Will We Win or Loose in Iraq?

[Prosperity]

Point well taken - my apologies.

its all right, just a pet peeve

[darrell1106]

I consider it a win regardless of how it turns out. Saddam and his boys are dead, win for all. Also, I put in the win collum the field test of battle droids and drones.

Our boys are dead as well. Was Saddam and confirming the inadequicy of the WMD theory worth their lives? I think that's why GWB is still committed. He doesn't feel like we've done enough to consider this a victory.

[Boots]

Why do people have such a hard time with the word lose? Seriously! Why do people add that extra "o"???????????? This is insane!!! You're 43 JMS!

nice contribution whodel.

[Thanos]

There is one way we can still win with relative ease. Establish an fully independent Kurdistan and put a couple of permanent US Bases there. Not a complete victory for sure but it would serve our interests. Kurdistan would likely become a prosperous country which would demonstate to the Middle East what happens to our friends while the Bases would be used to conduct the occasional kinetic actions against AQI in AL -Anbar as well as be a visible threat to Iran.

Sounds like South Korea.

[luckydevil]

I've checked plenty of history. So much so that I have a degree in it. In both Germany and Japan, those people were told how things were going to be, and that they were going to like it. That's what we needed to do in Iraq, especially with people that have never had a form of government other than a dictator of some sort.

And as I said, that philosophy worked out pretty well

We left them alone; our influence was/is vastly overrated. And both nations had a history of democracy, can't really say that about most of the Arab World.

For a guy who majored in history, American history shows that our track with imposing democracy is HORRIBLE.

[nonniey]

Sounds like South Korea.

Exactly.

[Sarge]

And both nations had a history of democracy, can't really say that about most of the Arab World.

.

That's the difference. And that's why it's even more important to have a heavy hand and show them the way until they get the hang of things.

What needs to be determined is, do they really want democracy?

[Riggo-toni]

That's the difference. And that's why it's even more important to have a heavy hand and show them the way until they get the hang of things.

What needs to be determined is, do they really want democracy?

Actually, a bigger difference might be that Japan and Germany have the most homogeneous populations of nearly any country in the world. Iraq could never survive as a democracy. Either the central government would have to be so weak as to be ineffective (the route we/they took), or the Shiites would dominate it.

The Kurds have democracy in their autonomous zone. The Shia might want it. The Sunnis do not, because either they get it by being split off into their own country, which would mean losing all the oil revenue, or they become subjects of other ethnic groups that they have been oppressing for decades.

The best long term solution would've been to force the country to break up, and deal with the outrage of the inevitable ethnic cleansing that would've followed - see India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. A messy solution for sure, but long term could've developed into something viable.

[ZoEd]

That's the difference. And that's why it's even more important to have a heavy hand and show them the way until they get the hang of things.

What needs to be determined is, do they really want democracy?

I'm sure they want democracy, who wouldn't? No one in their right mind wants what they say or do dictated to them. The question is this; do they want the kind of democracy the US has? Most people fail to realize that our form of democracy isn't right for everyone.

Most of you think it's a lost cause but I personally think in the long run they'll be better off. That doesn't mean we'll be happy with the results however.

[mjah]

I'm sure they want democracy, who wouldn't?

Lots of folks don't want democracy.

[Prosperity]

Sarge you can't just use your degree to automatically gain you legitimacy on this board when you show yourself to be ignorant of even the most basic history of the peoples and places you want to talk about.

Do you seriously want to compare Japan and Germany to Iraq? As a historian with a straight face? Hah

[cjcdaman]

nice contribution whodel.

I agree with him. It's lose and loose. Very simple.

[jpillian]

I'm sure they want democracy, who wouldn't? No one in their right mind wants what they say or do dictated to them. The question is this; do they want the kind of democracy the US has? Most people fail to realize that our form of democracy isn't right for everyone.

Most of you think it's a lost cause but I personally think in the long run they'll be better off. That doesn't mean we'll be happy with the results however.

All peoples want self-determination; all peoples don't necessarily want democracy -- would be my take. :2cents: I'm not so sure that democracy can take root in the developing Arab world at this point. Clan mentality is still much too strong. And certainly us non-Arab, non-kin Westerners will never be able to introduce anything that will stick long term.

In the end, self-determination will win out. Probably the ideal situation for introducing Iraq (and the middle east in general) to choosing a form of democracy for their governance is to gradually influence internal political forces. Enable someone strong and respected to take power; over time introduce the culture to increased Western thought; and over time, the benevolent dictator cedes increasing power to the masses. The timeline would most probably be decades.

As it currently stands, we ended up deluging Iraq in a sea of Western thought; and as a result the indigenous masses have retreated to their more fundamental roots. We have determined for the Iraqi people how their government will look and feel to a large extent. Therefore, despite the fact the present Iraqi government is their best tool to effect near-term actual self-determination, it will most likely end up rejected.

In the end, we will have probably won in Iraq, in the sense of de-fanging a powerful state entity that was our adversary. However, we will have lost when it came to de-fusing anit-American sentiments in the world at large, and de-escalating the War on Terror/the War on Islamic Fundamentalism.

