Well sure, they’re only extending the occupation longer.
That’s faulty defeatist logic. By attacking and killing our troops, they’re increasing their own desperation, which means that they’re closer to giving up. So the guys who are fighting us are really on our side* vis a vis*, limiting the occupation, and by resisting their attacks we are supporting terrorists. -or something like that.
Is that because the occupation will come to an end when Iraq is put right; like it never was about oil and really was about WMD, and now there aren’t any, the US is just going to mend stuff, put democracy in place and walk away. And do all of that without significant help from the only experts at ‘nation-building’ in the world, the UN ?
Damn, that’s a noble and honourable president you’ve got there. What a decent kind of guy!
. . I feel so foolish thinking this was a long-term acquisition for good ol’ USA.plc. . . .
This is just ludicrous and it is scary to think some people are so delusional about the motives and intentions of the US government in Iraq.
Does it make any sense to believe the USA only remains in Iraq because some Iraqis are resisting? So if all resistance ceased tomorrow the USA would pack up and leave? Give me a break!
The USA has no intention of leaving. It plans to stay in Iraq for decades to come. It plans to control the oil and the economy. It plans to keep military bases there. The only thing which would make the USA change its mind about this is that the Iraqi resistance inflicts loses high enough to make America not want to pay the price of staying in Iraq. The only thing which will get US forces out of Iraq is that the American people decide they do not want to pay the price of the occupation in terms of American lives lost. That is the only way the US will leave and the Iraqis are cheering when they see Americans are paying a price.
sailor and World Eater - you’ve made excellent points, thanks for posting. In fact, thank you to all posters - I don’t post threads to the Pit often, but when I saw the news I felt a real loss.
My gut feeling is that the only way the U.S. will back out is if doing so enhances Bush’s chance of winning the next Presidency. I don’t see that scenario happening (we’re pulling out?! The strongest nation in the world with all that firepower can’t get the job done?) Nah, I don’t think so. Bush would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire (as it relates to his chances of term #2) if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq.
So, we’re there for the long run. Now what? We have $87 billion dollars at our disposal - and a hard road looming in the distance.
But that’s just for this year. I sure hope Bush can come up with a clever plan that avoids him having to ask congress for another $87 billion dollars come next september. It didn’t go down so well with the voters this time; and what with the election coming up next fall, another unexpected bill could get real awkward for him.
Good point there - let’s just crunch those numbers: the estimated population of the U.S. is 293 billion (I’m rounding). So, every person in the U.S. is missing out on around $300 a year if we continue at our current pace in funding the war in Iraq. That doesn’t represent a lot of money to me, but I’m certain it does to those below the poverty line in the U.S.
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if those voters walk into the polls.
Peace,
Paula
CBO analysis of forces that can be realistically used for an occupation and the cost:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4515&sequence=0
14 to 19 billion per year for occupation is what they’re figuring assuming a force that gets rotated out after a year. No reconstruction costs, of course. Looks like a rounding error in the DoD budget, frankly.
This assumes they’ll be able to substantially reduce the number of troops beginning in the spring of next year. Doesn’t seem realistic at the moment, of course.
Does anyone else find it distasteful that after reports of new casualties, Bush goes in front of a crowd and says: “We. will. not. give. up” in that typical grand-standing tone employed by demagogues, and then smirks while the audience applauds.
I have tried to develop an insensitivity to what politicians say but this rubs me the wrong way. How about a more solemn oath to continue the fight?
These are young people dying everyday, dammit.
In a tangental thread, as I was listening to the news radio station this morning on the latest Iraq news, the local newscaster tossed out this line, “…Furthermore, the Pentagon has banned all news media from videotaping the return of American bodies from Iraq.”
Not sure how accurate this is, since I haven’t been able to dig up a cite, but it does seem consistent with this Administration’s tight spin control…
What has the reporting of factual news events got to do with an elected administration . . . sorry, silly question.
No cameras for US war dead’s return
"But the media is being denied access to the return to the United States of the bodies of those who died - because of a Pentagon ban on such coverage.
The policy has led to some charges of censorship and concern that the decision has been taken because of the mounting death toll in Iraq. "
London_C, this response can be applied to what you said as well.
Where did I mention anything about the motives of the US government?
**
Not at all.
**
Of course not. As far as I see it, the US occupying the place is a problem, and terrorists blowing people up to kingdom come is a problem as well. There are a million dynamics to the highly shitty situation over there, but back to my original point of the people that killed the soldiers.
I think the people behind that car bomb that blew up the 80 or so Iraqis should be considered enemies by the Iraqi people. I think the fucks that blew up the UN building should be considered enemies as well. These animals are not freedom fighters, the are a scourge to progress. All these people know how to do is destroy and divide, never create, and all their doing is shooting their cause in the foot.
