an outright lie! Isreali itelligence thought he had them. Read and learn oh foolish one.

Link

Link

Link

Come back and talk when your a little better informed.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is another objective which you didn't list, which I personally believe was the real reason. Destroy the largest military force in the Middle East belonging to a country known to support terrorist groups in order to send a warning to other countries openly supporting terrorist groups.


Didn't they aleady send enough of a message in Afghanistan? Besides, with America tied down in Iraq, how can you possibly attack another country that actually may be a threat without spreading your forces too thin?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Every major intelligence agency thought Saddam had WMD. Also, it still hasn't been ruled out Saddam didn't have WMD's, they were just not found. Remember, Clinton thought Saddam had WMD's and bombed them, where was the liberal "outrage" for that?

And for the comment about people outside the U.S. didn't believe Saddam had WMD's. Well you are right, sort of. Those countries such as France were being paid by Saddam to get sanctions lifted, and to defend Iraq in the U.N.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Didn't they aleady send enough of a message in Afghanistan?

Afganistan didn't have the largest military in the Middle East, Iraq did.

Besides, with America tied down in Iraq, how can you possibly attack another country that actually may be a threat without spreading your forces too thin?

That's a seperate issue from the point I proposed.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush wanted to remove Saddam before WMD or 9/11. His reasons were none of those stated. Only he knows why but this War was not necessary and was not to make us safer, which we are not. The only issue is how long will the American people stand for seeing our troops killed or injured and how much more money will we dump down the rat hole called Iraq? It could take years to enable the Iraq Army and police to be able to keep their new government in place. If we knew in 2002 what we know now about Iraq and how this war would turn out, Bush would not have gotten Congressional approval for this war! History will be very negative toward this War and the Bush foreign policy. The man had NO foreign policy experience when elected, and his results show it!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
His reasons were none of those stated.

If you have some proof of this which the rest of us aren't privy to, by all means please enlighten us. Otherwise, it's just another opinion, isn't it?

It could take years to enable the Iraq Army and police to be able to keep their new government in place.

Realistically, yes it probably will.

If we knew in 2002 what we know now about Iraq and how this war would turn out, Bush would not have gotten Congressional approval for this war!

Really? And you can prove this somehow? Or is it yet another baseless opinion?

History will be very negative toward this War and the Bush foreign policy.


Yet more opinion.

Nothing wrong with having opnions, we all do. I believe most of us at least try to base them on some kind of facts, but I guess that isn't really a requirement. Most people do at least try to be honest and present their opinions as opinions instead of attempting to pretend they're facts upon which someone else should base their own opinions.
But that's just my opinion.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Look back at my blogs in a few years and the truth will be clear. As to why none of the four reasons given explain the War-- Simple events have all been proven them untrue

There was no WMD

The people of Iraq exchanged one danger for another- As many have died since the war than Saddam killed. There is no guarantee this country will be a secure stable non-problem country for the US.

Terrorism is alive and well including in Iraq.

We have more of an oil problem taday after liberating the Iraq oil supply.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
/signed
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

#12 by COL Gene
Wednesday, June 15, 2005



The first part of this statement is a flat lie!


Terrorism is alive and well including in Iraq.


As is this one! Show the proof or find something else to harp on. What, do you want us to prove you wrong again? And for the LAST time! It was NEVER ABOUT THE OIL!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Every day people die. Estimates of 50,000 have died since the war started. Iraq has exchanged one evil for another. It is not a lie that about the same number have died as Saddam killed. The proof that Terrorism is alive is in the news EVERY DAY. We have created a center for terrorisn in Iraq and if we leave that country will turn into a blood bath. Great Work George W. Bush. Our choice is to see our brave young people continue to die and be injured by remaining or leave and watch the carnage take place. Bush has created a LOSE- Lose situation for America in Iraq. You are dumb enough to support our enept policy.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
are we still debating 20/20 hindsight stuff about wmd's? the whole world thought he had them.



No, they didn't. It was posted on the internet prior to the invasion that the Niger documents, the bushies biggest reason, was a fraud. Only those who wanted to believe bought into the bushie bull. Besides, even those who did buy into the bushie bull then, are now acknowledging that they got bushie winked. In other words, bushie lied.


Liberating my ass, we went to war on real bad intell, period, the liberating is just a bullshit excuse.




Hello!? Is that you, moderateman? Yeah, and we're still getting bushie winked.

Hussein had a long history of ties with and support for terrorist organizations.


Saddam also had a long history of ties with the US CIA, along with Rumsfeld and Cheney. So, should we go to war with ourselves?
There is another objective which you didn't list, which I personally believe was the real reason. Destroy the largest military force in the Middle East belonging to a country known to support terrorist groups in order to send a warning to other countries openly supporting terrorist groups.