Nothing much new to my opinion -- just trying to pad my post count here in the tailgate

[Prosperity]

posts don't count here in the tail gate bro, well not in the padding sense though.

nice post though

[jpillian]

posts don't count here in the tail gate bro, well not in the padding sense though.

nice post though

I know -- we definitely to lobby for a sarcasm smiley :laugh:

[ZoEd]

All peoples want self-determination; all peoples don't necessarily want democracy -- would be my take. :2cents: I'm not so sure that democracy can take root in the developing Arab world at this point. Clan mentality is still much too strong. And certainly us non-Arab, non-kin Westerners will never be able to introduce anything that will stick long term.

In the end, self-determination will win out. Probably the ideal situation for introducing Iraq (and the middle east in general) to choosing a form of democracy for their governance is to gradually influence internal political forces. Enable someone strong and respected to take power; over time introduce the culture to increased Western thought; and over time, the benevolent dictator cedes increasing power to the masses. The timeline would most probably be decades.

As it currently stands, we ended up deluging Iraq in a sea of Western thought; and as a result the indigenous masses have retreated to their more fundamental roots. We have determined for the Iraqi people how their government will look and feel to a large extent. Therefore, despite the fact that current Iraqi government is in their best tool to effect near-term actual self-determination, it will most likely end end up rejected.

In the end, we will have probably won in Iraq, in the sense of de-fanging a powerful state entity that was our adversary. However, we will have lost when it came to de-fusing anit-American sentiments in the world at large, and de-escalating the War on Terror/the War on Islamic Fundamentalism.

Nothing much new to my opinion -- just trying to pad my post count here in the tailgate

Wow, just wow. Best post I've seen in the tailgate in a long time and the best I've seen yet in regards to the war in Iraq. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

Where have you been?

I agree but to me self-determination is a form of democracy, in a sense people are living at their own will instead of living at the will of a dictator. At least now the people don't have to live in fear of a tyrant. Although the Iraqi people aren't out of the woods yet and still aren't completely safe they are free. I've mentioned on this board a hundred times that no one here in America can even begin to comprehend the fear the Iraqi people lived in with Saddam as their leader. Yes I believe they are better off now than before and eventually it will get better. :2cents:

Problem is most people expect us to just go into a country kick ass set up a gov't and leave. Anyone that thinks it's that easy is just dumb. It's crazy to think you can set a definite timeline on something like this. It's easy to blame Bush and his cabinet but even the best made plan in a perfect world scenario would have problems succeeding in a country like Iraq with open borders and every anti-western psychopath coming there to fight. War isn't pretty and they need to finally quit playing politics and allow our military leaders to fight this war the way a war is supposed to be fought. Didn't we learn anything from Vietnam?

[DoGood28]

Can we all please learn the difference between the words "loose" and "lose"?

[Sarge]

Sarge you can't just use your degree to automatically gain you legitimacy on this board when you show yourself to be ignorant of even the most basic history of the peoples and places you want to talk about.

Do you seriously want to compare Japan and Germany to Iraq? As a historian with a straight face? Hah

Do you know how we took care of the Nazi's that went underground in Germany after WWII was over? Much like Baathist and other ******* in Iraq today.

No? Let me let you in on some history.

We sent out death squads, hunted them down and killed them. No day in court, no leftist in America protesting that the poor Nazi's rights were violated. We hunted them down and killed them. In cold blood. Simply because they were Nazi's.

Oh, we didn't call them "death squads". But in all candor, that's what they were. It's just that after all the misery that the Nazi's inflicted in Europe, no one minded that they were hunted down like dogs and killed.

That's exactly what needs to be done today in Iraq, only now we have limp dicks, leftist and hippies crying about their rights. Hell, we can't even get the leftists to say "Good job" over hanging Hussein. What do you think would happen if we sent out stone cold killers to take care of the problem children?

AS far as a comparision of peoples, there is very little. But in the case of the Marshall Plan again, we told both Germany and Japan how things were going to be, and that they were going to like it. That's what needs to happen here.

Germany was given a lot more leeway than Japan because they were at least used to some from of democracy in the recent past. In fact, they recieved the least amount of money from the Marshall Plan for recounstruction, and I would even venture to say it was Germany's switching of currency from the Reicshmarc(sp) the the German marc that brought that country around instead of anythign the Marshall Plan did.

In Japan, MacArthur allowed the Japanese to retain their emperor, but he was only a figurehead and no longer regarded as a God an/or devine being. Otherwise, MacArthur set them up with a form of government copied from the US. Just like needs to happen in Iraq.

Thus endeth the history lesson

[Sarge]

All peoples want self-determination; all peoples don't necessarily want democracy -- would be my take. :2cents: I'm not so sure that democracy can take root in the developing Arab world at this point. Clan mentality is still much too strong. And certainly us non-Arab, non-kin Westerners will never be able to introduce anything that will stick long term.

