The post-war war

habilis

habilis

Ministry of Re-Education
Just for some persepctive on the so-called "post-war war"

In Vietnam, during the years of most action there was an average of 180 US soldiers killed per week, thats 26 dead per day. And close to 300 more wounded per week. There were occasional weeks when 500+ dead were comming home in caskets.

There is no "post-war war". There is a post-war propaganda campaign against Bush, which is just fine, but I think somebody had to call it.
 
I remember those numbers very well even though I was younger than Androo. Every newscast had the body count for the day, it was surprising how easily most people dealt with it.

I haven't seen any comments about a post war war, so I can't comment on that but the war in Iraq can in no way be compared to the war in Vietnam. There has been on average one dead US soldier per day. Some are accidents, some are armed resistance, some are defensive but the fact remains that Americans are dying and being shot at and injured. Do numbers alone justify when a war is a war?

What do you call it when Iraqis are killing American soldiers? Terrorism? Personally I think terrorism has lost its meaning but it has to be called something. Anger, maybe?
 
As I had written in several threads, including the long Iraq/Osama/WMDs/2004 thread, I am convinced the most interesting observations were, and now are, to be made in the post-war management of the Iraqi conflict.

What I remark is: the US army protected the oil fields, but not the museums. It was foreseeable this type of event would feed resentment against the US forces in place, which are called 'occupation forces' by some.

It is not a post-war war. It is what Huntington tried to describe as a clash of civilizations (which is an idea I personnally give very little credit to). I hope only one thing: no more attacks.
 
I agree that it is a clash, but I would call it a clash of cultures. Americans who are accustomed to a certain sense of order, albeit one that is pretty rough around the edges, have to deal with Iraqis who knew only the order of oppression.

A Slovak friend once told me that in the days of communist rule there was a saying that went, "Those who do not steal from the state, end up stealing from their families." Many of the problems that are taking place in Iraq are a direct result of the new-found freedoms and the lack of an effective police force. Russia experienced (s) much of the same thing after the fall of the Soviet Union.

While one can't really blame the Iraqis for trying to get some of what they went without for so many years, one can blame the US for failing to provide the Iraqis with a safe and secure post-war country. The longer the country remains in chaos, the greater the chances of there being a full-fledged post-war, war.

Methinks you MAY have spoken too soon habilis. It ain't over 'til it's over.
 
The problem is, even if all the Iraqi's wanted to kill all Americans on their soil, they wouldn't be able to pull it off tactically; Nobody is supplying the Iraqi's with weapons, they live in a desert, not a jungle - hence nowhere to dig in and hide, our weaponry in so advanced that even if it was a jungle they'd stand no chance, and finally the vast majority of natives actually support us and our rebuilding effort.

Like I said well before the war started, in 20 years the Iraqi's - and many other Arabs for that matter - will look at GW positively, as a liberator of oppressed Arabs all across the Middle-East. Regardless of your or my opinion of the man, he bravely lit the torch of freedom for Arabs - when other civilized countries covered their eyes and put there head in the sand, apparently preferring that the Arabs remain oppressed. Listen - the truth is, in 20 years, no one will care that a few civilians were accidentally killed during the liberation campaign - what will matter is that these people are free from destitution and outright oppression - right?. First Iraq, then we cut off the head of the snake in Iran - look at the anti-government uprisings already occuring there, then Saudi Arabi will follow. The people, and the time, is ripe for societal evolution.

Just as there is no comparison between Vietnam and Iraq, there is no comparison between pre-21st century empires and the current default empire that is America. Nobody in the moderate world is buying the Evil American Empire act.

You are right though, it isn't over till it's over, and it won't be over for years to come.
 
I disagree with you on the desert issue. They have the home court advantage. Most GIs don't come from deserts and the Iraqi desert isn't a huge, flat expanse of sand, rather hilly, rocky and full of ravines. Guerilla warfare would be more difficult in Iraq than in Vietnam, but it wouldn't be impossible. Electonics are notorious for not functioning well in dry dusty and hot conditions and the US is increasingly relying on them.

I'm not saying that guerilla warfare will take place nor that the Iraqis want it but that if it did, it wouldn't be as one-sided as you think.

In twenty years, my friend, the families of those civilian victims will care that their relatives were killed by the Americans during the war and that many, many more died because the US lacked a post-war plan. Or, in your mind, do the opinions of the Iraqis not matter?

