civil war in iraq...

[Scribbler1]

You and another member have been saying the same thing about the insurgents. How do you know the insurgency has been stopped? How does the simple act of an election stop people bent on unrest, people who actually LIVE in Iraq and would know better than we how much the people want democracy.
I think you put way too much stock in this election. It IS certainly a first step, but it's a long hike after that.

[Samildanach]

a long hike uphill....it could well make the insurgents more determined to have a bigger impact, they might well go after the newly elected govt, I would if I was an insurgent, an election is not much good if the people you have just elected die the week after.

[bishop]

that's what i'm thinking too. supposedly the security around voting areas was very tight. and i don't think the insurgents/terrorists are particularly suicidal - except for the obvious cases. better for them to lay underground for a small bit of time.

for those insurgents who are focused against the occupation, this election will only bolster their agenda. honestly, i support their agenda because it means that we'll be out of iraq sooner rather than later.

[Rainbow]

Scribbler1, Samildanach, bishop

This is not the case about yet another simple voting "some-where out-there", but the results.
Iraqi people demostrated that they are neither support any Saddam's copy, nor pro-Islamic fundaments as a new political structure for its state.

That means, that all so-called "insurgents" - who represent both, Saddam and pro-Islamic fundamentalist - have been isolated. So-called "insurgents" may expect not much of anything from Iraqis, if anything at all.
"Insurgents" have claimed they are against American "aggression" and they would fight to remove U.S. forces from Iraq. Reality showed that Iraqi people do not accept so-called "insurgents", and despite of threats Iraqi people decided to cast their votes.
That would accelerate intelligence activity with much greater accuracy, and as the result more "insurgents" are going to be jailed (at least) for good. While apprehended - "insurgents" are going to release the information to Iraqi and U.S. intelligence sources, which will lead to the next arrests, and so on.
How is that possible ?
That is very simple. Iraqi people have enough of so-called "insurgents" and Iraqi people will start tip off Iraqi and U.S. intelligence on "insurgents"s activity, but this time much more actively. That would bring results. As a matter of fact, within the last few months Iraqi and U.S. intelligence have been receiving multiple informations on so-called "insurgents" on daily basis, what did not manifest in even a year ago. That is a significant progress, and adding Iraqi's people stance demonstrated during the last voting, so-called "insurgents"s days are coming to their final end.

Now, "insurgents" will attempt to threat Iraqi people even more, because they have realized that they are alone, and maybe even "betrayed". "Insurgents" are finished. The time is a factor, and that stays on U.S. side.

I am "surprized" that you - who stand behind "freedom and democracy", ect. what manifest itself in almost your every sinle post - try to minimize the significance of the last voting in Iraq. You try to find all the points that stand against all what Iraqi people manifested. You doubt in "this" or "that".

Are you for "freedom and democracy, ect." ? or just have gotten lost (somehow) - in chase after Bush, Republicans, Election 2004 in U.S., ect. - while having "dificulties" to distinguish these aspects ? and whatever may appear to be a success for U.S. government you try to minimize because is "made by Bush, Republicans", ect. ? You can diminish Iraqi people's voting results, but you can not reject reality because it does not match your concept of life (and/or political structures, at least) around the globe.

America is all about being successful, and not about party shades, guys. Today, we have Bush, and Kerry, tomorrow. The most important objective is : progress.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop for those insurgents who are focused against the occupation, this election will only bolster their agenda. honestly, i support their agenda because it means that we'll be out of iraq sooner rather than later.

I think you had better re-think your own post.

[bishop]

nope.. if the iraqis want freedom so badly, let them fight and die for it. only a traitor would be willing to sacrifice the lives of his countrymen for the happiness of foreigners.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop nope.. if the iraqis want freedom so badly, let them fight and die for it. only a traitor would be willing to sacrifice the lives of his countrymen for the happiness of foreigners.

Read your previous post and compare to this one.
Syllogism.

I agree. Let so-called "insurgents" die.
For the best results they should group and gather somewhere on a desert and blow themselves up, for good. Less terrorists on planet Earth.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Rainbow America is all about being successful, and not about party shades, guys. Today, we have Bush, and Kerry, tomorrow. The most important objective is : progress.

