Will We Win or Loose in Iraq?

[The Sir]

Let me ask everyone this,

If we're losing, who's winning?

[JMS]

Let me ask everyone this, If we're losing, who's winning?

Currently nobody could argue that Iran is not benifited both in prestige and influence by America's invasion of Iraq. Currently it's America's policy to install a popular democrocy in Iraq, So with a 65% pro Iranian Shiite population; Iran will win even if we suceed. Iran also achieved a huge boost when we eliminated Saddam, the largest Arab firewall against Iranian influence for the last two decades.

One would also have to argue that Al Quada is winning in Iraq. Before we moved in there was no Al Quada presence. Al Quada's stated goal in moving into Iraq was to create a sunni on Shiite civil war there which they could exploit. Al Quada has been 100% successful in achieving their goal of an Iraqi civil war between Shiite and Sunni where none existed before even if it is far from certain whether they will be able to exploit it.

[twa]

Currently nobody could argue that Iran is not benifited both in prestige and influence by America's invasion of Iraq. Currently it's America's policy to install a popular democrocy in Iraq, So with a 65% pro Iranian Shiite population; Iran will win even if we suceed. Iran also achieved a huge boost when we eliminated Saddam, the largest Arab firewall against Iranian influence for the last two decades.

One would also have to argue that Al Quada is winning in Iraq. Before we moved in there was no Al Quada presence. Al Quada's stated goal in moving into Iraq was to create a sunni on Shiite civil war there which they could exploit. Al Quada has been 100% successful in achieving their goal of an Iraqi civil war between Shiite and Sunni where none existed before even if it is far from certain whether they will be able to exploit it.

Who is to say the Shia influence is not a good counter to the extreme Sunni in the ME? Seems like a choice between being whipped or flogged

You are correct there was no civil war between Shiite and Sunni though.

Simply a slaughter

[dreamingwolf]

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.

I dont think that is by popular demand though, its more a product of power vacuums and seizing power by force.

[luckydevil]

Let me ask everyone this,

If we're losing, who's winning?

Iran

[praise_gibbs]

"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition,

turning the whole Arab world against us

and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero

... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt

for a securely entrenched dictator

and condemning them to fight

in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war.

It could only plunge that part of the world

into even greater instability."

"A World Transformed" (1998) George Herbert Walker Bush

[twa]

Iran

Does this mean you favor going to war with Iran?

[cadets08]

First of all this is a stupid thread because it is just more negativity thrown the troops way. For example would you like people telling you day in and day out that what you are doing in terms of your job is a lost cause or a failed cause? No of course not, you would hate it and eventually perform worse and worse. I just have great respect for the men and women over seas protecting our freedoms, and I think instead of this speculating we should give them our full support regardless of anyone's opinion on the war itself. If for once we stopped referring to the war being lost or a war for the wrong reasons and instead focused all this energy on how much we care about the troops I'm sure they would come home faster than any affects protests would have.

[JMS]

Who is to say the Shia influence is not a good counter to the extreme Sunni in the ME? Seems like a choice between being whipped or flogged

You are correct there was no civil war between Shiite and Sunni though.

Simply a slaughter

Problem with that statement is that the Sunni states in the Middle East are all American Allies. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia are all Pro Western. The Shia aligned states are all our statated enemies. Syria, Iran, and soon to be Iraq.

It's a choice between proven pro western allies who share our mutual interests; or countries which don't share our interests and oppose stability which is our major goal in the middle east for the last 30 years before Bush II.

[twa]

Problem with that statement is that the Sunni states in the Middle East are all American Allies. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia are all Pro Western. The Shia aligned states are all our statated enemies. Syria, Iran, and soon to be Iraq.

It's a choice between proven pro western allies who share our mutual interests; or countries which don't share our interests and oppose stability which is our major goal in the middle east for the last 30 years before Bush II.

With allies like that who needs enemies?

Iran will be neutralized in the race for nukes or our good friends(Egypt and Saudi Arabia) will join the nuclear club shortly.

Is THAT the stability you seek?

[JMS]

With allies like that who needs enemies?

You'd have to back that up with an actual aquisation in order for me to respond to it. Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been among our most trusted friends in the world, much less the middle east...

Iran will be neutralized in the race for nukes or our good friends(Egypt and Saudi Arabia) will join the nuclear club shortly. Is THAT the stability you seek?

