Iraq, will it ever be over? :: Repost

[m3talsmith]

This thread seems to have dissapeared so I am reposting here:

IRAQ WILL IT EVER BE OVER? GA6540 Posted: 06-07-2004 06:28 PM New Member Posts: 2 Hello I just found this forum and figerd I start with a question that all are woundring. Will we ever be able to leave and know it's over? with so many For it,and against it the fact is were there and it don,t look like we be leaving anytime soon. -------------------- GOVERMENT SHOULD BE FOR THE PEOPLE

Suburbanite Posted: 06-07-2004 06:32 PM Moderator Posts: 1111 I'm woundering it myself. I think we have another 5 or so years left until we leave, one way or another. --------------------

Sonart Posted: 06-07-2004 06:34 PM Advanced Member Posts: 209 Well, considering that we're supposedly building 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, I'm not sure it was ever intended that we leave. However, should those bases simply become besieged outposts, as the Soviets experienced in Afghanistan, we can always turn the country over to some half-trained Iraqis, land Bush on a carrier somewhere to declare victory, tell the Iraqis they're welcome and get the hell out. If Iraq promptly descends into civil war, hey, we tried, not our fault, man.

m3talsmith Posted: 06-07-2004 06:36 PM Spatial Designer Posts: 100 Iraq will be over when... WWII is over and we bring our troops back... Vietnam is over and we bring our troops back... many of the 123+ wars we are in right now are over and we bring our troops back... In essence, once we decide that imperialism is not working and we withdraw all our troops and stop trying to force the politians ideal government down everyone's throat. On a side note, have you noticed that the forms of government our government tries to form in other countries, are forms of government that have non of our constitutional protections? Coincedent? -------------------- One vote for for Freedom. One vote for Michael Badnarik for President. One vote that won't be wasted this year.

Compugasm Posted: 06-07-2004 06:38 PM Advanced Member Posts: 209 Yep, and people will protest it, until... well, forever I guess. Even 20yrs from now. [Opinion] Hypothetically assume Iraq is quite well off, they can still protest American Imperialism and we shouldn't mettle. [/Opinion]

GA6540 Posted: 06-07-2004 06:42 PM New Member Posts: 2 QUOTE (m3talsmith,) Iraq will be over when... WWII is over and we bring our troops back... Vietnam is over and we bring our troops back... many of the 123+ wars we are in right now are over and we bring our troops back... In essence, once we decide that imperialism is not working and we withdraw all our troops and stop trying to force the politians ideal government down everyone's throat. On a side note, have you noticed that the forms of government our government tries to form in other countries, are forms of government that have non of our constitutional protections? Coincedent? Yes I,ve notice that to! i,m still woundring what our real motives are? and more Important are they what they apear to be or something else. -------------------- GOVERMENT SHOULD BE FOR THE PEOPLE

[m3talsmith]

Well I had a great reply but now I can't remember it. Perhaps later; if the moderators (or whomever) can keep their trigger fingers off the delete thread button.

[Comrade]

The war in Iraq won't end until terrorist organizations become too weak to bomb restaurants and barracks. That's when we win the war against organized terror.

[Sean]

Actually m3talsmith,

I personally deleted the post right away because the first poster (a new user) didn't even bother to form english words, and had an all caps title.

I figured it wouldn't be a huge loss, considering how many nearly similar threads we have.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Comrade, The war in Iraq won't end until terrorist organizations become too weak to bomb restaurants and barracks. That's when we win the war against organized terror.

given that it costs about $5 and a lifetime of anger to make and set an IED, i guess the answer then is "never".

you won't hear halliburton, DynCorp or bechtel complaining about that

[Zeebadee]

Hey, we still have troops occupying Japan and Korea, more than 50 years after those wars ended. What makes anyone think we will be out of Iraq any sooner??

[Sonart]

The war in Iraq won't end until terrorist organizations become too weak to bomb restaurants and barracks. That's when we win the war against organized terror.

Well according to Donald Rumseld, that may not happen any time soon.

--"The United States and its allies are winning some battles in the terrorism war but may be losing the broader struggle against the Islamic extremism that is terrorism's source, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday."--

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Sean, Actually m3talsmith, I personally deleted the post right away because the first poster (a new user) didn't even bother to form english words, and had an all caps title. I figured it wouldn't be a huge loss, considering how many nearly similar threads we have.

Ok thanks for the reply.
I was interested in the post because it was the most direct one on this issue I thought.

[Mia]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5156518/

Well, we're turning over control on schedule, at least.

[onasis]

We're turning over sovereignty, not control. After the 30th turnover, the power will still lie in the hands of the Americans, in that we will still have thousands of our troops still there. Halli and DynCorp will probably have a huge role in the development of Iraq(not too surprising).

[Mia]

I should have said some control.

[Zeebadee]

I don't think the Iraqi's are gonna accept our puppet government. We'll have troops (and casualties) in that country for years to come.

