The Iraq War Isn't Over

Providing the elected Iraqi government lasts long enough it will be twenty five years before we know if Iraq has become a successful democracy or not . The one thing that can be taken from post war West Germany and Japan is that the children being born today or in the recent past are the ones who show more interest in consumerism then militarism .This is depended on the US maintaining an advisory role to help ensure the quality of the Iraqi army and security forces doesn't slip . Beyond that no accurate comparison can be made to the political events that shaped post war West Germany and Japan .


One of the key thing is to ensure that unemployment is kept low . People with jobs don't tend to take up arms . It is possible that the Iranian threat will be a unifying factor the fear of that crazy regime having nukes would be a very different prospect when you share a land border with that country . If much of the current population and the next generation pursue better governance , and infrastructure rebuilding with the same fanaticism they picked up arms with then Iraq could have a bright future . One thing that could be said to be missing from Iraq's Constitution is a clause that states after say thirty days a new government hasn't hasn't been formed after an election voters go back to the polls .

One might also argue that's Iraq's elected leaders need to learn to form a government in a more speedily fashion . After all Australian politicians are still trying to break the deadlock of a Hung Parliament .

reply to post by xpert11


Here's what I think should happen in Iraq; if the Sunnis don't have control of the Govt then the Shi'ites will. If the Shi'ites takes control of power then you can kiss Iraq goodbye and we will be forced to welcome once again another Islamitized nation of Sharia Law with Iran at it's helm.

The only vision I have of Iraq for the next 20 years is civil war and total mayhem.

That region of the globe is like trying to tame a pride of hungry lions in the wild. I know I've been there the last 9 years. It's sad that people talk about how messed up America is but they don't see the rest of the world is a lot more screwed up than us.

reply to post by Reign02


Hungry lions? I respect these great beasts. Best description is a pack of Hyenas and vultures

reply to post by bluemirage5


HAHA yea that is more like the middle east!!

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by xpert11

 

The only vision I have of Iraq for the next 20 years is civil war and total mayhem.

Well even under Saddam Hussein the conflict between Sunni and Shia was brewing. He was able to maintain control with extreme brutality. I've wonder the wisdom of trying to spread "Democracy in Iraq" The issue between Shia and Sunni has been going on for centuries. It would be foolish IMO for the US or anyone else for that matter to think that it could be solved in only 7 or 8 years. Civil war? Sure, why not. It's not like it hasn't already been going on.

Maybe a good old fashion all out civil war between Shiites and Sunnis is whats needed for that region to finally get it's head out of it's backside. Most if not all of the deaths and attacks in Iraq have been sectarian in nature over the past 3 years or so.

As far as Iran's influence goes Iran has had it's tendrils in Iraq for while now. Mahdi Army anyone?

Bueller?

Anyone?

Bueller?

[edit on 1-9-2010 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Too true, the Middle Easterns are a Tribal people (as many Caucasians were in earlier times) but these people will never change until something so shocking and unfathomable will happen.

bring out the troops, send in the private contractors.
i thought the u.s. built one of the largest military bases in the world in iraq.
are we really supposed to believe all of this was just handed over to the iraqi's?

great job, i'm sure we can bring democracy to a country full of people who are still trading goats and beating their wives for not looking at the ground in public. maybe we can park a few mcdonalds and starbucks in there, maybe build them a walmart too. sorry sir, we cannot exchange a goat without a receipt. give me a break...

reply to post by 2weird2live2rare2die



That is exactly the kind of rhetoric which doesn't help Americas image.

Many believe Iraq is still a bombed out smoldering heap of war torn rubble with running gun battles in the streets.

Baghdad Pre-invasion

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/955a97e850dd.jpg[/atsimg]

Baghdad Post-invasion

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6fc51a654673.jpg[/atsimg]

Baghdad 2009/10

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/871b6ce5781f.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79ed9f1a57ea.jpg[/atsimg]


I don't see too many goats. Maybe that's a German built BMW-[KID]?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Thanks for the pictures Slayer.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Slayer you have posted some pictures that were taken seven years after the initial invasion. Sure, there are cars, even a BMW on the streets but these pictures do not illustrate the sufferings of the people that had there country illegally invaded.

It is possible to argue that the invaders are guilty of genocide. The after effects of these horrific last years will live on for a very long time. There are many Afghani's that will be forever scarred by these events. The United States has a long history of these kinds of crimes.

Time for a change, I think.

Originally posted by deessell
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Slayer you have posted some pictures that were taken seven years after the initial invasion. Sure, there are cars, even a BMW on the streets but these pictures do not illustrate the sufferings of the people that had there country illegally invaded.

Here we go again with the "illegal" Bull crap. Let's see exactly where the UN stated it was illegal? Every time somebody mentions that I always have to laugh. Let's see the official UN documentation of it being illegal then we can talk. Kofis Annens opinions during an interview doesn't count as an official UN deceleration of illegality by the way.

It is possible to argue that the invaders are guilty of genocide. The after effects of these horrific last years will live on for a very long time.

Now there is a rather interesting perspective. Let me guess... you believe all that BS about "Millions" killed in Iraq? You'll probably quote the flawed Lancet Survey

Iraqi casualties.

