• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Undeclared Civil War In Iraq

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No, the only option is a full withdrawal from Iraq. And I mean leaving behind the plans for permanent military bases, too. No Western military presence in Iraq. BUT, before we do that, it would be helpful if we could get *some* assurances from other Arab nations to help Iraq secure itself and to remove incentives for terrorists to flourish. It's time the Middle East began taking care of itself. They can't live in their own little world. They are part of global trade and need to step up their standing to be worthwhile global citizens.

O.K., you would leave the region. Is it believable that the Arabs will police their own, given that they never showed ANY interest in doing so before? Remember the Saudis used to PAY the extremists to leave.

Saddam PAYED suicide bombers as well, and that DID work. It seems that they will work so long as it suits their interests, which only seem to include being an extremist Islamic state, controlled by their flavor of the week. That is not acceptable to anyone either.

I saw that you listed a lot of what you felt failed, and only one solution was offered....leave. That is not a solution at this juncture that will lead to peace in any playbook. I would like to find a person that honestly believes it will lead to peace, greater than they have at the moment...

Israel gave the Palestinians their wishes and they sent rockets to repay them.....business as usual for extremists.
 
Originally posted by: maluckey
No, the only option is a full withdrawal from Iraq. And I mean leaving behind the plans for permanent military bases, too. No Western military presence in Iraq. BUT, before we do that, it would be helpful if we could get *some* assurances from other Arab nations to help Iraq secure itself and to remove incentives for terrorists to flourish. It's time the Middle East began taking care of itself. They can't live in their own little world. They are part of global trade and need to step up their standing to be worthwhile global citizens.
O.K., you would leave the region. Is it believable that the Arabs will police their own, given that they never showed ANY interest in doing so before? Remember the Saudis used to PAY the extremists to leave.

Saddam PAYED suicide bombers as well, and that DID work. It seems that they will work so long as it suits their interests, which only seem to include being an extremist Islamic state, controlled by their flavor of the week. That is not acceptable to anyone either.

I saw that you listed a lot of what you felt failed, and only one solution was offered....leave. That is not a solution at this juncture that will lead to peace in any playbook. I would like to find a person that honestly believes it will lead to peace, greater than they have at the moment...

Israel gave the Palestinians their wishes and they sent rockets to repay them.....business as usual for extremists.
Yes, I would leave the region, militarily.

Have you not forgotten why bin Laden started making moves to attack the U.S. in the early 90s? It was the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. A mistake made by Poppy is being repeated by the Fortunate Son.

Staying is not going to provide peace and increasing troop size will only cause more mayhem and definitely show the U.S. to be an aggressor nation of a "sovereign" country once again.

Leaving is the only option.

Perhaps a Middle Eastern version of SEATO could be formed to bring the Middle Eastern nations together for a common cause of security, stability, economic reforms, human rights reforms, etc.
 
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nobody's suggesting Iraq will be a "model society" in the short term or the long term. There is no model society in the entire world. All countries have their problems to a greater or lesser degree and always will simply because of the human factor. Evil will never be bred out of us even in the most desirable of countries.

If you think ridding a country of a murderous and oppressive tyrant is a step backwards, or want to speculate that good things would somehow have magically bloomed by leaving Saddam and sons in power, feel free to do so. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

As far as the stereotypical flourish of your final sentence...:thumbsdown:

Ah bullsh!t. Did you forget all the talk (circa late 2002/early 2003) about how wonderful Iraq was going to be and how other countries in the region would start emulating them etc etc? Apperantly so.
All the talk from whom?

Both sides are delving into idealism over Iraq.

And yes, replacing a murderous dictator with murderous terrorists, clerics and dictator wannabes can certainly be viewed as a step backward. And why don't you pick up a history book? You might discover that a lot of societies have emerged nicely from dictatorships. Difference? Over there, the change came from within when the people were ready. Or are you going to try and convince me that Saddam was somehow radically different from all the other dictators? No doubt you will...
You are moving the goalposts. Nor is the condescention welcomed.