The Muslim world has many problems and how to make the transition from a rural, agrarian, religious ruled lifestyle to an urban, post-industrial, secular one is a very difficult problem indeed. It has been progressing in fits and starts for the last 100 years. We've seen a few successes but far more failures. It has often been said that if if weren't for the oil that the US, UK, Dutch, French, Russians etc, etc, were so interested in, the Muslim world would have dealt with its internal strife long ago. Unfortunately the imperialists have said that they know better than those poor devils in the desert and as a result, the religious and internal strife continues.

It remains to be seen whether the US in its new role as nation builder will be able to succeed where so many others have so utterly failed. Did gw do the right thing? History WILL tell us one way or another. Does gw and the US have the guts to stay in Iraq for the next decade or so to ensure that another Saddam will not take over? It is going to cost many more lives and billions and billions of dollars at a time when the US can not afford it and at a time when the military is spread too thin already.

Evil is only relative in a religious context. That America is an empire is unquestionable, the neo con policies have proven that. That all empires are eventually toppled is a history lesson that gw must have slept thru at Yale.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 3 ? Two months after President Bush declared the end of major combat, the commander of allied forces in Iraq acknowledged today that "we're still at war," and the United States announced a reward of up to $25 million for the capture of Saddam Hussein or confirmation of his death.

The statement from the commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez of the Army, came on a day in which 10 American soldiers were wounded in three separate attacks.
Click to expand...

Link

Well, this guy seems to have a different opinion....
 
Originally posted by Ugg
I disagree with you on the desert issue. They have the home court advantage. Most GIs don't come from deserts and the Iraqi desert isn't a huge, flat expanse of sand, rather hilly, rocky and full of ravines. Guerilla warfare would be more difficult in Iraq than in Vietnam, but it wouldn't be impossible. Electonics are notorious for not functioning well in dry dusty and hot conditions and the US is increasingly relying on them.

I'm not saying that guerilla warfare will take place nor that the Iraqis want it but that if it did, it wouldn't be as one-sided as you think.

In twenty years, my friend, the families of those civilian victims will care that their relatives were killed by the Americans during the war and that many, many more died because the US lacked a post-war plan. Or, in your mind, do the opinions of the Iraqis not matter?

The Muslim world has many problems and how to make the transition from a rural, agrarian, religious ruled lifestyle to an urban, post-industrial, secular one is a very difficult problem indeed. It has been progressing in fits and starts for the last 100 years. We've seen a few successes but far more failures. It has often been said that if if weren't for the oil that the US, UK, Dutch, French, Russians etc, etc, were so interested in, the Muslim world would have dealt with its internal strife long ago. Unfortunately the imperialists have said that they know better than those poor devils in the desert and as a result, the religious and internal strife continues.

It remains to be seen whether the US in its new role as nation builder will be able to succeed where so many others have so utterly failed. Did gw do the right thing? History WILL tell us one way or another. Does gw and the US have the guts to stay in Iraq for the next decade or so to ensure that another Saddam will not take over? It is going to cost many more lives and billions and billions of dollars at a time when the US can not afford it and at a time when the military is spread too thin already.

Evil is only relative in a religious context. That America is an empire is unquestionable, the neo con policies have proven that. That all empires are eventually toppled is a history lesson that gw must have slept thru at Yale.



Link

Well, this guy seems to have a different opinion....
Click to expand...

Very smart guy. ;)
 
Originally posted by Ugg
...in your mind, do the opinions of the Iraqis not matter?
Click to expand...
Since when has the opinion of the proletariat ever mattered? Wars are fought between leaders, not pesants. So when it comes to the disgruntled feelings of a few, no, their opinions, and even their lives, don't matter, especially in the grand scheme of things - that's just the cold brutal truth of the world. Their lives were not lost in vane, they were lost to free the whole of all their people.
 
You're beginning to sound an awful lot like the people your father escaped from.
 
Perhaps, but look, it doesn't matter if karl Marx is the president or George Washington - and for that matter Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Newt Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh, they all think like that, and rightly so, because they do know better then the great faceless mass of the proletariat, that's how they became leaders.
 
No they don't. Most of them are transformed by the power of the office, seduced might be a better word. gw has never had a definining moment. He went awol, his daddy's buds bailied him out of failing businesses, and from that bailout he bought the rangers. Owning a baseball team is like driving a big truck so that everyone thinks that what you've got between your legs is bigger and better than everyone else's.

He is not a great man, he will never be treated as one by the history books. He came to power through his east coast elitist background, his granpa's and daddy's connections and money, his Yale education and the oil industry. He didn't become a leader because he "knows better".

Hmmm, I haven't checked the body count for today yet. Do you know what it is?
 