There are many Afghani's that will be forever scarred by these events. The United States has a long history of these kinds of crimes.

Time for a change, I think.

When you step down off of your soap box read up on the Northern Alliance and who really kicked the Taliban Government to the street. Contrary to POP-Culture Internet opinion the majority of Afghans DO NOT want the Taliban back in power.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Here we go again with the "illegal" Bull crap. Let's see exactly where the UN stated it was illegal? Every time somebody mentions that I always have to laugh. Let's see the official UN documentation of it being illegal then we can talk. Kofis Annens opinions during an interview doesn't count as an official UN deceleration of illegality by the way.

.

Sure, I agree to remove the word illegal from the charge. Let it stand as an invasion then.

Now there is a rather interesting perspective. Let me guess... you believe all that BS about "Millions" killed in Iraq? You'll probably quote the flawed Lancet Survey

Actually, genocide, by definition is not necessarily limited to mass killings. It requires a target 'group' and intent to destroy. As I said earlier, it is possible to argue that the US has committed genocide in Iraq and in other countries by using the framework of the Convention of Prevention and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), which was ratified in 1948. If you want to play the numbers game, what about 600,000 in the secret bombings of Cambodia? I could go on.

When you step down off of your soap box read up on the Northern Alliance and who really kicked the Taliban Government to the street. Contrary to POP-Culture Internet opinion the majority of Afghans DO NOT want the Taliban back in power.

Just because they don't want the Taliban back in power, does not mean they support their invaders. That is a leap of logic.

History demonstrates that countries, which have been seriously destablised through war, are prime breeding grounds for radical political regimes. On many occasions these regimes are funded by CIA operations, in an attempt to manipulate politics and government. And, in many cases the results have been disastrous.

I do not think I am getting on a soap box, I am merely presenting an opinion from another perspective. I do not have any animosity towards you, nor any other Americans, and therefore refuse to be called anti-American (not that you said that) however, I also reserve the right to challenge and question the actions of another country's politics or military. I do not believe in censorship in any form.

reply to post by xpert11


Of course the war isnt over, but it is winding down. We have 50,000 Combat Support Soldiers in Iraq,. Combat operations in Iraq have ended. Our troops have done a great job, along with Iraqi Soldiers and Civies... Job well Done.

Originally posted by deessell
It is possible to argue that the invaders are guilty of genocide.

BS. Does anyone on ATS even have a clue what genocide really is, or do they just like to throw the word around, like "False Flag"?

Did US Troops go into Iraq, round up anyone that looked Iraqi, and kill every man, woman and child? Nope, they didn't. Guess that means genocide didn't happen.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I have no doubt that the bloodshed will continue and that the Shia and Sunni split won't go away . A spike in enemy action was to expected upon the withdrawal of US combat troops . My take would be that before the Surge the Iraqi people were already sick of the Bloodshed so that won't have changed . If a Civil War does break out then the country population will be decimated leaving the presumed victor a Iranian style regime ruling over a much smaller population . A generation is a long time for the security situation to be maintained roughly at current levels .

reply to post by SLAYER69


Don't get caught up in arguing with a Straw Man . If someone can't debate the topic from the outset let it be their problem .

[edit on 1-9-2010 by xpert11]

Originally posted by deessell
If you want to play the numbers game, what about 600,000 in the secret bombings of Cambodia? I could go on.

Don't bother, what many here and maybe even yourself either do not know or fail to realize is that many if not all of those 600,000 were mostly North Vietnamese troops dying along the Ho Chi minh trails as they were very "Illegally" using Laos and Cambodia as part of their supply routes for their forces attacking the South Vietnamese.

600,000 seems very high. I didn't know that Hanoi/North Vietnam ever admitted to more than 400,000 killed. Apparently the bodies of their soldiers who died along the trail that they refused to claim during the war as Northern soldiers had been revised upwards.

It should surprise no one that neither Laos nor Cambodia complained during the war about those bombings of the Ho Chi minh trail. Both Laos and Cambodia knew what was going on. Neither wanted North Vietnamese troops in their respective countries either.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f2f8e22a44ab.jpg[/atsimg]

Source

The Ho Chi Minh trail was a logistical system that ran from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) to the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) through the neighboring kingdoms of Laos and Cambodia.

There was no Big secret everybody and their brother knew what the North were doing in Cambodia and Laos.

Source

President Nixon points out the NVA sanctuaries along the Cambodian border in his speech to the American people announcing the Cambodian incursion.
Date

30 April 1970

I also reserve the right to challenge and question the actions of another country's politics or military.

Fair enough.



[edit on 1-9-2010 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by deessell
It is possible to argue that the invaders are guilty of genocide.

BS. Does anyone on ATS even have a clue what genocide really is, or do they just like to throw the word around, like "False Flag"?

Did US Troops go into Iraq, round up anyone that looked Iraqi, and kill every man, woman and child? Nope, they didn't. Guess that means genocide didn't happen.

Actually, I do have a fair idea what genocide is. Do you? Genocide is not just mass killings, nor is it the complete destruction of a people. What is your definition of genocide, please? Please refer to the CPPCG!