Thread: iraq study group

Thanks very much for the link Strolly. I was reading with interest some of the recommendations which actually proves, to some extent, that it is all about the riches in Iraq and not the pathetic phrase "war on terrorism" used by the US gov't.

One of the recommendations lays out the importance of Iraqi oil fields!
* Iraq has the world's second largest known oil reserves.
The group shamelessly recommends the ways for American gov't to secure these oil fields. Going by the recommendations of "Iraq study group" it seems to me that they want Iraqi oil industry to be opened for the foreign firms.

In another paragraph it recommends that the American gov't should do everything possible to ensure that American oil interests are met.

Another recommendation states that the US gov't should assist Iraqi leaders to recognise the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise (a step towards opening the industry to foreign oil firms!).

So why is it called "war on terrorism"?

shhh, Macha, don't tell anyone

War on Terror to take 100 Years .

^ I think 50 years are enough to take all the riches to the states.

from boonie's link ^^

A Joint Staff briefing on the long war against terrorism states that........ more than 17 terrorist attacks were disrupted since 2001, including three in the United States and two in Europe.

so, 5 years, hundreds of billions of dollars, 25,000 US casualties, who knows how many dead and wounded iraqis.....and 2 attacks on the US have been disrupted.....and if i remember correctly, wasn't one of them a couple of yahoos in florida who didn't know what they were doing?

At least they haven't shot innocent citizens in the streets, well, not in the US itself, I don't think, as German police did when we had all the terrorist hysteria over there in the 70s.

Is spending nearly $1 trillion on a fabricated problem worth the investment in lost productivity, lives, and moral standing? I think not.

Originally Posted by stroller

At least they haven't shot innocent citizens in the streets

The Brits apparently did, more than a few times in the last few years. Speak about effective arrests. Shoot first, ask questions later.

One key recommendation of the Iraq Study Group's report was that the US look to Syria and Iran to help quell the violence in Iraq. However, Condoleezza Rice has rejected the proposal, saying the price that these regimes may want in return could be too high.
...
Rice acknowledged that it was unlikely that the country would be peaceful by the time President George W. Bush leaves office in two years' time, but hoped that Iraqis would "get to a place that is sustainable" by 2008.
...
Rice argued that the region is being rearranged in way that provides the US with new opportunities, saying, "This is a time for pushing and consulting and pressing and seeing what we can do to take advantage of this new strategic context."
Reactions to Iraq Study Group Report: US Won't Talk to Iran and Syria, Rice Says - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

going straight into a wall. Nice.

One does not negotiate with terrorists...

You wouldn't, and have made this abundantly clear in whichever forum you grace with your presence.

Meanwhile, we don't hear anything about new IRA bomb attacks since the Brit gov started negotiations.

Good news for the terrorists. Fresh meat on the way.

BBC NEWS | Americas | US 'troop boost in Iraq likely'

"US President George W Bush is likely to boost troop levels in Iraq next year, an administration official has said."

Originally Posted by stroller

Meanwhile, we don't hear anything about new IRA bomb attacks since the Brit gov started negotiations.

Times have changed.
The IRA / Sein Fein assholes have run outa steam - 'bout time too after all these years. Also, the boys from Boston ain't forking over the money they used to in support of the 'revolution'.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The IRA / Sein Fein assholes have run outa steam

Sinn Fein.
But the only assholes up there are the englishmen with their imperial ideas.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

War on Terror to take 100 Years .

Yes, that is the plan.

The PNAC made statements like this in 2000.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by stroller

Meanwhile, we don't hear anything about new IRA bomb attacks since the Brit gov started negotiations.

Times have changed.
The IRA / Sein Fein assholes have run outa steam - 'bout time too after all these years. Also, the boys from Boston ain't forking over the money they used to in support of the 'revolution'.

Talking out yer arse I'm afraid. Sein Fein is trying to transform itself into a purely political movement. Hope they succeed, but a real settlement will have to wait until most of the old timers on both sides are gone.

ok, back on topic....

according to the BBC and some US media outlets, GWB is planning on putting 20-30,000 young americans in harm's way.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush 'to reveal Iraq troop boost'

it's going to be called, "surge and accelerate".

the only question i'd like answered is of these 30K, how many will have to die because GWB doesn't want to lose face while still in office?

it's over. GWB lost, and shamed america with his actions.

btw, december was the deadliest month for US troops in a very bloody year.

This reminds me of the 60's - "Hey, hey, LBJ how many kids did you kill today?"

later this week GWB will decide how many young lives he is willing to risk so that he can appear to save face.

he knows the war is lost, but he's going to keep it going so the next president (who will most likely be a democrat) will have the 'helicopter on the roof of the embassy' moment. til the day GWB dies (undoubtedly in a drunken stupor) he will be able to lie, " we could have won, if only x was willing to stay the course'.

his 'commanders on the ground' (whose advice he has said is most important) advised him against 'the surge', so he replaced them.

his father's pragmatic friends threw him a lifeline in the form of the iraq study group, but GWB claims to know better.

american voters sent a clear message that they don't support GWB's handling of the war, and nearly every poll indicates they want troops out sooner rather than later...but he doesn't care.

20,000 kids are going to be walking around baghdad with bullseyes on their backs.

20,000.

once these kids start to get killed, i really think we'll begin to see the emergence of a protest movent on college campuses and in urban centers. this war is over. the american people know it.....but GWB is running out the clock.

Actually, the 'war' was over when Iraq surrendered.
So what are the objectives of a military presence now?

Sure, can't win against guerilla and ideological warfare with a conventional army of minimal trained youngsters, at least not while you keep the spirit of the Geneva convention and refrain from slaughtering the people you aim to protect and liberate - my question how long the training is before they get sent out remains unanswered several months after I posed it, same as no American commented in the "democracy" thread I started, odd, that is.

Still, I am in 2 minds about it, there is the moral obligation, after destroying the Iraq that was there before, Bush/the US wouldn't want to leave a much larger mess than what they've taken on to improve?
I mean, if you take it upon yourself to meddle in others' affairs, it wouldn't be right to just fukc them and then leave them to it?

Or maybe this humiliation might be a lesson for America; unfortunately, at the expense of others suffering death, chaos and destruction?

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

It's not fair on the Iraqi people

someone should have asked them what would be 'fair' back in feb. 2003 when they were about to be 'liberated'.

iraqis are going to die in an upsurge of violence whenever the US cuts and runs....whether it be now or in 1, 2, 5, or ten years.

Increasing the numbers of troops will also simply encourage more killing, thus, none of the aforementioned situations are going to result in less killing right away.

The sensible solution is to withdraw and let them sort out the mess.

Originally Posted by stroller

Actually, the 'war' was over when Iraq surrendered.

IMO this is a misconception.

the iraqi army never intended to fight back. saddam knew (just like GWB's dad did) that an insurgency would rise up against the americans and they would eventually prevail.

Originally Posted by stroller

Or maybe this humiliation might be a lesson for America; unfortunately, at the expense of others suffering death, chaos and destruction?

unfortunately this is where we are. hopefully in 30 short years the US won't forget about the failure in iraq in the way they forgot about the failure in vietnam.