The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Mykinos

A lot of focus on the 2,000 and 3,000 and 4,000 American casualty but little if any coverage of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed.

Very arrogant.

stroller

Not a meaningful comparison either.
The "Iraq War" was won 5 years ago, the casualties relate to the occupation, not any war. And of course, as mentioned already, US military casualties are not the only ones which count.

Wallalai

It's not the " Jokes and funny stories" section Boon Mee.

Texpat

Some of you tools just can't fathom the thought that the US is coming out of this conflict with a much better Iraq, relatively few casualties, having done it by themselves, despite a democratically-elected Iraqi government moving very slowly to own up to its responsibilities.

I can't imagine how or why some of you try to desperately hard to discredit that feat. Must suck to be you.

Panda

Millions of refugees fleeing the country, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, infrastructure in ruins, and ongoing civil war. Yea that's real progress. 5 years of it!

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, but he held the country together under the force of an iron fist. His removal has created a power vacuum and destabilized the country. That has to be painfully obvious. Only another ruthless strongman is going to be able to control the competing factions. Genuine democracy isn't going to work in this ethnically fractured country that was thrown together by the western powers after WW1.

The Kurds are going along with the idea of an Iranian democracy now because it suits their purposes at the moment. But they want their own independent state as shown by their terrorist war against Turkey.

So long as the US seeks to control the Iraqi government there will be ongoing rebellion from resistance militia groups. US interference in the Middle East simply feeds the growth of radical Islamists and subsequent terrorist reprisals.

Bush and his Neocon mates created this mess and they have no way to fix it now. No way is Iraq going to become a homogeneous peaceful democracy in our lifetimes. I think McCain was right when he said it will take 100 years of occupation by USA.

Texpat

Maybe you can catch the next boat, seeing as you've obviously missed that one. The US wants nothing more than for Iraq to take control. The US knows it's viewed as an outsider. I think your primary obstacle to understanding is that the US really doesn't want anything but a stabilized region and a democratic Iraq.

Granted that's a foreign concept to most Europeans who can't fathom floating a farthing for someone else ... Just watch helplessly as you slide further into obscurity with your outdated views on globalism. Keep looking inward, the answer's gotta be there somewhere. Better yet, hold a few high-level meetings where the ultimate conclusion will be to hold a few more high-level meetings.

Isn't there a torch-bearer somewhere out there you guys should be tackling?

Panda

Rather abusive there Texpat. Must be having a bad hair day.
Only one coherent sentence in the whole three paragraphs.
Seems I must have touched a nerve somewhere.

Good old USA to the rescue. You guys are so self-sacrificing. Never thinking of yourselves.

So the whole idea of invading is now to stabilize the region and bring democracy to Iraq? Forget the WMDs. That was just bad intelligence.

I have to wonder why the Yanks didn't invade Saudi Arabia in the name of democracy if what you claim is correct. Since Saudi Arabia is ruled by a dictatorship which imposes a very repressive Islamic regime on its people. But no, instead the US maintains the Saudis as one of their biggest military weapons customers. And of course the grateful Saudi Royal blood suckers in return keep the taps on their countries oil reserves turned up.

I sometime wonder if you war mongers actually believe the crap you spew out.

stroller

You are joking, right?
Weren't you one of the guys going on about the spoils of war and how the US and UK and their favoured companies would obviously get first picks?

And what does this odd rant about "Europeans" supposedly have to do with Iraq News, I wonder?

Texpat

Never, not me. There are no spoils of this war unless you consider a stabilized middle east and a market where the Iraquis can SELL their oil to whomever they wish.

Come on Strolly, you can read... Nearly everyone bailed when the going got tough. Should sound familiar by now.

Hootad Binky

So to be against this war is the same as being against
etc.?

Milkman

You jumping too far ahead, IMO.

It's the cost of all of this. It's costing taxpayers too much money, for the benefit of a few. Most notably the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) that Eisenhower warned us about.

A better Iraq. We don't know if a single nation state will work. Few casualties? I don't care about US casualties: they are very low. But the number of Iraqis killed and displaced as much higher.

Iraq has experience major, major, brain-drain: the engineers, doctors, professors, and quality leaders have left.

__________________
Military men are dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns for foreign policy

Bugs

I agree with much of this post. With the possible exception of the cost vs reward: If by some miracle things do turn out for the better in Iraq (they learn to play nice with each other) and some semblance of a democratic society is the end result then the potential carry-on effect might make it all worth it in the end run.