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, I don't think the Iraqi's are gonna accept our puppet government. We'll have troops (and casualties) in that country for years to come.

Adnaseum. This is typical of a country that still has troops deployed in areas as far back as WWII.

[Mia]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, I don't think the Iraqi's are gonna accept our puppet government. We'll have troops (and casualties) in that country for years to come.

Iraqis will accept our puppet government - they've done so for many, many years. And this one should be easier to live with. Dissenters won't accept any government, unless it's of their choosing. And by their I don't mean Iraqi people, but the dissenters, or "rebels" or "insurgents" or whatever.

No matter what government we left over there, it would get taken out by some other group and on and on until a strong enough one took hold.

It's the Arab world at large that will be against the puppet government, IMO.

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Mia,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mia,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Zeebadee, I don't think the Iraqi's are gonna accept our puppet government. We'll have troops (and casualties) in that country for years to come.

Iraqis will accept our puppet government - they've done so for many, many years. And this one should be easier to live with. Dissenters won't accept any government, unless it's of their choosing. And by their I don't mean Iraqi people, but the dissenters, or "rebels" or "insurgents" or whatever.

No matter what government we left over there, it would get taken out by some other group and on and on until a strong enough one took hold.

It's the Arab world at large that will be against the puppet government, IMO.[/b][/quote]
I agree that whatever we leave will be destroyed. This is part of the flaw in logic that Bush and co have been pushing. The strong always struggles to the top. The insurgents are actually proof that the people oppose our puppet sytem as is and as it's planned.

Do you know what the insurgents are called by the rest of the Iraqi's; freedom fighters.

[PatrickHenry]

The Brits found out last century what a quagmire Iraq is:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/s...sp?story=532136
or if you aren't a subscriber to the Independent, you can read the story at Truthout: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/061804D.shtml

Iraq, 1917 By Robert Fisk Independent U.K. Thursday 17 June 2004 They came as liberators but were met by fierce resistance outside Baghdad. Humiliating treatment of prisoners and heavy-handed action in Najaf and Fallujah further alienated the local population. A planned handover of power proved unworkable. Britain's 1917 occupation of Iraq holds uncanny parallels with today - and if we want to know what will happen there next, we need only turn to our history books... On the eve of our "handover" of "full sovereignty" to Iraq, this is a story of tragedy and folly and of dark foreboding. It is about the past-made-present, and our ability to copy blindly and to the very letter the lies and follies of our ancestors. It is about that admonition of antiquity: that if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. For Iraq 1917, read Iraq 2003. For Iraq 1920, read Iraq 2004 or 2005. Yes, we are preparing to give "full sovereignty" to Iraq. That's also what the British falsely claimed more than 80 years ago. Come, then, and confront the looking glass of history, and see what America and Britain will do in the next 12 terrible months in Iraq. <snip> Within six months, Britain was fighting a military insurrection in Iraq and David Lloyd George, the prime minister, was facing calls for a military withdrawal. "Is it not for the benefit of the people of that country that it should be governed so as to enable them to develop this land which has been withered and shrivelled up by oppression? What would happen if we withdrew?" Lloyd George would not abandon Iraq to "anarchy and confusion". By this stage, British officials in Baghdad were blaming the violence on "local political agitation, originated outside Iraq", suggesting that Syria might be involved. Come again? Could history repeat itself so perfectly? For Lloyd George's "anarchy", read any statement from the American occupation power warning of "civil war" in the event of a Western withdrawal. For Syria - well, read Syria. AT Wilson, the senior British official in Iraq in 1920, took a predictable line. "We cannot maintain our position... by a policy of conciliation of extremists. Having set our hand to the task of regenerating Mesopotamia, we must be prepared to furnish men and money... We must be prepared... to go very slowly with constitutional and democratic institutions." There was fighting in the Shia town of Kufa and a British siege of Najaf after a British official was murdered. The British demanded "the unconditional surrender of the murderers and others concerned in the plot", and the leading Shia divine, Sayed Khadum Yazdi, abstained from supporting the rebellion and shut himself up in his house. Eleven of the insurgents were executed. A local sheikh, Badr al-Rumaydh, became a target. "Badr must be killed or captured, and a relentless pursuit of the man till this object is obtained should be carried out," a British political officer wrote. The British now realised that they had made one big political mistake. They had alienated a major political group in Iraq - the ex-Turkish Iraqi officials and officers. The ranks of the disaffected swelled. For Kufa 1920, read Kufa 2004. For Najaf 1920, read Najaf 2004. For Yazdi, read Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. For Badr, read Muqtada al-Sadr. <snip> Sic transit gloria.

Why should the US learn from the limeys' mistakes, when there is support for screwing it up themselves in the 21st Century? They know from history it won't ever be over. What is the real agenda here?

[m3talsmith]

BTW, guess how many troops will be left in Iraq after the turn over in sovereignty? 150,000! So what does this political turn show? That they are not turning over sovereignty. He who controls the might and has the will to use it, unrestrained, has the power; is the sovereign.