If the war is over this is an occupation in Iraq. The same people that the repug crew are talking about killing are the same people they were talking about saving when they went into Iraq. Bush and his crew are all over the tv telling people who oppose him are unpatriotic; because they are talking common sense.They say the job will be done when they kill all the insurgents, BUT, they can't tell us who are the insurgents.

The insurgents could be iraqi patriots.

...the irony...

Answer: Kill thousands of resistance fighters and their families. Translation: Only a tyrant like Saddam could have kept Iraq unified once Kurdistan seceded. It's all over but the crying.


Or answer to original question of this thread:

Successful occupations impossible for nice guys, or for a superpower relying on a reputation for goodness. Living in a fantasy neo-imperialist dreamworld, there be dragons haunting present present and future.

No respect= No Gas for you, Yanqui- Now go home.

Why did you post this today? The occupation ended over 18 months ago.

Silly me. We should invite a few hundred thousand armed, nervous monolingual Chinese troops into our American streets for a similar non-occupation. With a few cluster-bombs and special renditions in Mayberry, we could all join the fun.

The insurgents could be iraqi patriots.

So ....what do you call the Iraqis who are voting in the elections?? Loyalists? Loyal to whom or to what?

And ya' know, I keep wondering how we can keep calling those guys "insurgents" when they're killing their own people, killing Iraqis? There's about 2,500 or so terrorists, but one helluva lot more plain, hardworking Iraqis. How can we/you say that those few terrorists are actually fighting for Iraq? Are we/you saying that "Iraq" is only those 2,500 people??

Baron Max

The insurgents are Sunnis who cannot do anything else but insurge because the US sponsored Shiite police force tortures and murders them for fun.

Saddam had a bad government but it was a lot safer for Sunnis. Personally, I think if Saddam was killing off Shiites he was doing the world a service. The US even hired him to do it. Now the US uses Shiites to do its dirty work. Amazing what a regime change can do.

If we are to win the occupation we will be there forever. It's the only way that we have a chance.

The insurgents are Sunnis who cannot do anything else but insurge...

Huh? So ya' mean there's only about 2,500 Sunnis in Iraq? And all of them are "insurgiing"? And all of the rest of the Iraqis are Shiites? I didn't know that, thanks for the info.

Baron Max

Answer: Kill thousands of resistance fighters and their families. Translation: Only a tyrant like Saddam could have kept Iraq unified once Kurdistan seceded. It's all over but the crying.

Yep, this is why I said Iraq isn't ready for a democracy. They're so far off it's not funny. They don't all get along and it won't come peacefully. They need a tyrant first just like most countries had when first building themselves up. You need to slaughter all opposition until everyone pretty much agrees. Heck, that's what we did with America. Slaughtered all the injins and Mexicans in sight until it was only us Americans left.

So once one ethnic group of people in Iraq kills the rest and becomes the majority, then they can start to become a democracy. A democracy is worthless when the majority doesn't agree. Look at them now and heck, look at *us* now. Democracy is a mess when large groups are fighting for power. They need a different style of rule and do all the neccessary dirty deeds that need to first be done. Saddam was perfect for that and GWB 'n Co is perfect for us. ;) This is why Iraq became as powerful of a country as it was when he ruled. Oh, but he's "evil".. :rolleyes:

- N

So ....what do you call the Iraqis who are voting in the elections?? Loyalists? Loyal to whom or to what?

And ya' know, I keep wondering how we can keep calling those guys "insurgents" when they're killing their own people, killing Iraqis? There's about 2,500 or so terrorists, but one helluva lot more plain, hardworking Iraqis. How can we/you say that those few terrorists are actually fighting for Iraq? Are we/you saying that "Iraq" is only those 2,500 people??

Baron Max

I think you are thoroughly confused again. When an american calls himself a patriot he doesn't necessarily do the country any good. He might blow up a federal building out of patriotism. Now tell this couldn't happen in the US?

I guess we should just nuke the place.

I guess we should just nuke the place.

We couldn't be maligned any worse, could we?

Baron Max

I think you are thoroughly confused again. When an american calls himself a patriot he doesn't necessarily do the country any good. He might blow up a federal building out of patriotism. Now tell this couldn't happen in the US?