Don't put me in that box. I am a Libertarian but in reality I have no party. I follow what I believe to be the right thing. I thought Kerry would do better than Bush because I thought he couldn't possibly be worse (and not just Iraq). If a Democrat got us into Iraq under false pretenses I would have been demanding HIS impeachment as well. I don't follow liars regardless of party.
I agree the most important thing is progress. But consider this, if Bush wanted to support democracy in Iraq all along, why the WMD scare? Because the American people wouldn't buy the expense in lives and money to do THAT. IF this is the case then Bush should be removed for not being straight with the people. A leader who truly IS a leader would put his case to the American people and win their support. If they still didn't want him to wage war with Iraq then he would not go, period. Regardless of how noble he may feel the action is, it is NOT his to take alone. If Bush knew invading Iraq for the specific purpose of "freeing" the Iraqi people would not fly with the people and he lied to be able to do it, he is a traitor.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Don't put me in that box. I am a Libertarian but in reality I have no party. I follow what I believe to be the right thing. I thought Kerry would do better than Bush because I thought he couldn't possibly be worse (and not just Iraq). If a Democrat got us into Iraq under false pretenses I would have been demanding HIS impeachment as well. I don't follow liars regardless of party. I agree the most important thing is progress. But consider this, if Bush wanted to support democracy in Iraq all along, why the WMD scare? Because the American people wouldn't buy the expense in lives and money to do THAT. IF this is the case then Bush should be removed for not being straight with the people. A leader who truly IS a leader would put his case to the American people and win their support. If they still didn't want him to wage war with Iraq then he would not go, period. Regardless of how noble he may feel the action is, it is NOT his to take alone. If Bush knew invading Iraq for the specific purpose of "freeing" the Iraqi people would not fly with the people and he lied to be able to do it, he is a traitor.

#1
Ok.
You are aside the box :-)))
#2
You ask me the questions that you know the answers to.
You know that very well Bush (or whoever in power) in not going to tell all the details on his decision(s) and/or action(s), unless the "executive action" is a matter of time That part belongs to respondents. A "diplomatic language" differs from every-day-used one. Reading (and/or listening, watching) carefully enough politician's speeches, a respondent can figure out quite easily the main objective. A respondent may not have access to details, but should have a general view, at least.

Bush is a traitor ? :-)))
I know Bush has no Bacon or Shakespeare alike talents, but a traitor ?
C'mon Scribbler1, give me a break :-)))

[bishop]

Quote by: Rainbow Read your previous post and compare to this one. Syllogism. I agree. Let so-called "insurgents" die. For the best results they should group and gather somewhere on a desert and blow themselves up, for good. Less terrorists on planet Earth.

good to see that i lost you, or that you simply took my words out of context.

let's get straight about one thing - i do not give a damn about the iraqis. it is THEIR country, so let THEM fight for it. you may be willing to sacrifice the lives of americans for foreigners, rather than our own security, but i'm not.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop for those insurgents who are focused against the occupation, this election will only bolster their agenda. honestly, i support their agenda because it means that we'll be out of iraq sooner rather than later

Quote by: bishop nope.. if the iraqis want freedom so badly, let them fight and die for it. only a traitor would be willing to sacrifice the lives of his countrymen for the happiness of foreigners

Quote by: bishop good to see that i lost you, or that you simply took my words out of context. let's get straight about one thing - i do not give a damn about the iraqis. it is THEIR country, so let THEM fight for it. you may be willing to sacrifice the lives of americans for foreigners, rather than our own security, but i'm not

These are your originally submitted posts. I did not take anything out of the context.
Are you suggesting that I have omitted some additional materials within your own posts ?

[rmnunez]

The Turks threatened to invade if the Kurds held control of the northern oil capital (which is within Kurdish territory). They don't -the gringoes do.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Rainbow You know that very well Bush (or whoever in power) in not going to tell all the details on his decision(s) and/or action(s), unless the "executive action" is a matter of time That part belongs to respondents. A "diplomatic language" differs from every-day-used one. Reading (and/or listening, watching) carefully enough politician's speeches, a respondent can figure out quite easily the main objective. A respondent may not have access to details, but should have a general view, at least.