The discussion was not that societies can't emerge from dictatorships, but how long it would take. If you're as knowledgeable about history as you claim, you know it takes a long, long time for that change to come about and typically costs many, many lives before the process of emergence even begins.

I made a comment in a recent thread about the left claiming that sanctions on Iraq were costing the lives of 500,000 Iraqis every year. The war in Iraq has cost, supposedly, if you want to go with the overstated figures, 100,000 Iraqi lives. That's in 2+ years. So would you trade that 100,000 for 1,000,000?

And if you think my last sentence was flourish, then you weren't here during early 2003. I remember too clearly the joy and excitement of poeple watching their military 'kick ass'
Many people are impressed by military power, not just "NASCAR dads" and the "religious right." Your generalization was ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: rickn
Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers 25 grand a pop. As long as they were exploding faster than they could breed, would have been fine with me.
Wasn't the Saudi Royal Family doing the same? You know, the friends of the Bush family!
Yep.

It started under Clinton, also a friend of the Saudis.
OK, so at least Clinton wasn't hypocritical enough to invade one country while turning his head and looking away while another country did it.
Yeah. Clinton just turned his head and ignored OBL so he could play hide the cigar with interns.
So Clinton was fscking an Intern while ignoring OBL and now Bush is fscking the country while ignoring OBL. At least the Intern seemed to enjoy the screwing she got
How many troops did Clinton have deployed looking for OBL?

JHC...

That is a stupid arguement.
No, it rhetoric. If people want to respond with rhetoric and hyperbole, that's what they get in return as a reply.

 
Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, I would leave the region, militarily.

Have you not forgotten why bin Laden started making moves to attack the U.S. in the early 90s? It was the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. A mistake made by Poppy is being repeated by the Fortunate Son.
Have you forgotten that it was SA that made the decision to bring the US in country? And OBL got pissed that SA didn't take up his offer to use his muj to take care of Saddam. So not only did he get miffed at the US, he got miffed at his own government; a fact of which has a tendency to point at all of this not as any religious outrage, but a personal vendetta for being snubbed and having the US chosen over himself.

Additionally, GW Bush has pulled all military out of SA.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
Yes, I would leave the region, militarily.

Have you not forgotten why bin Laden started making moves to attack the U.S. in the early 90s? It was the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. A mistake made by Poppy is being repeated by the Fortunate Son.
Have you forgotten that it was SA that made the decision to bring the US in country? And OBL got pissed that SA didn't take up his offer to use his muj to take care of Saddam. So not only did he get miffed at the US, he got miffed at his own government; a fact of which has a tendency to point at all of this not as any religious outrage, but a personal vendetta for being snubbed and having the US chosen over himself.

Additionally, GW Bush has pulled all military out of SA.
No, I have not forgotten any of that but it seems you've distorted things a tad. Let's clear things up:

http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia.html
Causes of 9/11:
U.S. Troops in Saudi Arabia?

Did the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia cause the September 11 attacks?
U.S. Marines during the Gulf War,
Saudi Arabia, Feb. 1991.
(AP Photo/Sadayuki Mikami)
The presence of about 5,000 U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's two holiest sites, is one of Osama bin Laden's bitterest grievances against America?both because he is offended by having "infidel troops" stand guard over Islam's holiest sites and because the U.S. presence makes it harder for him to topple the Saudi monarchy.

Why are U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia?
Their purpose is to deter Iraq from attacking Saudi Arabia and monitor the "no-fly" zones (which are off-limits to Iraqi planes), U.S. officials say.

Has bin Laden called for a U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia?
Yes, repeatedly. In his writings and speeches, bin Laden has hotly argued that since at least 1991?the year of the Persian Gulf War, which was waged by a U.S.-led coalition with bases in Saudi Arabia?the United States has been "occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories, Arabia, plundering its riches, overwhelming its rulers, humiliating its people, threatening its neighbors, and using its bases in the [Arabian] peninsula as a spearhead to fight against the neighboring Islamic peoples."

