TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Who wins with military forces forever occupying Iraq?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Who wins with military forces forever occupying Iraq?

I think it's only fair to ask the flip side of the question, don't you?

Corporate contractors (Energy, construction and mercenary) are the only ones who're winning so far and I see it unlikely to change in the near future. With the amount the US taxpayer is bleeding out daily into Iraq it's fairly much ending up in either the pocket of local officials who need bribes just to talk and the contractors who've only mostly done talking.

i guess if you use the Korean standard it's the Iraqis who win?

everyone on one side of the DMZ goes "Spock" and everyone on the otherside festers in Islamic/Stalinist rule.

quote:

Since the 1960s, South Korea has achieved an incredible record of growth and integration into the high-tech modern world economy. Four decades ago, GDP per capita was comparable with levels in the poorer countries of Africa and Asia. In 2004, South Korea joined the trillion dollar club of world economies. Today its GDP per capita is equal to the lesser economies of the EU. This success was achieved by a system of close government/business ties, including directed credit, import restrictions, sponsorship of specific industries, and a strong labor effort. The government promoted the import of raw materials and technology at the expense of consumer goods and encouraged savings and investment over consumption. The Asian financial crisis of 1997-99 exposed longstanding weaknesses in South Korea's development model, including high debt/equity ratios, massive foreign borrowing, and an undisciplined financial sector. GDP plunged by 6.9% in 1998, then recovered by 9.5% in 1999 and 8.5% in 2000. Growth fell back to 3.3% in 2001 because of the slowing global economy, falling exports, and the perception that much-needed corporate and financial reforms had stalled. Led by consumer spending and exports, growth in 2002 was an impressive 7%, despite anemic global growth. Between 2003 and 2006, growth moderated to about 4-5%. A downturn in consumer spending was offset by rapid export growth. Moderate inflation, low unemployment, an export surplus, and fairly equal distribution of income characterize this solid economy. "it's the corporations...blah blah blah"

why were the Iraqis left out of the poll? wait! no one gives a damn, thats right.

What kind of question is that?

where's 'all of the above'?

srsly, i just saw 'america at a crossroads' on pbs the other day and found it very interesting; i recommend it.

http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/...show_jihad.html

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i guess if you use the Korean standard it's the Iraqis who win? everyone on one side of the DMZ goes "Spock" and everyone on the otherside festers in Islamic/Stalinist rule. why were the Iraqis left out of the poll? wait! no one gives a damn, thats right.

Hmmm, so when the Iraqis stand up, we'll, uhh....keep standing up then?

Or are you predicting that the Iraqis will never be able to stand up for themselves against their arch enemies: uhh, the other Iraqis?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Or are you predicting that the Iraqis will never be able to stand up for themselves against their arch enemies: uhh, the other Iraqis?

nope. are you?

If security is secured, and US forces stay beyond just securing the country, the contractors are obviously going to win in the end.

I havn't really looked at contractors, though I'de like to know what their role specifically in Iraq is.

So far, according to the PDD consensus, the outcomes are this...

If the US pulls out of Iraq without resolving the insurgency, the Shiite militias will win.

If the US stays in Iraq indefinately, it appears we agree that corporate conglomerates will win.

In the end, the battle is about spreading capitalism, which is kind of imperialist in my opinion. The difference between SOuth Korea and Iraq is that the SOuth Koreans wanted us to help them.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo nope.

Are you sure? Because with such a comparison to S. Korea, one would easily conclude otherwise.

quote:

are you?

Not sure where you might gain any prediction I have out of what I've stated in this thread so far. But I think given the result of the past 4 1/3 years with our occupation, the concept of our presence being part of the problem and not the solution is long overdue.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hmmm, so when the Iraqis stand up, we'll, uhh....keep standing up then? Or are you predicting that the Iraqis will never be able to stand up for themselves against their arch enemies: uhh, the other Iraqis?

