Did we win the war in Iraq?

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: grandpa I haven't defended the sanctions. As to the outcomes of not invading, I cannot really say much other than how it could have been up to the real Iraq specialists -- Iraqis themselves.

Rather naive to think that under Saddam, anything was determined by the Iraqis themselves.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: grandpa ...which is similar to saying, "it is as it should be, so let's arm these people anyway." The simple point is that it is very hypocritical and destructive to arm militant Muslims while "fighting militant Islam".

We were not "fighting militant Islam" in the 80s.

[The American]

Quote by: grandpa I haven't defended the sanctions. As to the outcomes of not invading, I cannot really say much other than how it could have been up to the real Iraq specialists -- Iraqis themselves. Now that they've been a country destroyed, they will have to be the ones to rebuild anyway. Grandpa h.

I would never imply you did defend them.

Your last statement puzzles me. Haliburton has experience working war zones. Clinton used them. Now, one question. Did the germans rebuild Germany, and what of the Japanese? I do understand they play a significant part, however, the destruction of the country was caused by the U.N., Saddam Hussein's wars, and by the U.S. and Coalition forces ousting Hussein. Responsibility has to start somewhere, and of course, to nourish the seed of democracy planted there.

Trig.

[The American]

One more point to ponder. We did understand before we engaged operations to oust Hussein, the war would be costly and take a long time. Congress approved the measure. They continue to dump funds there. However, the draft of the Iraqi Constitution includes money paid back for restoration.

Trig.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: grandpa If Turkey's official denial of the Armenian genocide is irrelevant, than so is Ahmadinejad's denial of the holocaust. Fair is fair. .

Well, except in one case you have the Turkish government denying a Turkish genocide of the Armenians. In the other you have the Iranian government denying a German genocide of the jews that the German government fully aknowledges.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Rather naive to think that under Saddam, anything was determined by the Iraqis themselves.

Actually, it's not "rather naive" to think that, seeing as to how that is in fact what was happening, just as it was true that Nazi Germany was determined by the Germans themselves. Everyone wants to blame the dictator, but what happens when no one listens? He can't dictate nearly as much, can he?

I might not say we're bringing more harm to them than Saddam, but I'd have a hell of a time arguing that we've been hurting them less.

I should remind you that America supported Maliki not based on any grand principles of how great his rule is, but because he worked strategically.
He said, among other things, that "It is self-evident that American forces are now confined to their bases and camps. They are there lawfully, therefore if they are attacked by
any group, according to the agreement, they can return fire, they can defend
themselves. More than that, if they have intelligence that a certain group is planning
an attack on them, they have the right to move, in coordination with Iraqi
forces..."

This was after an Iraqi officer ordered the detention of U.S. soldiers "after they killed three Iraqis while pursuing insurgents." Maliki said his doing so was "out of line."

Maliki Faults Iraqi Officer's Detention of U.S. Troops After Shootout

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 We were not "fighting militant Islam" in the 80s.

Of course not, we were supporting it. But we claim to be fighting it now, despite our record. And no one claimed we were supporting it then, either.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Well, except in one case you have the Turkish government denying a Turkish genocide of the Armenians. In the other you have the Iranian government denying a German genocide of the jews that the German government fully aknowledges.

That's not much of a difference, seeing as to how that is Germany's official attitude, and apparently not Iran's. If you go to Turkey for the purpose of education, I'm sure they'll have an interesting take on Armenians, if they get mentioned at all. My former professor and academic advisor once taught in Turkey and, when he mentioned Armenians, he apparently created a little stir in the classroom. The point is, these people -- who we consider allies -- are not really the greatest regarding human rights. In addition to persecuting Kurds at large, they murdered about a million and a half Armenians, according to some estimates.

Grandpa h.

[The American]

Quote by: grandpa That's not much of a difference, seeing as to how that is Germany's official attitude, and apparently not Iran's. If you go to Turkey for the purpose of education, I'm sure they'll have an interesting take on Armenians, if they get mentioned at all. My former professor and academic advisor once taught in Turkey and, when he mentioned Armenians, he apparently created a little stir in the classroom. The point is, these people -- who we consider allies -- are not really the greatest regarding human rights. In addition to persecuting Kurds at large, they murdered about a million and a half Armenians, according to some estimates. Grandpa h.

Bush Says Resolution Would Harm U.S.-Turkey Relations (Update1) - Bloomberg.com ``We all deeply regret the tragic suffering of the Armenian people,'' Bush said today on the White House South Lawn. ``This resolution is not the right response to these mass killings.'' It calls on the president to ensure that U.S. foreign policy ``reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity'' related to issues including documented evidence that the event constituted genocide. Bush also should ``accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation'' of 1.5 million Armenians as a genocide in his annual April message commemorating the killings, according to the resolution. Passage of the resolution will hurt U.S. efforts to bolster security in Iraq because Turkey will be less inclined to support its NATO ally, Egemen Bagis, an adviser to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Turkey's CNN Turk news channel. ``This draft resolution will put U.S. soldiers in danger,'' he said. ``If our ally accuses us of crimes that we did not commit, then we will start to question the advantages of our cooperation.''

Again, another attempt to throw a monkey wrench into war efforts by Congressional Democrats. Records do seem to haunt them.

And it is proclaimed, Republicans are the party of opologists? An odd time to ask for it.

** Smiles **

Trig.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, it's not "rather naive" to think that, seeing as to how that is in fact what was happening, just as it was true that Nazi Germany was determined by the Germans themselves.

I dont believe the Baathist regime was ever elected to power. The Nazis were so elected.

Quote by: grandpa Everyone wants to blame the dictator, but what happens when no one listens? He can't dictate nearly as much, can he?