In the end, self-determination will win out. Probably the ideal situation for introducing Iraq (and the middle east in general) to choosing a form of democracy for their governance is to gradually influence internal political forces. Enable someone strong and respected to take power; over time introduce the culture to increased Western thought; and over time, the benevolent dictator cedes increasing power to the masses. The timeline would most probably be decades.

As it currently stands, we ended up deluging Iraq in a sea of Western thought; and as a result the indigenous masses have retreated to their more fundamental roots. We have determined for the Iraqi people how their government will look and feel to a large extent. Therefore, despite the fact the present Iraqi government is their best tool to effect near-term actual self-determination, it will most likely end up rejected.

In the end, we will have probably won in Iraq, in the sense of de-fanging a powerful state entity that was our adversary. However, we will have lost when it came to de-fusing anit-American sentiments in the world at large, and de-escalating the War on Terror/the War on Islamic Fundamentalism.

Nothing much new to my opinion -- just trying to pad my post count here in the tailgate

I'd say you're pretty much on, except the "Benevolent dictator cedes power" part. The mentality there is such that once one gains power, they'll keep it. ANd they'll revert back to their old ways. ANd we'll be right back where we started

[Prosperity]

"AS far as a comparision of peoples, there is very little. But in the case of the Marshall Plan again, we told both Germany and Japan how things were going to be, and that they were going to like it. That's what needs to happen here."

There you go, what is a nation if not a group of people. You can't expect the same thing to work for Iraq, that would work for Germany and Japan. How you can ignore the most important aspect in this equation, is beyond me. You can't just sweep it aside as if it is some minor difference.

[Sarge]

"AS far as a comparision of peoples, there is very little. But in the case of the Marshall Plan again, we told both Germany and Japan how things were going to be, and that they were going to like it. That's what needs to happen here."

There you go, what is a nation if not a group of people. You can't expect the same thing to work for Iraq, that would work for Germany and Japan. How you can ignore the most important aspect in this equation, is beyond me. You can't just sweep it aside as if it is some minor difference.

I don't ignore it. But if we are going to keep Iraq as a whole nation, we are going to need to crack down on them in the short run, and that appears to be what Bush has Maliki(sp) doing.

People in that region have been told what to do for centuries, but now are faced with self determination. It appears it's overwhelmed them, and they've reverted to true base, arab menatility

That mentality has to be eradicated if the middle east is to reform and become part of the civilized world. If it can't be reformed, they just go back to doing what they've done for the past thousand years.

That said, we need to be more heavy handed in there, especially considering the people. We need to be the "benevolent dictators" that Jpillian referred to. After the Iraqi's get used to things and hopefully see the light (by light I mean that some form of democracy is better than endless tribal warfare) then we cede power and get out.

As it stands now, I'm all for going British on the place and dividing it up, because I have no faith the people there will ever see the light I spoke of above

[Thiebear]

Lots of folks don't want democracy.

o.k. name the people that got rid of the dictator and got freedom said:

This sucks, give back the dictator.

[cmorina69]

A win, Saddam is gone, and so are his boys, the iraqi people are glad we our there ( don't matter what they say on tv, i have read solders blogs and books) they are glad Saddam is gone, im not gona say it was/ is beign handled 100% right but , its a good step for the war on terror.

[DjTj]

o.k. name the people that got rid of the dictator and got freedom said:

This sucks, give back the dictator.

After the French Revolution dispatched with Louis XIV, the French Republic lasted only a decade before Napoleon became dictator.

The Chinese Revolution removed the emperor from power and China descended into a period of warlords and World War, eventually choosing Mao as a dictator.

When the Phillippines was liberated from Japan and then granted independence from the United States, they elected Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled as a dictator for the next four decades.

Even more recently than that, Afghanistan expelled the Soviet Union and achieved independence only to come under the rule of the Taliban.

I think that more often than not, new countries fall into dictatorial regimes rather than stable democracy.

[Prosperity]

I don't ignore it. But if we are going to keep Iraq as a whole nation, we are going to need to crack down on them in the short run, and that appears to be what Bush has Maliki(sp) doing.

People in that region have been told what to do for centuries, but now are faced with self determination. It appears it's overwhelmed them, and they've reverted to true base, arab menatility

That mentality has to be eradicated if the middle east is to reform and become part of the civilized world. If it can't be reformed, they just go back to doing what they've done for the past thousand years.

That said, we need to be more heavy handed in there, especially considering the people. We need to be the "benevolent dictators" that Jpillian referred to. After the Iraqi's get used to things and hopefully see the light (by light I mean that some form of democracy is better than endless tribal warfare) then we cede power and get out.

As it stands now, I'm all for going British on the place and dividing it up, because I have no faith the people there will ever see the light I spoke of above

you realize what you are saying is contradictory right?

"If you guys don't want to be free and self deterministic I'm going to forcibly beat it into you"

Its because that is YOUR nature Sarge, on the one hand you have to defend the ideals of the Enlightenment because you are born in the US and you have to defend the US and its ideals. On the other hand you take joy in beating the crap out of Arabs [and sense into them] (in proxy).

One of the many reasons this war doesn't make sense anymore