A patriot is NOT an individual who CALLS HIMSELF a "patriot", a patriot is someone that other citizens call a patriot! I.e., a patriot IS someone who does good things for his nation ....and Tim McVeigh was NOT a patriot (even if he thought he was!). Big difference, Spurious.

Baron Max

Most residents of the British American colonies did not give a whig nor a tory what Washington and his cronies were up to. There were thousands of every-day mind-yer-own-business Americans (we might pigeonhole them as Libertarians today) caught on the wrong side of things, and had their lives and fortunes destroyed. The American Revolution was not all pretty. And as others have pointed out, there were many losers not of proper European genetic stock.

I am in favor of a new American political party embracing the thinking of Thomas Paine. I am in favor of the American People informing their government at this historic juncture that they will be held accountable to We. Not the Royal; We, and not the Corporations. The Times, they really are a-changin. Watch and see: US politics is about to experience a tsunami.

A patriot is NOT an individual who CALLS HIMSELF a "patriot", a patriot is someone that other citizens call a patriot! I.e., a patriot IS someone who does good things for his nation ....and Tim McVeigh was NOT a patriot (even if he thought he was!). Big difference, Spurious.

Baron Max

Our dear Tim thought he was doing a patriotic thing by blowing up the building. He thought he was helping the country.

Is it really up to you to decide who is the true patriot? Obviously many of your viewpoints aren't really beneficial for your country, but you probably still call yourself a patriot. Baron Max and Tim just have different ideas on what is good for the country. I personally have other ideas what is good for the country, but I am not a patriot anyhow because I think patriotism is a recipe for fascism. A country should never be idolized. It's just a country.

But our dear iraqi insurgents see foreign troups occupying their country. People who killed their friends and family members. People who have no claim to be in Iraq in the first place. If somehting similar would happen to the US, let's say the US got invaded and occupied by North Korea. Would you say: oh, they are just thinking about the good of the country. Let's just sit tight. Or do you step into your pickup truck, get a gun from your rifle rack, start the engine, drive to the nearest korean, and blow his brains out?


A patriot is never good for a country. A patriot is a zealot. A braindead machine.

How do you win an occupation?

Collect the special tokens on the back of the Cornflakes box and become president?

But our dear iraqi insurgents see foreign troups occupying their country. People who killed their friends and family members. People who have no claim to be in Iraq in the first place.

So what about the other gazillion Iraqis who are NOT insurgents, and seem to understand that the US coalition is NOT occupying, but helping them? To take the "side" of the very, very few insurgents is to also denounce all of the rest of the gazillion Iraqis, ain't it? So which group is the "patriots"? And why?

If somehting similar would happen to the US, let's say the US got invaded and occupied by North Korea.

Well, here again, ....I might fight and call myself a patriot. But if the overwhelming majority of US citizens were friendly and helpful to the North Koreans, then should I expect Spurious to call me a patriot, too? ...without regard for the gazillion other citizens who accept the "helpful" North Koreans?

See what I mean? If we just decide to call someone a patriot because he shoots someone or blows up something, then does that mean that all murderers in the nation should be called patriots???? ...and denounce all of the other citizens??

Baron Max

I am in favor of a new American political party embracing the thinking of Thomas Paine. I am in favor of the American People informing their government ....

And don't we do that each and every time we vote? If not, what do you call the process of voting for government officials??

Baron Max

Being that the US is rebuilding Iraq and restoring the rights to the people who were repressed for DECADES- it is easy to see that the US is HELPING Iraq. Plus we are leaving. Its not like we are making it the 51st state. So people who are destroying their country, killing their fellow citizens, and trying to reinstate the minority power are NOT PATRIOTS. They are power hungry people who want to have their lost power back. They will do anything to terrorize the majority of the population to achive this.

A Patriot is considered to be someone who makes sacrafices for thier country. These insurgents are RUINING Iraq, not making it a better place. WAKE UP IRAQIS. If there was no insurgency we would have already left!!

