Simple Question: Did we (USA) win Iraq War?

[The Rabbi]

I think Rabbi prefers RAPE in every home rather than "Saddam rape rooms".

The FACT is that Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for a MILLENIA and they won't stop now because of some "feel good" constitution that we crafted FOR THEM. The minority is going to be in EEP SHIT the second we leave. Hundreds of thousands already left Iraq and hundreds of thousands more have congregated into ethnic seclusion. There are Sunni areas and there are Shia areas and you wouldn't want to be in the wrong one.

Your fantasies about me are becoming disturbing.
Anyway, so now the constitution is "feel good"?? The Sunnis and Shias seem to be working together just fine, having recently hammered out an agreement for their upcoming election.
I would say reports of the demise of Iraq are greatly premature. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

I have been looking into this for the past week, as I'm seeing a pattern between Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran. It really does look like, whether Iraq is partitioned or not, iran is going to control it as it is now controlling much of Lebanon through Hezbolla. I think we're legitimately seeing the rise of an Iranian-Shia empire, which will soon take on the entire gulf region.

I think the US has effectively not only lost iraq, but it has handed over Iraq's oil wealth to iran.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

let me tell you something. If Iran and the USA can negotiate on an even ground. That is, if the Iranians are willing to be rational (and they have proven that, for foreign policy purposes, they ARE) and the Americans can shift their alliance away from the Saudis and towards the Iranians, the US may actually benefit greatly.

Saddam was brutal and insane. He invaded Kuwait which was batshit crazy of him. The US couldn't deal with him at all. Now the Iranians, who want to be dealt with as a power (that is, as Russia or China, instead of a Client state) get their wish, the Americans could be looking at a much more stable partner to administer the Gulf. So, depending on how the long term diplomacy works out, this could be a huge win-win for both Middle East stability, and US interests in the Gulf (namely, the majority of the world's energy resources)

 

[The Rabbi]

I have been looking into this for the past week, as I'm seeing a pattern between Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran. It really does look like, whether Iraq is partitioned or not, iran is going to control it as it is now controlling much of Lebanon through Hezbolla. I think we're legitimately seeing the rise of an Iranian-Shia empire, which will soon take on the entire gulf region.

I think the US has effectively not only lost iraq, but it has handed over Iraq's oil wealth to iran.

You have any proof for this?

 

[The_Halfmoon]

I have been looking into this for the past week, as I'm seeing a pattern between Iraq, Lebanon, and Iran. It really does look like, whether Iraq is partitioned or not, iran is going to control it as it is now controlling much of Lebanon through Hezbolla. I think we're legitimately seeing the rise of an Iranian-Shia empire, which will soon take on the entire gulf region.

I think the US has effectively not only lost iraq, but it has handed over Iraq's oil wealth to iran.

You have any proof for this?

Well yes, I'm saying this based on fairly mainstream conclusions drawn by Middle Eastern and American experts and intelligence officers. books are being written on it, and it's a hot topic of discussion in academic circles. The concept of the Shia revival is based largely on this. Let me dig up an interview which is fairly interesting, but I urge you to look into it though a simple google search.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3YlOYlTgfU]YouTube - Interview with former CIA agent Robert Baer[/ame]

here's an article re: Iran's gain of the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan:

New Persian Empire: Iran Strengthens Its Hand Amid War On Terror - NAM

and here:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/...foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3705

 

[uscitizen]

One question is we find the WMD's? Remember that was why we invaded in the first place.

Chalk on up for the good guys? We have not even validated our reason for invading a sovern nation.

 

[HUGGY]

let me tell you something. If Iran and the USA can negotiate on an even ground. That is, if the Iranians are willing to be rational (and they have proven that, for foreign policy purposes, they ARE) and the Americans can shift their alliance away from the Saudis and towards the Iranians, the US may actually benefit greatly.

Saddam was brutal and insane. He invaded Kuwait which was batshit crazy of him. The US couldn't deal with him at all. Now the Iranians, who want to be dealt with as a power (that is, as Russia or China, instead of a Client state) get their wish, the Americans could be looking at a much more stable partner to administer the Gulf. So, depending on how the long term diplomacy works out, this could be a huge win-win for both Middle East stability, and US interests in the Gulf (namely, the majority of the world's energy resources)

Are you aware of why Saddam invaded Kuwait? First..The Kuwaitis were drilling at the border miles into Iraqi land and stealing oil. Secondly Saddam asked our embassy what the Americans would do if he went into Kuwait to recover what he considered stolen property. Our embassy told him we had no position on the matter. I can provide facts or you can look it up youself. I don't understand the willfull ignorance of my fellow americans. It seems history must change its facts to accomodate anything we do.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

let me tell you something. If Iran and the USA can negotiate on an even ground. That is, if the Iranians are willing to be rational (and they have proven that, for foreign policy purposes, they ARE) and the Americans can shift their alliance away from the Saudis and towards the Iranians, the US may actually benefit greatly.