**
As depressed as I am to admit this, I don’t think we’ll leave iraq until it’s under control the way we want it. That’s why I’m eager for that to start happening. If we are going to occupy it for decades, the sooner we start, the sooner those decades will pass and the Iraqis can hopefully have their lives back.
Such a twisted horrible situation.
Remember “bring 'em on”? I can imagine a political campaign TV ad which would go something like this:
- Soundbite of Bush saying “Weapons of Mass Destruction”
- Headline saying “No WMD found”.
- Bush soundbite: “democracy and freedom for the people of Iraq”
- Newsreporter soundbite: “chaos and insecurity in Iraq”
- Clip of Bush “Mission accomplished”
- Headline or reporter saying soldiers continue to die daily.
- Bush Soundbite: Bring 'em on"
- Statistic showing the attacks and death toll are increasing
- Bush soundbite: “We will not give up”
- Voice says “We think Americans should not continue to die needlessly. It is time to change”
Or something like that
sailor: Your ad’s a really good idea, but I suspect the hole in the Democrats’ bucket it too big to fix with mere straw. For example, have a look at the election results from yesterday. Look at what’s happened to California – why couldn’t the Democrats circle the wagons and keep this key state out of Mr. Schwarzenegger’s hands? Something has to change from a party perspective or we’re all stuck with President Bush for a long, bloody haul.
Funny you should mention that. Here’s a view from another side entirely.
I’ll need more then that Mr B.
Fine. Your answer tells me you’re willing to entertain other ideas. 
I know it’s a shrugging assertion, but will you admit there’s a lot more going on in Iraq than just insurgency, and that there may be one or more other players with American blood on their hands?
Definitely.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by World Eater *
Where did I mention anything about the motives of the US government?
[quote]
Where you implied resistance would prolong the occupation.
Now just wait a minute! We were talking about the people who shot down a helicopter killing 16 Americans and the people who cheered. Let’s go over it again:
Ok, I see we are on the same page. Please continue.
Wait a minute! Did I blink? what happened? Where did the helicopter and the 16 dead soldiers go? And why did all these other people take their place? Can you run that in slow motion for me and explain it? Please explain again your original point of why the resistance forces who shot down a US helicopter are the enemies of the Iraqi people and why the Iraqi people feel otherwise and cheer. Remember: helicopter, American soldiers dead. OK? Don’t drift.
So your recipe for this rape is that they should submit, relax and enjoy what they can. Fine. That’s your opinion. The Iraqis have a different opinion. They have chosen to resist and they are within their rights. They believe they have a good chance of making the Americans want to get out sooner than they might otherwise. I happen to agree with them. I happen to believe that if the Iraqis kill enough Americans there is a very good chance that Americans will decide it is not worth it and will get the hell out.
I also believe that with or without the Americans, Iraq has been destabilized and it is going to be pretty much impossible to stabilize in the short term. With or without the USA, Iraq will probably slide further into chaos and civil war and, in whatever measure it does happen, it is 100% the responsibility of the USA.
Well we know they are enemies of the US, the point was are they enemies of the Iraqis?
**
See above.
**
Well I see these guys as enemies of both the US and Iraq in the same way I view Hamas as an enemy of Israel and the Palestinians. Do you condemn all Palestinians because a few dumb (most likely scared) yahoos cheered 9/11?
**
Remember that’s not what I’m defending here.
**
I don’t know what the recipe is, but I’ll tell you all of them taste like shit.
If we stay longer we risk losing more troops, and pissing the Mid East off more, if that’s possible.
If we pull out soon, we risk a bloodbath, a civil war, or the creation of a terror haven where one didn’t exist.
If we stay longer we’ll fix infrastructure, but outside interests will have their hands in everything.
If we leave early chances are high that an equally despicable regime will pop up in it’s place.
If we leave, we’re damned, and if we stay we’re damned.
We shouldn’t have gotten in this bullshit phantom WMD war in the first place.
**
I’m not so sure about this. There is a lot of fear and intimidation going on right now over there, we don’t know what people really believe.
**
And we know how well Bush listens to public opinion.
**
See above. Plus if the economy picks back up, that means 4 more years of Bush, and most likely WW3.
**
I agree with this, and it has the additional bonus of backing up my original contention that the Iraqis have more enemies then the US over there.
Well said.
And now, what? I think the U.S. administration made a very serious blunder when choosing to attack Iraq - you cannot fight an enemy that is not afraid to die. You would have thought we’d have learned that from 9/11, eh? Religious fanatics who are willing to strap bombs to their bodies and blow themselves (and us) up will always have the upper hand.
I was watching coverage of the horrible California fires last week and my husband said - well, if the terrorists are watching, they’ve just picked up a great idea on how to take us down. Scary, isn’t it?
Peace has to be an option - I would really hate to have my kids grow up in wartime, it was hard enough to explain 9/11.
We should pull out of Iraq and use the $87B for U.S. security in our airports and cities, IMHO.