latour999 latour999

How not to win the war in Iraq

▼

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
23,830 views 44 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.


Got any proof?
Reply #27 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............


An just an FYI...the pipeline your talking about is NOT planning on going through Iraq! Once again read and learn!

Link
Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Got any proof?


history and logic
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

#28 by latour999
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





Got any proof?


history and logic


Logic sure as spit is NOT proof of any sort. History means nothing when it comes to this. All history is "they might or might not do this". Again no proof.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Logic sure as spit is NOT proof of any sort. History means nothing when it comes to this. All history is "they might or might not do this". Again no proof.


I thought you said
Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it.


I'll admit that as of now,it can not be proven or disproven, although history leans toward it being true (just look what happened to Mossadegh, Arbenz or Allende, just to name the first few that come to mind)
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

#30 by latour999
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





Logic sure as spit is NOT proof of any sort. History means nothing when it comes to this. All history is "they might or might not do this". Again no proof.


I thought you said
Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it.



Nope, wasn't me! History can lean anyway it wants. It has no bearing on what you and I are discussing.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
crap! wrong doctor! My bad.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
History can lean anyway it wants. It has no bearing on what you and I are discussing.


This is the history of US interventions in foreign countries. We are discussing US interventions in foreign countries. I'll admit that it's not proof, but to put it simply, they did it before and they can do it again. This shows that my theories are possible and plausible, however they can not be proven or disproven now, and probably not for a while as any documents pertaining to this would probably be classified. The proof for what happened to Allende only started coming out when Clinton was in office, around 25 years later. Before that, it was just suspicion and logical, plausible accusations. That's all I have right now. Perhaps documents pertaining to this will eventually be declassified. Until then, I can only be suspicious of what I view as an action that has lost all credibility and the stated reasons turned out to be BS.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'll admit that it's not proof,


Then it has no bearing! "We" were discussing "proof".

#29 by drmiler
Wednesday, June 15, 2005






#28 by latour999
Wednesday, June 15, 2005





Got any proof?


history and logic



Logic sure as spit is NOT proof of any sort. History means nothing when it comes to this. All history is "they might or might not do this". Again no proof.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush has created a LOSE- Lose situation for America in Iraq. You are dumb enough to support our enept policy.


Another ignorant statement. You have no idea what the future holds for Iraq. Do you ever take the time to look at the progress in Iraq?
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then it has no bearing! "We" were discussing "proof".


Again, any proof they have is probably classified. They aren't going to say "support our war, it's for the Iraqi people. By the way, here's those documents that prove it was really for the oil and our imperalist ambitions." So right now, what I have is a motive, a changing alibi, a major credibility problem, and a historical pattern of many priors. That's more than enough for me to be suspicious.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Besides, where is the proof that it is about one of these other reasons? You can't disprove it either.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
At the risk of being indelicate, I'll call this what it is - a demonstration of latour's ignorance of history and blindness to reality. Neocolonialism? American Empire? What is going on that supposedly intelligent people continue to pretend the frickin' sky is falling, despite all the actual evidence to the contrary, basing all their opinions on nothing but the "bad" news and drawing absolutely irrational conclusions?

What country, ever, has America subjugated and colonized against its will (OK, Puerto Rico)? Where exactly are all those oppressed American Colonial subjects, the ones rioting in the streets to be free, like, say, the throngs in Lebanon? Do you think the 8 million Iraqis who walked and braved death threats to express their will in a free election believe we are subjugating and colonizing them? And all this nonsense about "targeting" civilians? Get a frickin' grip. There's only one group in Iraq "targeting" Iraqi civilians - and it ain't the US.

When will the people supposedly so concerned about the Iraqis start helping to defeat the terrorist elements doing the killing instead of bitching and moaning about issues that were settled long ago and trying to undermine the efforts to succeed in Iraq?

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
What country, ever, has America subjugated and colonized against its will (OK, Puerto Rico)? Where exactly are all those oppressed American Colonial subjects, the ones rioting in the streets to be free, like, say, the throngs in Lebanon?