When did significant numbers of U.S. troops arrive in Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis invited in the U.S. military shortly after Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq's oil-rich neighbor Kuwait, on August 2, 1990. To help protect the kingdom and prepare to expel Iraq from Kuwait, the United States sent about 500,000 troops to Saudi Arabia; the U.S. secretary of defense at the time, Richard Cheney (now vice president), promised Saudi King Fahd that the troops would be removed after the war.

When did bin Laden turn against the Saudi royal family?
Bin Laden, a Saudi himself, broke with the Saudi monarchy over the Gulf War and now avidly seeks its overthrow. In 1990, bin Laden approached the Saudi defense minister and volunteered to mobilize veterans of the 1979-89 Afghan jihad against Soviet occupation to defend Saudi Arabia against Iraq. The Saudi government declined his offer, preferring to rely instead on the U.S.-led coalition assembled by President George H. W. Bush. Ever since, bin Laden has resented the presence of "infidel troops" on the holy land where the Prophet Muhammad founded Islam in the seventh century.
 
Erm...where did I distort anything?

If anything, the original distortion was by you in this statement - "A mistake made by Poppy is being repeated by the Fortunate Son."
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Perhaps a Middle Eastern version of SEATO could be formed to bring the Middle Eastern nations together for a common cause of security, stability, economic reforms, human rights reforms, etc.

And pigs will fly😛

 
Conjur,

I am clear that you believe it (the ME) to be an SEP (Somebody Elses Problem). What I am not clear as to why you tend to view the United States as reponsible for all bad in the ME. The history of the ME has been violent from the beginning of recorded history....

They (the ME) have had horribly oppressive regimes before the United States. It's a fact. The ME is/was/will be a mess until something gives, and one side shows to be far more horrible/(or better) than the other.

I think that the tide may have begun to turn in the case of Palestinians, especially after their last spate of stupidity. We can only hope that the tide will turn in the case of the Iraqi extemists finally doing something stupid, as in the case of the former Shining Path (I know, not the ME) , where the locals began policing/attacking them, not wanting to wait for "police" help that never materialized.
 
No, it's far from clear that I feel the Middle East is an SEP. What I see is clear from your posts is that you're a bit of a racist or maybe just ignorant when it comes to the Middle East.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Erm...where did I distort anything?

If anything, the original distortion was by you in this statement - "A mistake made by Poppy is being repeated by the Fortunate Son."
You implied the Saudis were wholly behind the decision to have U.S. troops on Saudi soil.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: conjur
Perhaps a Middle Eastern version of SEATO could be formed to bring the Middle Eastern nations together for a common cause of security, stability, economic reforms, human rights reforms, etc.
And pigs will fly😛
Well, if I were Rice and/or Hughes, it's what I'd be trying to work toward. Gotta start somewhere.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Erm...where did I distort anything?

If anything, the original distortion was by you in this statement - "A mistake made by Poppy is being repeated by the Fortunate Son."
You implied the Saudis were wholly behind the decision to have U.S. troops on Saudi soil.

From your own link:

"The Saudis invited in the U.S. military shortly after Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq's oil-rich neighbor Kuwait, on August 2, 1990."

Without that invite we would not have been there. The Saudis were wholly behind the decision.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
I'm sure that was an "invitation".
Actually, it was a direct request from King Fahd. So, yes, it was an invitation.

Yeah, who was elected freely by the SA people, right?

We have American military holding one totalitarian gov't in power, while destroying another. Doesn't look hypocritical to me. :roll:
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
I'm sure that was an "invitation".
Actually, it was a direct request from King Fahd. So, yes, it was an invitation.

Yeah, who was elected freely by the SA people, right?

We have American military holding one totalitarian gov't in power, while destroying another. Doesn't look hypocritical to me. :roll:
What does whether or not he was freely elected have to do with this?

Get used to the fact that politics is filled with hypocrisy.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
I'm sure that was an "invitation".
Actually, it was a direct request from King Fahd. So, yes, it was an invitation.

Yeah, who was elected freely by the SA people, right?