Well, if you're assuming the average American actually pays attention to what a politician says then we REALLY differ there! I've been saying this for decades, that even though I blame politicians and "leaders" for theior actions I reserve the REAL blame for the sheep who allow these things to go on almost CONSTANTLY.
If I understood your post correctly, I agree that a president isn't required to toss out every little detail opf his agenda for public approval. Part of the reason he is elected is to be able to use his own judgement in many circumstances and we should trust that judgement.
My point in this case is that when a president wants to bring us ionto an Iraq-type situation he would identify the problem and lay it out to the people. Usually embellishing his statements to fit his desires so as to influence the people. For example, if the country in question is threatening its neighbors, the president can try to slide US into the countries threatened and sell it THAT way. I believe Bush did that.
BUT, you need to pick ONE reason to take the drastic step of invasion, NOT a laundry list of everything all the way up to Saddam is mean to his Mother and assume at least one reason works.

Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld et. al. pushed the threat to us as THE reason and now it is a DIFFERENT reason we are there. The right wing would have us believe freeing Iraq was AS important as the threat to our country. Bush and co. did not push them with equal vigor and you know it. Iraq was NOT a threat to US and its neighbors didn't have a problem coexisting with it, so there was no reason for invasion under the first stated reason. Now we are told a completely different reason for being there. This is not carefullty reading "diplomatic language", it is an about face while changine the focus. It is a lie.

Bush is a traitor ? :-))) I know Bush has no Bacon or Shakespeare alike talents, but a traitor ? C'mon Scribbler1, give me a break :-)))

If Bush used the threat to the united states as an excuse to "free" Iraq, then he lied outright. If so, he started a war under false pretenses and therefore is a traitor for putting this country at risk for an unsupportable reason.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Well, if you're assuming the average American actually pays attention to what a politician says then we REALLY differ there! I've been saying this for decades, that even though I blame politicians and "leaders" for theior actions I reserve the REAL blame for the sheep who allow these things to go on almost CONSTANTLY. If I understood your post correctly, I agree that a president isn't required to toss out every little detail opf his agenda for public approval. Part of the reason he is elected is to be able to use his own judgement in many circumstances and we should trust that judgement. My point in this case is that when a president wants to bring us ionto an Iraq-type situation he would identify the problem and lay it out to the people. Usually embellishing his statements to fit his desires so as to influence the people. For example, if the country in question is threatening its neighbors, the president can try to slide US into the countries threatened and sell it THAT way. I believe Bush did that. BUT, you need to pick ONE reason to take the drastic step of invasion, NOT a laundry list of everything all the way up to Saddam is mean to his Mother and assume at least one reason works. Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld et. al. pushed the threat to us as THE reason and now it is a DIFFERENT reason we are there. The right wing would have us believe freeing Iraq was AS important as the threat to our country. Bush and co. did not push them with equal vigor and you know it. Iraq was NOT a threat to US and its neighbors didn't have a problem coexisting with it, so there was no reason for invasion under the first stated reason. Now we are told a completely different reason for being there. This is not carefullty reading "diplomatic language", it is an about face while changine the focus. It is a lie. If Bush used the threat to the united states as an excuse to "free" Iraq, then he lied outright. If so, he started a war under false pretenses and therefore is a traitor for putting this country at risk for an unsupportable reason.

I have never assumed that an average American pays an attention to political events. It is all the way around. That is why people seem to be "shocked" when they realize the actual events differ to their views, opinions, ect.
However, I came from the point that a person who is involved in politics - even as an amateur - can figure out objectives a politician expresses publically. Most people take political issues as something they are well educated and familiar about/on/with. It appears that they are not. That comes their frustration.
If people just "read-between-lines", they know everything, except for details.
Are we that damn good enough, educated and capable of reading "between lines" ?
Who is to be blamed, then ?

I do not defend politicians. They have "cheated" people since Mankind emerged. That is Us-People who should "de-code" political language, if we want to get involved in politics.
The vision for political systems, ideologies, ect. - you present, (it) simply does not exist in reality, except for books.