Ummm yea about that "stand up" thing ...

quote:

House Report Faults Pentagon Accounting of Iraqi Forces By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 27, 2007; Page A15 The United States has invested $19 billion to train and equip nearly 350,000 Iraqi soldiers and police since toppling Saddam Hussein, but the ability of those forces to provide security remains in doubt, according to the findings of a bipartisan congressional investigation to be released today. As a result, President Bush's pledge to have U.S. troops "stand down" as Iraqi forces "stand up" remains unfulfilled. Instead, U.S. troop numbers and operations have escalated in recent months, and the overall level of violence has not decreased. Despite the substantial number of Iraqi security forces and their increasing willingness to fight -- demonstrated by rising numbers of casualties -- their progress toward taking full responsibility for the nation's security remains mixed, according to a report on the investigation by the oversight panel of the House Armed Services Committee. U.S. commanders now predict that it will take years and tens of thousands more Iraqi soldiers and police to achieve that goal. The Pentagon "cannot report in detail how many of the 346,500 Iraqi military and police personnel that the coalition trained are operational today," according to the 250-page report. Details of the document were provided to The Washington Post by congressional staff members. "We have no idea what our $19 billion has gotten us," said Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations, noting that the United States investment represents $55,000 per Iraqi recruit. "The DOD can't tell us how well the Iraqis perform their missions or even plan them," he said in an interview. "The police are in particularly bad shape, although they are critical to counterinsurgency." The lack of transparency is especially worrisome, the report said, because of the possibility that Iraqi forces trained and equipped by the United States have joined the insurgency or sectarian militias. "This report details the complete lack of understanding of who we have trained and what happens to them after we train them," Meehan said. "Many of the forces we have trained are unaccounted for, and others are on the rolls but haven't been vetted," he said, adding that forces "could actually be fighting against us." The subcommittee's report found "strong evidence" that some Iraqi forces trained by the U.S.-led military coalition are involved in sectarian violence and other illegal activities. In addition, the Pentagon "cannot account for whether coalition-issued weapons have been stolen or turned against U.S. forces," the report said. The $19 billion in appropriations -- about $5 billion each fiscal year since 2004 -- has primarily gone toward recruiting, training and equipping Iraqi security forces but also includes funding for building training centers, managing logistics and creating an Iraqi leadership structure in the ministries of defense and the interior. The report criticized as "premature and ill-advised" the U.S. decision to transfer responsibility for vetting the Iraqi police to the national government early this year, after only a year of focused effort in generating police forces, saying that police remain ineffective and their organization is "riddled with corruption and sectarian influence." Tens of thousands of police have been hired outside of the U.S.-led training program, it said. Regarding the Iraqi army, the report found that the Pentagon lacks clear measures of the number of soldiers on the job and their ability to conduct operations, particularly away from their home bases. The Iraqi ministries of defense and the interior are incapable of "accounting for, supporting, or fully controlling their forces in the field," or even executing their own budgets, the investigation found. In addition, the ministries lack critical intelligence and logistics systems that would help in planning independent operations. U.S. military advisory teams placed with Iraqi security forces were formed on an ad hoc basis and were not fully qualified for their mission in 2004 and 2005, it found. U.S. military police units were not deployed to advise the Iraqi police until 2005, and they did not begin to receive training specific to the mission until March 2007, it said. The report recommends that the Pentagon create incentives to attract the most qualified personnel for the teams. The report includes 60 findings and 40 recommendations, many of which call for Congress to pass legislation this year mandating that the Pentagon track and provide to lawmakers a wide range of measures intended to better gauge the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces. Since May, for example, Congress has gained access to the U.S. military's progress reports on Iraqi units, known as "transition readiness assessments." But the investigation found that the assessments still focus on the number of forces trained and equipped rather than on how well they conduct operations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7062602093.html

$19 billion of our money and there's shit to show for it and no accountability. Yay for republican fiscal responsibility. The sad part is that nobody is surprised by any of this anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm yea about that "stand up" thing ... $19 billion of our money and there's shit to show for it and no accountability. Yay for republican fiscal responsibility. The sad part is that nobody is surprised by any of this anymore.