Yeah, but that's just the 151 talking. Bush wants to stay the course (not leave), they are building large bases in Iraq, and an embassy with a greater budget than that of the tallest buildings in the world. The power and water have not been restored to pre-war levels, and the rights of the Iraqis are being trampled on. They are not allowed to form labor unions, they are not allowed to bid for reconstruction projects, they are not allowed a free press. A civil war is already in progress. Face it, Bush destroyed Iraq.

Yeah, but that's just the 151 talking. Bush wants to stay the course (not leave), they are building large bases in Iraq, and an embassy with a greater budget than that of the tallest buildings in the world. The power and water have not been restored to pre-war levels, and the rights of the Iraqis are being trampled on. They are not allowed to form labor unions, they are not allowed to bid for reconstruction projects, they are not allowed a free press. A civil war is already in progress. Face it, Bush destroyed Iraq.

I have a friend who is a soldier in Iraq that is rebuilding the networks for the schools. He says that the Iraqi people couldn't be more happy, and that they are so grateful for the work that America is doing there. In fact, he is invited to dinner at many of the families homes. He knows the risk of doing so, but he still makes it a point to have dinner with as many families as he can. He says that yes, there are those who hate them, but the vast majority of families are astoundedly grateful for America's work.

Yes, they are far from America's labor unions, private reconstruction projects, and press, but they are making progress. It doesn't happen overnight. Yes, Bush wants to stay. If we leave and have it Howard Dean's way and take all but 30,000 troops. We would be leaving them to die, and civil war would break out. It would be another Vietnam. So, unless we want to repeat history, we must finish what Bush has started, even if Bush had malicious intentions.

Yes, Bush wants to stay. If we leave and have it Howard Dean's way and take all but 30,000 troops. We would be leaving them to die, and civil war would break out. It would be another Vietnam.

I am confused. The trouble in vietnam started after US troops left vietnam?????

I am confused. The trouble in vietnam started after US troops left vietnam?????

Clarification:
It would be a blood bath if we left for our troops and Iraqis. We lost Vietnam because we pulled out. You only fail when you stop trying.

And it's not a bloody civil war now? How many more Americans and Iraqi have to die, or worse? We could not win Vietnam, it was an untenable position. Sure, Vietnam fell when we pulled out, but the VC could have sustained guerilla war forever.

Let it be a blood bath, then the Iraqis will be fighting for what they believe, and not for an American occupation.

funny,newly realesed documents prove we were lied to about the tonkin incedent to get us into veitnem.

and why should i give a shit about iraq?how about the IRAQIS deals with iraqs problems?

we have problems here in america,lets deal with OUR problems ,or how about IRAQ fixes our country?

or we could all use LOGIC and REASONING.

I know, the right says that poor people shouldn't get welfare because it makes them dependent, doesn't that principle apply to Iraq? But, it's really about having a base in the vicinity of the largest remaining oil reserves on Earth.

its not like we havent IMPEACHED a republican before.

W will go down just like nixon,its gonna be funny.

And it's not a bloody civil war now? How many more Americans and Iraqi have to die, or worse? We could not win Vietnam, it was an untenable position. Sure, Vietnam fell when we pulled out, but the VC could have sustained guerilla war forever.

Let it be a blood bath, then the Iraqis will be fighting for what they believe, and not for an American occupation.

Forever? We could have always nuked them. I don't mean we should have, but because we have nuclear power, we have the freedom to try until we succeed. We pulled out because we lacked the united leadership to win the war. Nothing is impossible for the American spirit. We managed to defeat the organized British army, so I know we are capable of great tactical adaptability.

The Iraqi's were united under a tyrant. There was no war until we removed SH. We caused it, so we need to clean it up. Are we to start wars and not finish them? That is inhumane and insensitive to the world. It may have been better to leave SH in power, but we didn't. The milk has been spilled, regardless of if anyone meant to.

We would have had to be brutal and maybe use nukes to win the Vietnam war.

We lost that war in the early 1960s when we tried to choose the Vietnamese Catholic equivalents of Allawi and Chalabi to be their rulers. We keep on choosing scum for allies because we like that the scum won't tell us "sorry we can not do what you ask because that would not be good for our country". We like weak scum who don't have their own base of support because that way they are dependent on us.

We already screwed up in Iraq. To win prosperous democracy Iraq we should have dropped our other goals for Iraq and we should have showered them with money to prove our motive for being in Iraq was not selfish.