What is so hard to understand that a state needs resources for energy ?
What is so hard to understand that a lion eats a deer ?
In both cases one is being "consummed" in order another one to survive.
In politics, no one needs to "comsume" others, since we share the same resources, goods, merchandise, ect.

Example (only) :
1 barrel of oil costs $45.00, today
1 barrel of oil costs $90.00 tomorrow
What would you do ? Let your people to have miserable life tomorrow ?
Do not you think that you need to protect your own state and provide people with suitable means them to accept, or face unknown tomorrow with no vision what it may bring at all ?

What politicians say that is 1 side of the coin. We need to learn how to read "the reverse".

[rmnunez]

Elections:

Although turnout was weak in Mosul's predominantly Sunni Arab and populous west side, many did vote braving insurgent threats and defying boycott calls by powerful Sunni religious and political leaders. Some polling sites in western Mosul saw a thousand-plus voters, while others close to known insurgent haunts had three hundred at best. The reasons given by those that did not vote in Mosul were a reminder of what the next government was up against. "I did not vote because the Committee of Muslim scholars said not to, otherwise I will be punished by the mujahideen (holy fighters)," said Ali Ramadan, 30, a taxi driver from Nahrawan on the southwestern side. Iraq's most important Sunni religious organisation has said it still regarded the election as illegitimate as the long oppressed Shiites were poised to sweep into power. "Sooner or later the Americans will leave and when that happens any government that they put in place will just collapse," predicted Mohammed Adnan, 28, also from Nahrawan. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050203/1/3qavl.html

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Rainbow If people just "read-between-lines", they know everything, except for details. Are we that damn good enough, educated and capable of reading "between lines" ? Who is to be blamed, then ?

In that context, we are.

I do not defend politicians. They have "cheated" people since Mankind emerged. That is Us-People who should "de-code" political language, if we want to get involved in politics. The vision for political systems, ideologies, ect. - you present, (it) simply does not exist in reality, except for books.

That something exists "in reality" and that something MUST exist in reality are two different things. I prefer not to accept the status quo as a fact of life. Unfortunately, I'm aware of the fact that too many voting Americans can't "decode" anything.

Example (only) : 1 barrel of oil costs $45.00, today 1 barrel of oil costs $90.00 tomorrow What would you do ? Let your people to have miserable life tomorrow ? Do not you think that you need to protect your own state and provide people with suitable means them to accept, or face unknown tomorrow with no vision what it may bring at all ?

What an intelligent "leader" would do is prepare for the worst case scenario. In this case, if a barrel of oil costs $45 today, you take steps to make sure we can function WITHOUT a $90 barrel tomorrow. We have NOT taken any steps to make ourselves less dependent on imported oil. THAT is your "unknown tomorrow". But it sems it is only unknown to those in charge.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 What an intelligent "leader" would do is prepare for the worst case scenario. In this case, if a barrel of oil costs $45 today, you take steps to make sure we can function WITHOUT a $90 barrel tomorrow. We have NOT taken any steps to make ourselves less dependent on imported oil. THAT is your "unknown tomorrow". But it sems it is only unknown to those in charge.

One of the reasons U.S. has entered Iraq is exactly the steady and stable oil supplies and prices. That part many people seem not to understand and/or do not accept for variety of reasons, while pacifistic approach is very widely and commonly used as a counter-argument.

What should we do, then ?
In the name of "peace" all the high-technology countries should beg the oil-rich states for mercy or convert to Islam ? Maybe we should give up any developement we have made so far and go back to caves, because it does not match some other states' religious fundaments ???

Those times have gone into history. No state is going to "beg for mercy", but it will get that trade by diplomatic means. If such efforts fail, a state is going to use its intelligence to set up a particular state, following military actions as the final stage.
That is the price we pay today for tomorrow's existance.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Rainbow One of the reasons U.S. has entered Iraq is exactly the steady and stable oil supplies and prices. That part many people seem not to understand and/or do not accept for variety of reasons, while pacifistic approach is very widely and commonly used as a counter-argument.