Necessity does not make actions just. Killing is wrong, whether of one man or of many and it doesn't matter whether the killer ahd good intentions or was a smart guy or the president.
You seem to think tha tthe few shuld suffer for the benefit of the many, this is utilitarianism. In choosing this, you give up all principles and rights concerning individual happiness and freedom.
If you think the most apt at ruling should rule, then you will create just another self-serving aristocracy. The final and ultimate authority must always reside with the citizens of a country, not with an anonymous elite.
As soon as yuo decide that it is good and even necessary for one person to die or give in for the collective good, you prevaricate on his most elementary right, you get just another form of tyranny. All sacrifices made by the citizens of a country must be ultimately to their own collective benefit and must be made of their own free will. You must always have the righty to discuss, debate, protest and appeal before the government can decide to sacrifice you or your rights in the name of the common good.
The health of a democracy is always measured form the well-being of its minorities. Any form of aristocracy will ultimately only insure its own continued rule without considering the well-being of others.
 
Yeah, sorf of sad huh. Unfortunately, Wolfowitz was hired not elected or even appointed. The only way to get rid of him is to get rid of gw.
 
I'm not sure removing the head of state would mean replacing 100% of his administration. I think Wolfowitz is there, he was before, he will be, at different degrees. That's all folks, lobby politics. I told you, Condoleeza even has a tanker named after her...
 
Originally posted by habilis
The problem is, even if all the Iraqi's wanted to kill all Americans on their soil, they wouldn't be able to pull it off tactically; Nobody is supplying the Iraqi's with weapons, they live in a desert, not a jungle - hence nowhere to dig in and hide, our weaponry in so advanced that even if it was a jungle they'd stand no chance, and finally the vast majority of natives actually support us and our rebuilding effort.
Click to expand...

The Iraqis seem to have no problems hiding WMD. They were said to have enough to wipe out millions so they wouldn't really need suppliers from the out side. They have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons ready to be deployed within 45 minutes as I recall.

And habilis, I don't know who was teaching you history, but this post-war-war as you called it seems nothing like Vietnam. It seems more like the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. As I recall the Soviets lost an average of 4 people a day over 9 years.

Posted by habilis on 03-11-2003:
We will be welcomed with open arms.

Iraq will serve as a beacon of hope for all opressed people of the middle east.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that beacon says "if you think you have it bad now, wait until we get there."

Funny how the only thing that was working in Iraq both before and after the war was oil production. Water, power and sewage (the utilities of hope) haven't work consistently since the beginning of the war. We have these luxuries, so why should we care if the Iraqis have them. What we cared about was making sure that oil production was safe.

Wonder why any of those people who did welcome us with open arms are not doing so any more? Try living in the conditions that we are leaving them in and you'll have your answer. Bush is making Saddam look like a hero to the average Iraqis.
 
Racer: the vast majority of Iraqi's did welcome us with open arms, and still do. A large percentage of these enemy combatants that are firing on US troops right now are from outside Iraq and from terrorist groups. A lot of the others are just in a real big hurry to get to the 50 virgins that Allah promises - which we're more then happy to oblige.

Afganistan. I think what's happened in Afganistan is a good thing. I think we left it much better then we found it, that is, unless you have a problem with women and children being educated, instead of being publicly beheaded for watching TV.

Now, the same goes for Iraq, it's a little bigger though, has a much larger population, so it follows that it will take longer.

Oil Fields. About the oil fields being protected; indeed they were protected to preserve oil revenue for rebuilding Iraq for Iraqi's which also involes hospitals, funding a police force, and rebuilding a new government - who's got a problem with that? The oil revenue is theirs to do with as they please. -point2; if the oil fields had been neglected, left behind, and allowed to be destroyed and burning for months, polluting the sky and choking the residents like in the first Gulf War as you would have preferred, you would now be saying that GW intentionally let the oil fields be destroyed, and he's killing Iraqi women and children with the pollution, and now the poor Iraqi's have no money to rebuild, and the oils fields were 'mismanaged'. <Insert your own oil conspiracy here>

I just watched an unbiased hour long show on C-SPAN, more like a documentary that showed American contractors going in to Iraq to rebuild all the sewage facilities, water treatment plants, pumping stations, and many other water utilities. They found that almost all the raw sewage treatment plants have been offline long before the war ever started, which means the raw sewage was bypassing the facility and running directly into the river. Consequently, all the people that lived downstream from the river were in a very bad situation to say the least. We're talking about millions of gallons of raw sewage a day pouring down stream affecting hundreds of thousands of people. All this is a result of the unrestrained decadence of SH, while he built rediculous castles to honor himself and his regime, the simplest requirement of human life went derelict.

You look at these new and old problems in Iraq like they were created by GW, but in accountable reality, it clearly was not.

Don't turn to the dark side, don't let hatred cloud your vision of reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top