Saddam was brutal and insane. He invaded Kuwait which was batshit crazy of him. The US couldn't deal with him at all. Now the Iranians, who want to be dealt with as a power (that is, as Russia or China, instead of a Client state) get their wish, the Americans could be looking at a much more stable partner to administer the Gulf. So, depending on how the long term diplomacy works out, this could be a huge win-win for both Middle East stability, and US interests in the Gulf (namely, the majority of the world's energy resources)

Are you aware of why Saddam invaded Kuwait? First..The Kuwaitis were drilling at the border miles into Iraqi land and stealing oil. Secondly Saddam asked our embassy what the Americans would do if he went into Kuwait to recover what he considered stolen property. Our embassy told him we had no position on the matter. I can provide facts or you can look it up youself. I don't understand the willfull ignorance of my fellow americans. It seems history must change its facts to accomodate anything we do.

I'm fully aware of that, and I agree that it is true that Saddam was essentially a client of the US. BUT, he was an IRRATIONAL actor.

For example, observe how Hezbollah conducted the war with Lebanon in the 80s. It had clear strategic goals, but did not advance past them. It was rational and EXTREMELY disciplined. NOT because it was such a nice guy, but because it was careful about its international image. It behaved like Germany, Japan or China.

Saddam was ineffective and had a terrible image. Iran's arm in Lebanon, Hezbollah, builds and supports hospitals, acts like a good guy (even though it's not), to win over people's minds. It is the type of benevolent dictator which could help stabilize the middle east.

 

[HUGGY]

let me tell you something. If Iran and the USA can negotiate on an even ground. That is, if the Iranians are willing to be rational (and they have proven that, for foreign policy purposes, they ARE) and the Americans can shift their alliance away from the Saudis and towards the Iranians, the US may actually benefit greatly.

Saddam was brutal and insane. He invaded Kuwait which was batshit crazy of him. The US couldn't deal with him at all. Now the Iranians, who want to be dealt with as a power (that is, as Russia or China, instead of a Client state) get their wish, the Americans could be looking at a much more stable partner to administer the Gulf. So, depending on how the long term diplomacy works out, this could be a huge win-win for both Middle East stability, and US interests in the Gulf (namely, the majority of the world's energy resources)

Are you aware of why Saddam invaded Kuwait? First..The Kuwaitis were drilling at the border miles into Iraqi land and stealing oil. Secondly Saddam asked our embassy what the Americans would do if he went into Kuwait to recover what he considered stolen property. Our embassy told him we had no position on the matter. I can provide facts or you can look it up youself. I don't understand the willfull ignorance of my fellow americans. It seems history must change its facts to accomodate anything we do.

I'm fully aware of that, and I agree that it is true that Saddam was essentially a client of the US. BUT, he was an IRRATIONAL actor.

For example, observe how Hezbollah conducted the war with Lebanon in the 80s. It had clear strategic goals, but did not advance past them. It was rational and EXTREMELY disciplined. NOT because it was such a nice guy, but because it was careful about its international image. It behaved like Germany, Japan or China.

Saddam was ineffective and had a terrible image. Iran's arm in Lebanon, Hezbollah, builds and supports hospitals, acts like a good guy (even though it's not), to win over people's minds. It is the type of benevolent dictator which could help stabilize the middle east.

I offer no defense of Saddam Hussein as a rational man. What he did was fall into a trap set by our foreign policy. The truth is if the truth be told that all of the leaders in the mid east especially the muslims are brutal assholes. Gudaffi...The Saudis..I mean name one that isn't. When we trumpet up the war mongering machine we conveniently ommit that fact. "Our" neo con military industial/media complex howls to the heavens how bad this one or that one is like they clearly stand out amongst they rest of the murdering assholes. Reality check...first ...these media conglomerates are not ours any more than these thugs they want to steal from after we invade are any different from each other. The painfull truth is that the american viewing public are idiots that will react violently and stupidly any time someone raises the flag and claims we are being threatened. We are a country of frightened morons. The fact that no property of the US has been invaded or has been threatened in more than sixty years never seems to enter into the conversation.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

Are you aware of why Saddam invaded Kuwait? First..The Kuwaitis were drilling at the border miles into Iraqi land and stealing oil. Secondly Saddam asked our embassy what the Americans would do if he went into Kuwait to recover what he considered stolen property. Our embassy told him we had no position on the matter. I can provide facts or you can look it up youself. I don't understand the willfull ignorance of my fellow americans. It seems history must change its facts to accomodate anything we do.

I'm fully aware of that, and I agree that it is true that Saddam was essentially a client of the US. BUT, he was an IRRATIONAL actor.

For example, observe how Hezbollah conducted the war with Lebanon in the 80s. It had clear strategic goals, but did not advance past them. It was rational and EXTREMELY disciplined. NOT because it was such a nice guy, but because it was careful about its international image. It behaved like Germany, Japan or China.

Saddam was ineffective and had a terrible image. Iran's arm in Lebanon, Hezbollah, builds and supports hospitals, acts like a good guy (even though it's not), to win over people's minds. It is the type of benevolent dictator which could help stabilize the middle east.