And agree that it might not be possible for a single nation to come out of this in the long run - and actually that might not be bad. I do wonder what the results would be of a multiple nation outcome especially in regard to its neighbors.

The fragmentation of Iraq might not be able to survive the influence of the neighbor states, and might just lead to the disappearance of Iraq as we know it and the growth of all of its neighbors - I doubt the US would be too excited about the potential for an increase in the influence in the area by either Iran or Syria. But exchanging a small growth in Syria and Iran in exchange for gorwth in all the other neighbors as well might be a better alternative than allowing Iraq to remain a mess that is eventually taken over by Syria and/or Iran in whole at a later date.

Would the Iraqies band together to fight as one should such a threat materialize after the US departs?

One might actually objectively look at this as a chance to redraw some lines in the sands that were drawn long ago by the west to form new boundries that make more sense based upon situation as it is today. Of course the problem being now who gets to draw the lines?



On the other hand if we just said screw it, pulled out all the troops now, and then dropped a few nukes in the sand - it might make it easier to get to the oil. Breaking the glass created by superheating all that sand would probably be easier than drilln'.

__________________
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion" - Steven Weinberg

Boon Mee

B.S.

Based on GNP, Iraq is costing <5% vs. ~7.5% for Viet Nam and >16% for WW2.

__________________
ผมเป็นคนบ้านนอก

Milkman

Wrong point.

It's a waste of at least $12 billion per month.

Wasted money; welfare.

You are a welfare queen.

Like the dupes in Iraq.

Texpat

Never mind these guys Bugs, they're just frantically flippin' switches hoping the lights will turn on somewhere. Stick around in this thread long enough and you'll see the kitchen sink do a flyby.

Boon Mee

More good news with Mookie bailing, eh?

"BAGHDAD - Hundreds of people fled fighting in Baghdad's Shiite militia stronghold Monday as U.S. and Iraqi forces increased pressure on anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who faces an ultimatum to disband his Mahdi Army or face a ban from Iraqi politics."

Aides to Muqtada al-Sadr called Monday for dialogue to resolve a violent standoff with the Iraqi government, saying that the radical Shiite cleric would disband his militia if senior religious leaders ordered it.

"Aide Hassan al-Zarqani said from Iran that al-Sadr will consult Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and other top Shiite clerics if the government continues to pressure al-Sadr to disband the militia or see his candidates banned from upcoming elections.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki warned al-Sadr on Sunday to disband his militia or face a ban from politics."

Muqtada al-Sadr may be looking for a way to throw in the towel: Al-Sadr calls for dialogue in Iraq.

sabang

This talk of victory every time there is some seemingly upbeat news from Iraq is pure Hype anyway. The absolute best that can be hoped for now is a Pyrrhic victory- pacifying the country enough to get some oil flowing and inward investment coming. But the cost of the War in every respect has already far outweighed what was hoped to be gained.

Don't forget that each American family is paying a monthly average of $400 for this war. What else could you do with around US$5,000 per year? Well maybe -

Cause oil prices to skyrocket (and make sure you have Money there )
Cost the lives of around 1 million people
Plunge another country into violent anarchy
Put the US government in a financial hole
Lie to your people and the rest of the world
Degrade the mighty USD
Encourage Islamic extremism
Turn a once secular state into three fiefdoms run by competing Islamic sects
Award $50,000,000,000 of generous government 'No bid' contracts to your Vice Presidents old company, in which he has a very large interest.
Make sure Carlyle is taken well care of for Junior (they've still managed to stuff it up); and generous friends such as Blackwater, big oil, the Arms industry and so on. If you're rich, ya gotta take care of your cronies in the Club.

So I guess you could say, the Bush administration got a mighty Bang for your Buck.

__________________
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Hootad Binky

Yes, a bang right up the collective American/Iraqi ass

and no kiss just a very, very large bill

Add to that the fruitless search for wmds; the CIA put together what they knew from the first invasion (which was a lot) with the UN and the US not ever finding anything the second time and they knew then that Saddam must have gotten rid of all of it, confirming previous intelligence. George Tennet specifically told them that but was quickly brought to heel, and after that said whatever they wanted him to say. He was rather annoyed when the gwb admin later blamed the CIA for bad intelligence! Later he resigned and was given a medal of some sort. Tennet the Toady.

__________________
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. -Oscar Wilde

Norton

.....

stroller

That is the scary thing about it: I am sure they do!