This is neocolonialism. It isn't colonialism in the traditional sense. The superpowers (the US) use economic means and multinational corporations to dominate smaller countries, and when they get out of line (say, electing a socialist or anti-imperialist leader like Allende or Arbenz), uses covert actions to subvert democracy and bring in someone more friendly to US interests (say, Augusto Pinochet)

Oppressed Colonial subjects:

Chile (3000 Chileans killed or "disappeared" during the regime of Augusto Pinochet, 27000 jailed or tortured)
Nicaragua (Iran-contra)
Guatemala (overthrow of Arbenz, plunging country into 30 year civil war)
Dominican Republic (LBJ sent troops to prevent Bosch, the first democratically elected President from returning to power after he was overthrown)
Brazil (Overthrow of Goulart and replacement with far-right capitalist dictators)

That's just a short list of countries where the US has tried to subvert democracy because they got out of line.

I think these qualify for subjugation
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top


#39 by latour999
Thursday, June 16, 2005





What country, ever, has America subjugated and colonized against its will (OK, Puerto Rico)? Where exactly are all those oppressed American Colonial subjects, the ones rioting in the streets to be free, like, say, the throngs in Lebanon?


This is neocolonialism. It isn't colonialism in the traditional sense. The superpowers (the US) use economic means and multinational corporations to dominate smaller countries, and when they get out of line (say, electing a socialist or anti-imperialist leader like Allende or Arbenz), uses covert actions to subvert democracy and bring in someone more friendly to US interests (say, Augusto Pinochet)

Oppressed Colonial subjects:

Chile (3000 Chileans killed or "disappeared" during the regime of Augusto Pinochet, 27000 jailed or tortured)
Nicaragua (Iran-contra)
Guatemala (overthrow of Arbenz, plunging country into 30 year civil war)
Dominican Republic (LBJ sent troops to prevent Bosch, the first democratically elected President from returning to power after he was overthrown)
Brazil (Overthrow of Goulart and replacement with far-right capitalist dictators)

That's just a short list of countries where the US has tried to subvert democracy because they got out of line.

I think these qualify for subjugation



Get your head together! You start off talking about neocolonialism and end up talking subjugation. What baloney! NONE of what you listed would even "remotely" qualify for colonialism, neo or otherwise.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Get your head together! You start off talking about neocolonialism and end up talking subjugation. What baloney! NONE of what you listed would even "remotely" qualify for colonialism, neo or otherwise.


These are the ones that got out of line. For example, Chile had Allende, and he was too socialist and nationalized the copper industry, which most Chileans supported as they did not like seeing their resources (copper is their main export) being controlled by US corporations (foreign control of resources? Sounds kinda like neocolonialism to me), so the CIA replaced him with Pinochet, who was more friendly to US interests, even though he wasn't friendly to Chileans. I go into more detail here, and suggest you read it to understand what I am talking about. Link
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

These are the ones that got out of line. For example, Chile had Allende, and he was too socialist and nationalized the copper industry, which most Chileans supported as they did not like seeing their resources (copper is their main export) being controlled by US corporations (foreign control of resources? Sounds kinda like neocolonialism to me), so the CIA replaced him with Pinochet, who was more friendly to US interests, even though he wasn't friendly to Chileans. I go into more detail here, and suggest you read it to understand what I am talking about. Link


How is ANY of this classified as colonialism?


#39 by latour999
Thursday, June 16, 2005





What country, ever, has America subjugated and colonized against its will (OK, Puerto Rico)? Where exactly are all those oppressed American Colonial subjects, the ones rioting in the streets to be free, like, say, the throngs in Lebanon?


This is neocolonialism. It isn't colonialism in the traditional sense. The superpowers (the US) use economic means and multinational corporations to dominate smaller countries, and when they get out of line (say, electing a socialist or anti-imperialist leader like Allende or Arbenz), uses covert actions to subvert democracy and bring in someone more friendly to US interests (say, Augusto Pinochet)

Oppressed Colonial subjects:
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
How is ANY of this classified as colonialism?


You Bushies really have very little perspective on Marxism-Leninism.
Reply #44 from PolMach Forums Top
Also, it still hasn't been ruled out Saddam didn't have WMD's, they were just not found.


THANK YOU!!!! Let's see, we deployed our troops to Kuwait the January before the war....do you think maybe they had a heads up we were coming in to invade? 3rd ID was poised and ready to strike, yes he had time to hide them. THank God he had the sense not to use them on our troops and instead hide them or move them. This was't a suprise to him that we were coming in, he had time to prepare. I imagine he knew he was stuck. if he used the WMD's he would have been proved in front of the whole world to be a liar, tyrant and everything else we accuse him of. Much better to make Bush and company look like Jack Asses, he does have a brain - just like HItler- don't like him but that doesn't mean he wasn't smart