That's not really clear. Saudi definitely could get the bomb without suffering any negative American action. Egypt is so economically weak, and recieves so much aid from America; it's unlikely they would pursue the bomb without at least a discussion from Us.

I don't even know if America would object if Saudi Arabia and Egypt wished to aquire the bomb in response to an Iranian threat. I know Israel would object. I think the fact that Israel has the bomb and has for quite some time and hasn't suffered a chilling relationship with America could be one possible path for both Egypt and Saudi.

Clearly Israel wouldn't be too enthusiastic to see Egypt or Saudi follow in their footsteps...

Either way how can you suggest that Egypt and Saudi's seeking the bomb is somehow disloyal when you clearly don't object to Israel's pioneering bomb program in the middle east?

[twa]

If you meant accusation,the Saudi's and Egypt are already exploring it...if not more.

I don't object to Israel's program because the need is obvious from history and current threats

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348600,00.html

In response, Olmert reiterated past statements that “Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East. As is well known, it is Iran that is threatening to introduce nukes and use them – and many countries have good reason to be concerned, including Israel, Egypt and many European nations. The UN Security Council’s decision to threaten sanctions against Iran is a step in the right direction.”

Mubarak, on the other hand, said that if Iran attains nuclear weapons, his country cannot sit idly by on the sidelines. “Egypt’s stance is clear. We declared this stance in Baghdad in the early 1990’s in the presence of then President Saddam Hussein: The Middle East should be free of weapons of mass destruction – atomic, biological and chemical.

“We don’t want nuclear arms in the area but we are obligated to defend ourselves. We will have to have the appropriate weapons. It is irrational that we sit and watch from the sidelines when we might be attacked at any moment,” Mubarak stated.

...........

The idea of Egypt with it's large radical elements growing in power(and even SA to a lesser degree) with nukes just makes all warm and fuzzy.

Just think ,we might have two new Pakistan look alikes and Iran having a pissing contest. :laugh:

The Ideal situation would be a nuke free ME with a non-aggression pact against Israel....But what are the odds?

[JMS]

In response, Olmert reiterated past statements that “Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East.

Israel has had the bomb for more than 30 years. They certainly were the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the middle east.

Mubarak, on the other hand, said that if Iran attains nuclear weapons, his country cannot sit idly by on the sidelines. “Egypt’s stance is clear. We declared this stance in Baghdad in the early 1990’s in the presence of then President Saddam Hussein: The Middle East should be free of weapons of mass destruction – atomic, biological and chemical.

“We don’t want nuclear arms in the area but we are obligated to defend ourselves. We will have to have the appropriate weapons. It is irrational that we sit and watch from the sidelines when we might be attacked at any moment,” Mubarak stated.

As I said before. Egypt recieves 2 billion anually in US aid. America has significant leverage with the Egyptians. Likewise Egypt as the most populous Arab state does not gain from a nuclear arms race in the region. America has no such leverage with Saudi Arabia who can afford their own program regardless of whether we like it or not. Besides with Saudi's relatively small population and their now proximity to the agressive Iranian Shiite foe, we might want Saudi to have a nuclear deterant...

The idea of Egypt with it's large radical elements growing in power(and even SA to a lesser degree) with nukes just makes all warm and fuzzy.

Just think ,we might have two new Pakistan look alikes and Iran having a pissing contest. :laugh:

The Ideal situation would be a nuke free ME with a non-aggression pact against Israel....But what are the odds?

slim and small, slim is at the airport leaving town.

[twa]

So JMS, you feel despite Murabaks own words they would sit idly by ?

Quote JMS

"

Israel has had the bomb for more than 30 years. They certainly were the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the middle east."

Any proof of that?

Other than Olmert's word? :laugh:

[JMS]

So JMS, you feel despite Murabaks own words they would sit idly by ?

I don't think Egypt is financially strong enough to foot the bill for a nuclear program. Much less strong enough to forgo American aid in exchange for such a program if we objected. You can hear Murabaks words more as a trial bolloon floating the idea and informing America of Egypts need. No oil in Egypt.

Any proof of that? ( That Israel has had the bomb for 30 years..)

Documents at the Nixon whitehouse which detail Israel's successful nuclear program back in 1969 and how a nuclear armed Israel affected Nixon's middle east policy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042801326.html

There are lots of other recently declassified documents which detail Israel's nuclear program back in the 1960's. Currently Israel is suspected to have more nuclear warheads than Red China...