In Iraq, those who defied Saddam, frequently were killed.

Quote by: grandpa I should remind you that America supported Maliki not based on any grand principles of how great his rule is, but because he worked strategically.

???? What are you talking about? We supported Maliki because he is who the Iraqi people elected.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: grandpa Of course not, we were supporting it. But we claim to be fighting it now, despite our record. And no one claimed we were supporting it then, either. Grandpa h.

You claimed we armed them "WHILE" fighting them. You are kind of disingenuous in these debates.

Quote by: grandpa ...it is very hypocritical and destructive to arm militant Muslims while "fighting militant Islam".

[The American]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 I dont believe the Baathist regime was ever elected to power. The Nazis were so elected. In Iraq, those who defied Saddam, frequently were killed. ???? What are you talking about? We supported Maliki because he is who the Iraqi people elected.

Nice post.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The American Again, another attempt to throw a monkey wrench into war efforts by Congressional Democrats.

What can/should we do about that? Shame them for pressuring Turkey to recognize its genocidal history? I'm not hopping on that bandwagon.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 I dont believe the Baathist regime was ever elected to power. The Nazis were so elected.

Which means what? Nothing. The power was still in the people, and still is. They're the ones who go along with tyrants, based on certain beliefs and fears.

Quote by: barnhardt2010 In Iraq, those who defied Saddam, frequently were killed.

Typically by his loyal henchmen, just as I suggested. What if he had no such henchmen?

Quote by: barnhardt2010 ???? What are you talking about? We supported Maliki because he is who the Iraqi people elected.

No, we supported him because (a) he's willing to do things that America likes (as noted in this instance), and (b) he's not powerful enough to make the US leave. If we leave, it's going to be one "our" terms.
Another reason (c) is that Iraqis put enough pressure on the United States to have elections in Iraq.
Said Maliki: "The liaison officers decide on each separate incident, whether it is the
Americans who take action, or the Iraqi forces, or a joint force. We generally prefer that we take action, unless we need support from
them."

He sounds pretty compliant to me. If he wasn't, if he got out of line like the officer who wanted to detain US soldiers, he might not have stayed in power this long -- freely elected or otherwise.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 You claimed we armed them "WHILE" fighting them. You are kind of disingenuous in these debates.

Well, I don't recall that we ever stopped arming militant Muslims. You can go back to the Afghanistan/Soviet era, but it didn't end there. So the "disingenous" label is yours, and the US government's as well when it pretends that it has been utterly opposed to Islamic militants -- even going so far as to condemn any economic links to such groups. Like I suggested before, hypocrisy at its finest.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The American Nice post.

Nice if you're looking for examples of poor reading comprehension.
The fact that Nazis were elected and Saddam was not doesn't refute the argument that the people are always ultimately in charge. Those two examples withstand that very premise, only in different forms. One was presumably more popular, but they both relied on nationalist ideology to have their own ways, and used their loyal followers to do their bidding. It does not contradict a word I said.

Grandpa h.

[The American]

Quote by: grandpa Which means what? Nothing. The power was still in the people, and still is. They're the ones who go along with tyrants, based on certain beliefs and fears. Typically by his loyal henchmen, just as I suggested. What if he had no such henchmen? No, we supported him because (a) he's willing to do things that America likes (as noted in this instance), and (b) he's not powerful enough to make the US leave. If we leave, it's going to be one "our" terms. Another reason (c) is that Iraqis put enough pressure on the United States to have elections in Iraq. Said Maliki: "The liaison officers decide on each separate incident, whether it is the Americans who take action, or the Iraqi forces, or a joint force. We generally prefer that we take action, unless we need support from them." He sounds pretty compliant to me. If he wasn't, if he got out of line like the officer who wanted to detain US soldiers, he might not have stayed in power this long -- freely elected or otherwise. Grandpa h.

1. The Kurds were powerless against the dictatorship. Mass graves proves it to be true. They revolted against based on belief. The event was fearful enough to persuade.

2. His loyal henchmen profitted as well. They carried out geneocide historically. They were brought to justice along with Hussein. Some didn't make it as far as others though. His sons were brought to justice as a result of war.

As far as military loyalty, there was little. They starved. Money buys people, henchmen were bought.

3. As long as troops are stationed in Iraq, they are extended the right to defend themselves and assist Iraqi troops. Which should be. Maliki was elected by the people of Iraq, we remember quite well the purple thumb proudly waved, costing some their death. At the time Democrats pushed for withdrawal, you know, Reid spouting the war is lost, and Iraq not strong enough to stand on her own, we stayed despite protests from some citizens here and there. Funny thing though, both governments were in line with each other. Despite efforts within to undermine war efforts.

That is why we supported the people's choice, Maliki.

Trig.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: grandpa Well, I don't recall that we ever stopped arming militant Muslims.

In Afghanistan??? Any source for that claim?

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: The American 1. The Kurds were powerless against the dictatorship. Mass graves proves it to be true. They revolted against based on belief. The event was fearful enough to persuade. 2. His loyal henchmen profitted as well. They carried out geneocide historically. They were brought to justice along with Hussein. Some didn't make it as far as others though. His sons were brought to justice as a result of war. As far as military loyalty, there was little. They starved. Money buys people, henchmen were bought. ...... Trig.

But Saddam was a socialist, which seems to outweigh any possible criticism in grandpas views.

[The American]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 But Saddam was a socialist, which seems to outweigh any possible criticism in grandpas views.

Which is a prime example of how capitalism trumps socialism. Socialism wears the skin of fairness, and always provides a loser, which makes it less appealing than capitalism. Whether you win or lose within a capitalist society, is what you make it. Failure and success is based on the individual, not government. No doubt Hussein was a failure to his country, even financially.

Trig.