Actually, two Republicans have highlighted the split in the party over the war. Republicans want progress too, and we have not seen it. As a young Republican, I have lost all respect for the current administration.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Actually, two Republicans have highlighted the split in the party over the war. Republicans want progress too, and we have not seen it. As a young Republican, I have lost all respect for the current administration.

It's actually 4 Reupublican senators: Lugar, Voinovich, Warner, and McConnell have all expressed serious doubts. However, that's only because the incompetance of this war, or the polls, have become impossible to ignore. It's been quite obvious since 2005 that the lack of progress, the lack of accountability, poor decisions, and the stubborness to stick with those poor decisions would result in the current situation.

I don't understand people. We justify an invasion based on the flimsiest of uncertain, selective intelligence of a foreign government, and yet we're skeptical and dismissive of deteroriating intelligence estimates we gather about ourselves???

I predict a Pol Pot type situation happening. Like when the US left Vietnam, the entire region was reached even higher levels of instability providing the conditions for destructive rule.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Are you sure? Because with such a comparison to S. Korea, one would easily conclude otherwise.

yes i'm sure. you should study the Korean war before you go drawing conclusions.

what started as a civil war turned into the communists pushing us all the way down the peninsula and occupying Seoul and everything North of the Han river.

it took some REAL balls to get back to the 38th before we signed a cease fire (never been a treaty). since, 55,000 American soldiers dead and the rest of S. korea is a model of Asian history thanks to two items on your list. the other three will KILL you.

quote:

Not sure where you might gain any prediction I have out of what I've stated in this thread so far. But I think given the result of the past 4 1/3 years with our occupation, the concept of our presence being part of the problem and not the solution is long overdue.

lets not speak of concepts because you don't even know what the problem is to even conceptualize a solution.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yes i'm sure. you should study the Korean war before you go drawing conclusions. what started as a civil war turned into the communists pushing us all the way down the peninsula and occupying Seoul and everything North of the Han river. it took some REAL balls to get back to the 38th before we signed a cease fire (never been a treaty). since, 55,000 American soldiers dead and the rest of S. korea is a model of Asian history. lets not speak of concepts because you don't even know what the problem is to even conceptualize a solution.

Yeah, technically we're still at war with them

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Yeah, technically we're still at war with them

and technically, there is a clear winner.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yes i'm sure. you should study the Korean war before you go drawing conclusions.

It's not the conclusions I'm drawing - rather, it's your comparison to the Korean War that I'm questioning.

quote:

what started as a civil war turned into the communists pushing us all the way down the peninsula and occupying Seoul and everything North of the Han river. it took some REAL balls to get back to the 38th before we signed a cease fire (never been a treaty). since, 55,000 American soldiers dead and the rest of S. korea is a model of Asian history thanks to two items on your list. the other three will KILL you.

Yes, I'm fully aware of what occurred. My father-in-law served in the Korean War, and it's nothing but a pleasure to converse with him on these matters.

The problem with your comparison, however, is the force of China on the Communists. There is no other force that's remotely comparable to that in comparison to the Iraq War - Iran is a drop in the bucket with assistance and influence. The Sunni insurgence along with Shiite militias have been the primary concern and continue to be so.

And there is nothing that would indicate any insistence of the Iraqi public wanting us to stay (according to nearly every poll), and as I pointed out a coupla months ago, the majority of the Iraqi government wants us out as well. There is no fight to a 38th parallel on this battle. There is no primary battle line that we can successfully push-back the Sunni insurgency and Shiite militias. Instead we are caught right smack dab in the middle with an unparalleled balancing act between propping up a fundamentalist Shiite government in cahoots with Iran and has the verge of implosion issues of its own, while fighting off the Sunni insurgency but arming them at the same time to help us with al Qaeda, and pray to heaven above that those guns do not turn against us.

I've resisted comparing this war to Vietnam for the very same reason you cannot compare to the Korean War. Indeed there are certain elements to compare here and there to most of the major wars we have fought, but a generalization to what has occurred in one war in hopes to prop up our effort in this war is both misleading and unrealistic.

quote:

lets not speak of concepts because you don't even know what the problem is to even conceptualize a solution.