Whether you are right or wrong is immaterial. Oil was not the REASON presented for invading Iraq. Your scenario implies our leaders didn't take a possible unstable oil market into account and simply said "Let's invade a country that has oil". I don't see how you can defend this, as IF you are right and Bush invaded Iraq for the oil it means he created a false threat and lied to the American people and the world to attack a sovereign country for economic reasons.
Consider this, IF you are right we are international criminals and the rest of the world can join forces and do to us anything they want, and we don't have a legal or moral leg to stand on. And if Iraq is any indication we don't have a military leg to stand on either.

What should we do, then ? In the name of "peace" all the high-technology countries should beg the oil-rich states for mercy or convert to Islam ? Maybe we should give up any developement we have made so far and go back to caves, because it does not match some other states' religious fundaments ???

On reading that part I can only conclude you DO think it is all right to attack and occupy a sovereign nation for anything we deem important to us. WE created a dependency on something we don't have in sufficient supply and now it is the world's job to give us what we want.
That is so far out I can't find the words to argue against it.
I know what we can do to reduce that dependency but frankly I don't want to waste my time presenting it to you. Any change will require some sacrifice and if your defense is "should we live in caves" you apparently don't think we should have to sacrifice ANYTHING to correct our short-sightedness and therefore won't listen to any solutions other than "we want it, so we'll take it".

Those times have gone into history. No state is going to "beg for mercy", but it will get that trade by diplomatic means. If such efforts fail, a state is going to use its intelligence to set up a particular state, following military actions as the final stage. That is the price we pay today for tomorrow's existance.

More like the price we pay for yesterday's greed and stupidity. If you are right we are doomed as a country.
And if we were concerned at all about diplomacy we would NEVER have sided with Kuwait when they slant-drilled the oil out of Iraq and got invaded for it. We HAD a sympathetic government set up and that was Rumsfeld's pal (at the time) Saddam Hussein!
NO diplomacy. NO puppet government. We went RIGHT to invasion so that last paragraph is entirely fiction.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Whether you are right or wrong is immaterial. Oil was not the REASON presented for invading Iraq. Your scenario implies our leaders didn't take a possible unstable oil market into account and simply said "Let's invade a country that has oil". I don't see how you can defend this, as IF you are right and Bush invaded Iraq for the oil it means he created a false threat and lied to the American people and the world to attack a sovereign country for economic reasons. Consider this, IF you are right we are international criminals and the rest of the world can join forces and do to us anything they want, and we don't have a legal or moral leg to stand on. And if Iraq is any indication we don't have a military leg to stand on either. On reading that part I can only conclude you DO think it is all right to attack and occupy a sovereign nation for anything we deem important to us. WE created a dependency on something we don't have in sufficient supply and now it is the world's job to give us what we want. That is so far out I can't find the words to argue against it. I know what we can do to reduce that dependency but frankly I don't want to waste my time presenting it to you. Any change will require some sacrifice and if your defense is "should we live in caves" you apparently don't think we should have to sacrifice ANYTHING to correct our short-sightedness and therefore won't listen to any solutions other than "we want it, so we'll take it". More like the price we pay for yesterday's greed and stupidity. If you are right we are doomed as a country. And if we were concerned at all about diplomacy we would NEVER have sided with Kuwait when they slant-drilled the oil out of Iraq and got invaded for it. We HAD a sympathetic government set up and that was Rumsfeld's pal (at the time) Saddam Hussein! NO diplomacy. NO puppet government. We went RIGHT to invasion so that last paragraph is entirely fiction.

Reading your reply, I am not sure whether "Volcanvo" forum is about politics. The arguments you present on politics are rather politically (at least) immature.

#1
I care less what you may or may not to see as "material - or - immaterial". You seem not to take into your banks that politics is not about Ethics, Morality, Lies or Truth, but :
- Money.
Leaders have exactly taken under consideration the oil - and its supplies - as one of the most important factors. There is not much of defending my statement, but understanding the basic fact that we rely on oil, unless we develope a new source for energy.
Is that hard to understand it, for you ?