[twa]

Did you like the answer to Israel "introducing" nuclear weapons to the ME in the link? Classic diplo-speak:laugh:

Israeli Ambassador Yitzhak Rabin explained to him how he interpreted Israel's pledge not to be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the region. According to Rabin, for nuclear weapons to be introduced, they needed to be tested and publicly declared. Implicitly, then, Israel could possess the bomb without "introducing" it.

[Sarge]

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

I think we will both agree that so far, allowing the Iraqi's free determination has been only marginally successful, at best. Therefore, showing/dictating to them is the way. Too bad we're past that

[Chief skin]

It is over we lost long ago. CIVIL WAR, SECTARIAN VIOLENCE, and we are in the middle

[rtbasye]

first of all- we could lose- not loose- is that like the "paloffs?"

Secondly- how do you define winning and losing.

If winning is defined as a stable federal democracy, that is pro-western, and free of the Shia influences from Iran- that's a tall order.

If winning is defined as a stable government, that doesnt create a massive power vacuum and suck the entire region into massive war--- then yes, that is achievable, and in my opinion MUST be achieved.

Too many armchair strategists out there say we should just pull out and go home- that would be great if we could hit the reset button and all would return to pre-2003 conditions- but it isnt possible. The U.S. and any allies we can coerce will have to try to get out of this mess that we helped to create. The long term consequences of exiting Iraq too early are unthinkable, and for that reason, I am willing to go back there again (already spent some time there myself, and may have to again)

[stwasm]

When we decided to fight Iraq instead of spending money and resources on the devastation in New Orleans, that's when we lost and lost badly!

[twa]

When we decided to fight Iraq instead of spending money and resources on the devastation in New Orleans, that's when we lost and lost badly!

You got to be ****ting me :laugh:

[stwasm]

You got to be ****ting me :laugh:

I just think that it's messed up that we're trying to police the world, telling people the "correct" way to live their lives when we can't even take care of our own people. The priorities are messed up and a LOT of good people suffered and lost their lives because of it all. There was absolutely nothing to win in the first place.

[JMS]

Too many armchair strategists out there say we should just pull out and go home- that would be great if we could hit the reset button and all would return to pre-2003 conditions- but it isnt possible. The U.S. and any allies we can coerce will have to try to get out of this mess that we helped to create. The long term consequences of exiting Iraq too early are unthinkable, and for that reason, I am willing to go back there again (already spent some time there myself, and may have to again)

I would say that not enough strategists discussed this before we got involved and not enough strategists are discussing it now. Frankly if we were wrong to go in, how can we be right to stay in? If terrorist faction sprang to life in Iraq when we destabalized their government, and they are thriving with our occupation. How does it make sense to stay and continue to breath life into them?

Bush's own military inteligence advisers are telling him the insurgency grew through out 2006 and will continue to grow through 2007. How would leaving make things worse?

[rtbasye]

I would say that not enough strategists discussed this before we got involved and not enough strategists are discussing it now. Frankly if we were wrong to go in, how can we be right to stay in? If terrorist faction sprang to life in Iraq when we destabalized their government, and they are thriving with our occupation. How does it make sense to stay and continue to breath life into them?

Bush's own military inteligence advisers are telling him the insurgency grew through out 2006 and will continue to grow through 2007. How would leaving make things worse?

Your logic is flawed my friend- however badly we screwed things up on the initial occupation does not determine that the only policy is leave the region. Do you really think that if we leave Iraq, everything will be OK? Get real! The fact of the matter is the place will go to hell in a handbasket, and the insurgency that is plaguing Iraq will spread into into a regional war. The Malaqui (sp.) gov't is too weak, and corrupted by al Sadr to succeed without our boots on the ground. I'm not saying I like the situation- but the alternative that you and others present is a receipe for a larger conflict that we would again find ourselves involved in- spreading to Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The complete destabilization of the region is at stake, and like I said earlier, we are stuck with the mess we made, we can't just leave.

[rtbasye]

"I would say that not enough strategists discussed this before we got involved and not enough strategists are discussing it now."

to further respond to your post, there is no doubt there was a partisan, political move to invade Iraq- ever heard of the book "hubris" by Isakoff and Corne- interesting read. Yes, more people should discuss it, my comment is mainly aimed at people's knee jerk reactions saying that we should just pull out, without a grasp of the consequences of those actions.