Saddam had to be brutal to keep Iraq together. Even with his oil money and his brutality Saddam never could take control of all of Kurdistan.

Saddam had enemies in Iraq who would give their lives to get revenge for his brutality but Saddam had a great network of spies to find and kill those people before they could join up with each other. Now we have been brutal in Sunni Iraq and have enemies who will give their lives to get revenge against us, but we have only a second rate network of spies and even those spies that we have are loyal to various Iraqi factions rather than to the USA or the national government of Iraq.

America could be solidly behind this war and still lose. We should spend a lot more money trying to buy friendship there if we want to win. Until Iraq is wealthier than they ever were they will not be happy. Iraqs peak was early 1980s, late 1970s.

In some ways Iraq was lost when the British drew the boundrys in the 1920s.

Arabs, Turks, Iranians, Pakistanis and Indians are all very warm to individuals and are generous and loving hosts who seem to enjoy showing hospitality to foreigners. When Palestinians come on American TV they are usually too polite to clearly make their points. It as if the people from the region must either treat you as their beloved long lost relative or as the dirty low down rapist of their daughter. I am glad your friend is meeting the love but you can get that love without having earned it.

Huh? So ya' mean there's only about 2,500 Sunnis in Iraq? And all of them are "insurgiing"? And all of the rest of the Iraqis are Shiites? I didn't know that, thanks for the info.

This 2,500 number of so called "insurgents" you throw out is totally wrong at this point in time. It might have been accurate at the beginning of this war, but we alone have created much more terrorists than their were. This number of terrorists will keep on expanding exponentially, and as long as this administration is in the white house the number will CONTINUE to increase. Bush has entered us into an unwinnable that greatly threatens our countries security.

I'm sorry, but our president is a disgrace. He has embarrassed our country, killed thousands of innocent americans, countless numbers of iraqi's, and continues to lie and deceive each and everyone of us.

This 2,500 number of so called "insurgents" you throw out is totally wrong at this point in time. It might have been accurate at the beginning of this war,...

Okay, so how many of them are there? And what sources do you have that show the numbers higher?

I'd also ask how you know that those few "insurgents" are acting in the interest of the nation of Iraq as opposed to their own interests? And for them to be called "insurgents", shouldn't their fight be more widely supported by the people of Iraq? (Instead to the "insurgents actually killing Iraqis??)

Whenever a war gets kinda' tough, and people begin to die, we should turn tail and run?

Baron Max

Whenever a war gets kinda' tough, and people begin to die, we should turn tail and run?

Not when it gets tough, when our initials reasons for invading have shown to be wrong. How many years has it been and we've yet to find any WMDs? Exactly how many more years are we going to allocate towards finding them? Right now, our soldiers are dying IN VAIN. THAT's why we should pull out. Not because they're dying, but because they continue to fight and die for a false reason. And Bush wants to say we're the ones causing harm to our soldiers? Fuck him!

Hell, if Bush 'n Co flat out said they were invading Iraq for oil or some other logical or greedy reason for our self-preservation, I would have absolutely NO problem with our troops being there, and continuing to remain there, even if taking 2000+ casualties. However, they invented some bullshit reason and they've been called on it, now we have to face the consequences. Lying, especially when lives depend on it, is the absolute worst disgrace one can do when in a position of power.

So yeah, uh, why hasn't Bush kept his promise of invading the "Axis of Evil" countries? Why haven't we invaded North Korea? Too chickenshit to invade them because they have nukes even though that was the reason why we were going to invade them? I thought they were irrational and dangerous people that would nuke us and our allies. Why have they yet to do so? Perhaps because it's another BULLSHIT reason. And now we have the same problem with Iran. Are the Iranians truly looney where we need to pre-emptively strike them? Well gee, thanks GWB, ever read about the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Because of that, we're now in a Catch 22 where we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Way the screw us again.

- N

Not when it gets tough, when our initials reasons for invading have shown to be wrong.

First, that was not the only reason for the invasion. But regardless, the war is more than that NOW ...no matter what the original reason. Things have changed, and they'll keep changing. Are you saying/implying that since the original reason was wrong, that we should pull out, even tho' things have changed completely? Things are never static and perfect ...one must learn to change with the times and conditions.