We have American military holding one totalitarian gov't in power, while destroying another. Doesn't look hypocritical to me. :roll:
What does whether or not he was freely elected have to do with this?

Get used to the fact that politics is filled with hypocrisy.

Get used to it? I have. Accept it, vote for it? I'd rather not.

And in response to your first statement, it's very relevent. To say we were "invited" by SA could only be true if the people of SA desired to have us there. Not one man or one family.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
I'm sure that was an "invitation".
Actually, it was a direct request from King Fahd. So, yes, it was an invitation.
With no prodding from Poppy? Got the proof behind all that?
Prodding? Because we have so easily bent the Saudis to our will over the years?

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/persiangulf1990.htm

The same day King Fahd requested American military protection for his country. President Bush at once declared Operation Desert Shield and deployed the first of 200,000 American troops to the northern deserts of Saudi Arabia, augmented by British, French, and Saudi units and backed by naval and air forces. It was the largest American overseas operation since the Vietnam War, but its stated purpose was not to liberate Kuwait but to deter Iraq from attacking Saudi Arabia and seizing control of one-third of the world's oil reserves. In President Bush's words, the Allies had drawn a line in the sand.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: conjur
I'm sure that was an "invitation".
Actually, it was a direct request from King Fahd. So, yes, it was an invitation.

Yeah, who was elected freely by the SA people, right?

We have American military holding one totalitarian gov't in power, while destroying another. Doesn't look hypocritical to me. :roll:
What does whether or not he was freely elected have to do with this?

Get used to the fact that politics is filled with hypocrisy.

Get used to it? I have. Accept it, vote for it? I'd rather not.
It doesn't appear you have gotten used to it. But that's neither really here nor there.

And in response to your first statement, it's very relevent. To say we were "invited" by SA could only be true if the people of SA desired to have us there. Not one man or one family.
OK. Then we were invited by King Fahd.

Done splitting hairs for no apparent reason other than to be contrarian now?
 
Conjur,

You seem to have misjudged a fact based observation, raw as it may be, as racist. I said the ME, not Arabs. I include Jews into the ME mix. Also, the Europeans were certainly not model citizens during their stint in the ME either. It may be the religion of Islam that allows/promotes the ignorance to remain. It's a damn shame when the ME was once the flower of knowledge in the world.

Ignorance and religious subjugation now reigns in the ME. Perhaps there is another way, but abandoning them to ignorance is not a truly plausible solution. Ignorance, Religion and $$ are most always the crux of the ME problems. If the world ceases to rely so much on oil, that takes care of the $$$. Perhaps that will lead to modernization and peace?

As far as remaining in the ME without military....what's the point? It didn't work before, and will likely work less after this exposure to force.
 
I apologize, then, for the racist comment...it's just something that seemed to be inferred. My bad if that wasn't your intention.


As for no military. Well, it *was* working fine before the west started intervening...as far back as the 1920s when Britain colonialized Iraq and used mustard gas on them. Have you never heard of the Mises Effect?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I made a comment in a recent thread about the left claiming that sanctions on Iraq were costing the lives of 500,000 Iraqis every year. The war in Iraq has cost, supposedly, if you want to go with the overstated figures, 100,000 Iraqi lives. That's in 2+ years. So would you trade that 100,000 for 1,000,000?

Many people are impressed by military power, not just "NASCAR dads" and the "religious right." Your generalization was ridiculous.

Yes, I forgot to include others, such as Studly McDumbass and Bimbo Airhead, my appologies. Being interested in military machines is one thing, acting like a pre-pubscent girl every time a bomb drops is another thing. If you don't want to take my word for it, feel free to browse the archives. You'd have to look into march-june 2003 when this was first separated from OT. It was a different place, it resembled a Cheerleader's Camp more than anything...

Anyway, this is exactly the kind of narrow minded, false dilemma, sentimenal BS that got people to support the invasion. I would quote your president concerning fooling someone twice, but I don't want to sound like a dumbass 🙂
 
Back
Top