Great. Let's kill the Iraqi bastards and send a message. Let's kill their women and children, while we're at it. Send a stronger message. Shit, let's just nuke the bastards into the next stone age. Now, that will send a message. The message being, of course, that we are the green aliens, and they'll turn around and kick our asses. Which is what they are doing right now, btw. We kick their ass; they kick ours; we kick em back; they kick us back.......... oh yeah, just great.

It was NEVER ABOUT THE OIL!


Deny it all you want. It's about the freakin' oil. Hmmmm....... let's see....... let's build a pipeline from Iraq to Eastern Europe..... But, there's one problem. Iraq. No problem. We'll take em out. Oooops........ big problem. They hate us, and won't let us take the oil. Oh well............
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Liberating my ass, we went to war on real bad intell, period, the liberating is just a bullshit excuse.




Hello!? Is that you, moderateman? Yeah, and we're still getting bushie


ya tis me and I see what is, what was, and what everyone thought was, I have a good memory and sound judgement, and see wrongs that are and wrongs that were, I unlike so many from the left today, payed attention. btw most the leaders of the left agreed that saddam HAD THEM, but that kinda falls in between the cracks.

I see gene is still on his BUSH BUSH EVIL, RANT , get off it. I do not believe you served this country period, I think you are a sham and if you did serve you are a disgrace. and yes I am holding a sign saying 'WILL FLAME FOR FOOD"
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
most the leaders of the left agreed that saddam HAD THEM, but that kinda falls in between the cracks.


Most. Not all. Just the sorry ass excuse for a left in America. I didn't know, and wanted to let Hans Blix finish up his work.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

#15 by COL Gene
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





Every day people die. Estimates of 50,000 have died since the war started. Iraq has exchanged one evil for another. It is not a lie that about the same number have died as Saddam killed.


Sorry but this is FALSE!


Saddam's number of dead in Iraq represents almost one tenth of the population of that country. But then one should add the more than 500,000 soldiers and civilians that were killed or wounded during Saddam's eight-year war with Iraq. At least another 300,000 were killed when Saddam tried to absorb Kuwait in 1990-1991.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

It was NEVER ABOUT THE OIL!


Deny it all you want. It's about the freakin' oil. Hmmmm....... let's see....... let's build a pipeline from Iraq to Eastern Europe..... But, there's one problem. Iraq. No problem. We'll take em out. Oooops........ big problem. They hate us, and won't let us take the oil. Oh well............


More liberal talking points huh? Get this straight! The US gets 2% of it's oil from iraq. Do you understand that? 2%! And not a one of you can answer this....."if" it's about the oil why do we "still" have a shortage and "why" are fuel prices so high? And don't even try to blame "this" on GW because that would be an outright lie!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
And don't even try to blame "this" on GW because that would be an outright lie!


I guess only georgie bushie is allowed to lie.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

#21 by zinkadoodle
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





And don't even try to blame "this" on GW because that would be an outright lie!


I guess only georgie bushie is allowed to lie.


I don't think you have a clue. Maybe you should buy one. But then again nevermind. Even if you bought one, you'd still be clueless. I told you...get nasty, get slapped down!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
#21 by zinkadoodle
Wednesday, June 15, 2005


I guess only georgie bushie is allowed to lie.


so you have a fear of bush??? man thats sad.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Terrorism is alive and well including in Iraq.


As is this one! Show the proof or find something else to harp on. What, do you want us to prove you wrong again?


Really...terrorism is alive and well is a lie...hmm...its kinda weird that GW keeps talking about it then, doesn't it?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
More liberal talking points huh? Get this straight! The US gets 2% of it's oil from iraq. Do you understand that? 2%! And not a one of you can answer this....."if" it's about the oil why do we "still" have a shortage and "why" are fuel prices so high? And don't even try to blame "this" on GW because that would be an outright lie!


The oil isn't for Joe SUV. The oil is for the big corporations (Halliburton, etc.). Basically, the US gets rid of Saddam, the new guy opens the door to investment in "reconstruction" (with restrictions so only companies from countries that didn't oppose the war can bid, which shuts out competition to US companies). These corporations take control of Iraq's oil reserves, and therefore extend the American empire into the Middle East. And as for the Iraqi people? What happens to them doesn't matter, as long as they don't try to take control of their own oil reserves. Then they take out the new leader like they did to Mossadegh, Allende or Arbenz.

And I blame it not just on GW, but his administration, the elite heads of major corporations, and all politicians who supported the war, Republican or Democrat.