As for Korea, they are in talks with the rest of the world, so there's a chance, however slim, that diplomacy will work. If so, we sure don't want to invade them at this time!

As for Iran, it's looking more and more like invasion is a possiblity. Iran is becoming totally irrational in her political views, especially with regard to Israel and the Palestinian issue. If it continues, we'll invade them!

Baron Max

and well have a nice jumping point to do it from

First, that was not the only reason for the invasion. But regardless, the war is more than that NOW ...no matter what the original reason. Things have changed, and they'll keep changing. Are you saying/implying that since the original reason was wrong, that we should pull out, even tho' things have changed completely? Things are never static and perfect ...one must learn to change with the times and conditions.

What are the new reasons for staying their baron? When are you going to learn there is none! This is a war that is not supposed to be won. This is a war that is supposed to go on and on. The new reason Bush is trying to get to stick with the american people again is complete bullshit.

A moron once said: Fool me once shame on me, fool me again....you can't fool me again because i've already been fooled you just can't do it.

This particular "war" (and I use the word in its broadest possible sense) might actually be about something more serious than y'all realise.

There are a few things I think you should consider. Questions which have not yet been asked as far as I'm aware, points which have not yet been raised in this long, tiresome Iraq debate you guys have going here.

One.
Given (loosely, going with the flow here) that this war is about oil and its procurement/security of supply :
How long do you really think it would take for the US (I use the US as an example of the western world, given their proven ability to retoool when circumstances dictate it becomes necessary) to completely switch to another form of fossil fuel?

Two.
Fossil fuels (oil, in this case) are finite. The Middle East currently has a virtual monopoly on supply to the West. How far does the humanitarian point of view go when it becomes apparent that your entire way of life is being threatened by a shortfall in supply of said fuels?

Three.
If oil was to become in short supply, and prices rise ever upwards.
How long can the American economy stand it? Urban sprawl is a studied phenomenon. That sprawl relies almost completely upon the suppply of oil. Detail is unnecessary regarding this point, isn't it?

Four.
Given the above. Further details I can elaborate on if required.
Is the American liberal camp prepared to give up everything they know in the future in order to facillitate their ideals?

First, that was not the only reason for the invasion. But regardless, the war is more than that NOW ...no matter what the original reason. Things have changed, and they'll keep changing. Are you saying/implying that since the original reason was wrong, that we should pull out, even tho' things have changed completely? Things are never static and perfect ...one must learn to change with the times and conditions.

Well, duh, of course things have changed. It's pretty obvious, regardless of the reason was for invading, things would change. GWB could have said he's invading Iraq because the purple fairy told him so, and we'd be in the same predicament we're in now. Does that make it right? Nope. Surely the powers that be know all of this would happen before invading. So for future wars, are we just going to make up any ol' reason for invading so while it's wrong, since things will change after the intial invasion, that all of a sudden makes our being there legitimate?

and well have a nice jumping point to do it from

Actually, two points, a pincer movement. Iraq on the left, and Afghanistan on the right. Both border Iran. But then what happens if Pakistan joins in and invades Afghanistan and resupplies the Iranians from the rear while most of our fighting will be done from Iraq since we have to guard our oil supplies there? Invading Iran is going to be the last straw that will break the camel's back of the entire Muslim world.

- N

Three.
If oil was to become in short supply, and prices rise ever upwards.
How long can the American economy stand it? Urban sprawl is a studied phenomenon. That sprawl relies almost completely upon the suppply of oil. Detail is unnecessary regarding this point, isn't it?

Four.
Given the above. Further details I can elaborate on if required.
Is the American liberal camp prepared to give up everything they know in the future in order to facillitate their ideals?

Yes. In this new modern world we Amercans have two choices if our goal is to leave the best world for our uborn great grand children:

We Americans can genocide 5.7 billion non Americans now while we are stronger than them, or we can become one world of 6 billion people and growing working together for a better future. Being inbetween the two poles means endless war. There has been endless war for the entire history of humanity but now the weapons are getting extreme. We can not occupy Iraq forever without paying a severe price. If the neocons can't get a functional puppet regime in place quickly then the neocons lost the war.