Ahh yes, I must not be identifying the problem very well then. I keep forgetting in your Wingnutosphere, things are going so incredibly well in Iraq that there is no problem to know about, let alone discuss any possible solutions. How dare I speak of our presence being part of the problem and not the solution.

Perhaps one day you'll entertain us all with your notion of a worthwhile solution other than "stay the course", which really has gone so famously hasn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo and technically, there is a clear winner.

do you mean the arms industry?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X do you mean the arms industry?

The stable prosperous free market society of south korea.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The stable prosperous free market society of south korea.

Ummm ... what? Exactly what about Iraq is analagous to Korea? Sigh, you guys could at least try. Heh or are you so bold as to desire replicating the Korean example for Iraq in the retarded manner everything has been done in Iraq so far? Do you all actually still delude yourselves into believeing that you can actually do ANYTHING competantly?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I've resisted comparing this war to Vietnam for the very same reason you cannot compare to the Korean War.

as well you should on it's technical merits. wars are different from one to the next, but when we fight them, there will always remain a commonality when we fight with courage. when we don't, when we fight with politics, you get pure horror to follow.

you should also appreciate, though, what courage has brought a many unfortunate people in the past at our hand, our sword, and at our sacrifice. thats my point with this thread.

i've said this before here and ill say it forever. no greater freedoms or prosperities has come from other than the barrel of our guns, ever. thats a fact.

i believe no greater horror has come from politics.

these are weasels we're dealing with in Iraq not Mao's invincible army. desperate, but very deadly weasels. criminals that not even the most religious Iraqi wants in their country.

i don't want to be there. George Bush doesn't want to be there no matter how you twist his words, but we're there and if you believe that nothing can stop us we won't be there for long. given the fact that no one believes in us or the Iraqis i'm pretty sure we all know thats not gonna happen.

quote:

How dare I speak of our presence being part of the problem and not the solution.

you can speak about it all you want as loudly as you want. i just want you to remember what your words do and how they affect people and soldiers on both sides of the fight.

quote:

Perhaps one day you'll entertain us all with your notion of a worthwhile solution other than "stay the course", which really has gone so famously hasn't it?

no, you keep fighting. you ignore the rhetoric study the enemy (because he studies you and everyone else) and despite it all you keep fighting. because deep down inside you know thats what you have to do if you want to get to a place in order to get home.

Iraq can and will be a place like history has shown us it can be when we put the courage into it.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Exactly what about Iraq is analagous to Korea?

nothing yet.

quote:

Heh or are you so bold as to desire replicating the Korean example for Iraq in the retarded manner everything has been done in Iraq so far?

nope. we just know what happens when our efforts and our ideals succeed. it's history.

and i believe you do as well. as well as anybody.

quote:

Do you all actually still delude yourselves into believeing that you can actually do ANYTHING competantly?

yes.

South Korea... Iraq?
I mean aside from people shooting at each other who happen to mostly be from their own country, there really isn't a parallel. Though there is an awfully big tangent!

Korea had
Clear cut sides, NK, Russia and China vs everyone else
Iraq has
Everyone out for their religious belief, everyone out for their national service/pride, a bunch of imported ruffians serving up trouble (US, UK, Al Quaida and Iran) and a whole lot of people that just don't like each other over personal grudges.
Korea had
UN Troops and approval from the majority
Iraq has
US Troops and some people from other countries in small amounts along for the ride
Korea had
A decisive outcome to push the enemy line over the border
Iraq has
No boarders, no easily identifiable enemy.
Korea had
A great big demilitarised zone to keep them from killing each other after the big dust up settled.
Iraq has
Independent warlords fighting each other and the odd foreign target wandering through giving them something new to shoot at or blow up
Korea had
Settled down to a dull roar after 40 something years
Iraq has
Endemic and religious hatreds for each other which will last generations.



Now, if you really want to draw some parallels, we could compare Iraq to Vietnam...

Noway with the occupation.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.