Off Topic
I do not care whether Bush (or whoever in power) lied or not. That is my business to figure that out. Even though, does it change my life ? How ? How a politician's lies may influence my life ? Will I feel better ? worse ?
The life is about to protect a family, a person is a part of. What can I bring my family if I would rely on others' mercy ? Is that hard to understand, too ?
What happens if suddenly oil prices go up ? What are you going to tell your people ?
"Listen guys. The "bad" guys do not sell us the oil for the prices we used to have" ?
People will kick you out (at least), while a revolt is on a horizon, Scribbler1 No one is going to ask you another question, but most likely will hang you high, along with your whole administration, ect.
You seem not to understand to power of energy. It reflects the life of all the people around the globe, while having impact on almost every aspect of our life.

On Topic
Yes, I did consider others to call us criminals. Baloney. They would do the same, if the only can.
Because U.S. is protecting its interests (for years to come), others may call U.S. a criminal ? Then, let us have worse life, economy, technology, ect. to satisfy all the people arond the world, in order others to call us the righteouss-men ? Are you OK ? :-)))
Read Mankind's history and figure who have ruled and shaped this world, again.
There is no any special (extraoridinary) scenario with Iraq :
- econmy
- military and intelligence
- oil
- marketting
Additionally :
- re-structure political fundaments, which will provide solid environment (read the points above mentioned) to be functioned propely.
Pro-democtratic Iraq will influence the whole Middle-East region, at least, and the latest election - regardless of how "purely democratic" it was - has already started that process.

#2
You may conclude whatever it complies and matches with your wish, but I support whatever brings U.S. profits along with its security and future existance.
What happened in Iraq should be the answer to your own question. It appeared that many countries - which claim to be U.S. "friends" - made secret agreements with Saddam, in order to make a businss with (him).
Did they care about U.S. ? Really ? They f*** U.S. up.
They would do the same what U.S. does today, if they only can.
What do you think those governments told their citizens about secret agreements with Saddam ? Nothing, just plain "nothing". The "funny" part is that those people call their countries as : democracy :-))) (LOL)
(I spent some time in some European countries. They are far away behind U.S. in many fields.)

That is the whole "disagreement" between U.S. and France (that pulled Germany into it) all about, while Russia and China oppose almost on daily-basis whatever U.S. does. Now, Germany is going to face economical crisis, so they try to stick to U.S. back (together), because within 5 years (or so) Germany would need U.S. help to solve its problem, while energy is going to play a key role. That damn oil, again, will become the subject that influences Germany. Germany's reunion has not apeeared that fruitful as politicians and economists thought or predicted, and (it) can not "swallow" that "unification", still.
What about France ?
The same. J. Chirac's days are about to expire. France needs to change its political stance. They simply have no option, because that damn oil is the key factor, again.
Russia ?
Russia has a little "easier" way to get "some oil", since the Caspian Sea is within its reach, but Russian economy along with administrative structure "kills" any reforms in that country. That is why Russia will seek U.S.'s assistance to solve its matters. It takes time.
China ?
This country has "requested" 40% increase in oil demands. That is why China decided to build a direct-pipeline from the Caspian Sea, in order to provide the fundaments for its economy, while covering all the costs (!) itself.

Do you think that the oil is not the factor, still ?
What can you provide people with as a "substitute" or a "replacement" ?

Off Topic
You do not need energy ? That is your choice :-)))
I prefer to stay what Mankind has already developed with, and have hopes the next generation would have better than mine life. "No caves", definitely.
Fiction would be staying aside and watching what others do. This model does not serve any progress.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Rainbow Reading your reply, I am not sure whether "Volcanvo" forum is about politics. The arguments you present on politics are rather politically (at least) immature.

Maybe so, but after reading your replies, that kind of "maturity"is something I don't need. You show quite nicely that morals or ethics don't belong in your brand of politics.

I care less what you may or may not to see as "material - or - immaterial". You seem not to take into your banks that politics is not about Ethics, Morality, Lies or Truth, but : - Money.

I do not care whether Bush (or whoever in power) lied or not.

You may conclude whatever it complies and matches with your wish, but I support whatever brings U.S. profits along with its security and future existance.

I don't need to read any more to conclude you and I are too far apart to agree on any of this. I'm quite confortable with my beliefs and I leave you to yours.