I offer no defense of Saddam Hussein as a rational man. What he did was fall into a trap set by our foreign policy. The truth is if the truth be told that all of the leaders in the mid east especially the muslims are brutal assholes. Gudaffi...The Saudis..I mean name one that isn't. When we trumpet up the war mongering machine we conveniently ommit that fact. "Our" neo con military industial/media complex howls to the heavens how bad this one or that one is like they clearly stand out amongst they rest of the murdering assholes. Reality check...first ...these media conglomerates are not ours any more than these thugs they want to steal from after we invade are any different from each other. The painfull truth is that the american viewing public are idiots that will react violently and stupidly any time someone raises the flag and claims we are being threatened. We are a country of frightened morons. The fact that no property of the US has been invaded or has been threatened in more than sixty years never seems to enter into the conversation.

I agree with everything you're saying, but want to add one point that I think you may have omitted.

Observe what happened in the June 12 elections in Iran. People, millions, marched on the streets and for the most part were not slaughtered. Saddam GASSED his own people because they rose up against him. In Iran, the government jailed a few hundred, beat them up, executed a few and let them go.

Iran acted cruelly, but acted sort of the way you would expect China or even Russia to respond. As in, it didn't behave like previous Muslim dictators who were for the most part Sunni.

Maybe the word "rational" was wrong of me to use. Maybe the word "competent" is far more accurate. The Shia governments that have been gaining power, in Iraq, Lebanon, etc. have also behaved this "benevolent" way.

I know benevolent for us probably means a whole different thing, but as an Iraqi or an Iranian, the term has a less utopian meaning. I don't think democracy could unite the Muslim world, divided between Sunni/Shia and more importantly, Persian/Arab. But the Shia have made it work, by adopting strategies similar to those of China... which is hardly democratic, but FUNCTIONAL.

The US has an opportunity to hand Iraq over to these people, and I think its long term interests are in doing this. So that's why i say there is a good chance for the US to salvage this situation. But it has to accept that it is being blackmailed and not react violently.

 

[The Rabbi]

Iran's government is hanging on by a thread. There is large internal dissent (not helped by the Obama Administration I might add) and disagreement. To call that "competent" is to redefine competence beyond recognition.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

Iran's government is hanging on by a thread. There is large internal dissent (not helped by the Obama Administration I might add) and disagreement. To call that "competent" is to redefine competence beyond recognition.

That flies against absolutely ALL evidence. The June 12th riots were a reaction against a coup by the IRGC to control the building and oil contracts throughout the country. The clerics controlling the current economy respond to Rafsanjani and are represented by him.

I watched all the pre-election debates, and Ahmedinejad made clear mention of removing "corruption" by the clerical elite. Iran has gone from fragile clerical rule to a direct military dictatorship led by the IRGC commanders and the Bazaris.

And even if the regime collapsed, don't be confused. Mousavi is absolutely an Iranian nationalist and as anti-American as it gets. It's a fight about who is going to rule the future of the economy, which will be revived if sanctions are lifted. There is no going back for the Iranian country.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks for agreeing with me.
I think.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

Again, the word "competent" as in "benevolent" have to be taken into context.

No, Iran is not Germany. Yes, the government is still very far from being even India or China. But it IS like China around the time of Tienmen square. The government easily stayed in power. Although it was weak, the society remained under the rule of law and the government was able to reform quickly. Or the collapse of Russia... Russia suffered, but it didn't look like the Balkans or Central Asia after their withdrawal from the Soviet Union.

There is a centralized, competent government. Whoever is in power, the machinare of social control is well established. Something that is not true of Iraq today, but the Iranians may understand how to control the Shia majority better than Saddam, who did so brutally. I don't buy any argument that they would mass murder Sunnis or something ridiculous like that.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK you are starting to post word salads with little coherence. There is no sense arguing against someone who thinks "competent" and "benevolent" mean about the same thing.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

OK you are starting to post word salads with little coherence. There is no sense arguing against someone who thinks "competent" and "benevolent" mean about the same thing.

I mean competent and benevolent are RELATIVE terms. They're the MOST competent and MOST benevolent in a region where brutal and corrupt dictators rule.

Hezbollah is never going to be appealing to Westerners and Westernized people. But you don't see money disappearing from their war chest. They are capable of ruling in the Middle East without excessive repression. That is all I'm saying. It is a logical partner for both the US and Israel, so long as it concedes Israel's right to exist... and the US has carrots which can entice them to behave.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

Thanks, I enjoyed the argument and maybe we'll get back to it, but I have to get going.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks, I enjoyed the argument and maybe we'll get back to it, but I have to get going.

There is a god.....

 

[Toronado3800]

thanks to Jihadist supporters at State Dept and in Congress aka: Democrats) we hit all our strategic objective! That's calling winning!!

We trained up the ISF to be the most lethal force in the Middle East probably including the IDF (sorry, Israel, you better do more than just show up next time

1. I really don't know if we won or not, or for that matter why we were there. Guess we'll see in ten or twenty years and base it on how much support we give Iraq vs the new country's actions. I'm sure we can kick Paraguay's butt and more or less establish a government also. Question remains why?

2. lol @ the Israeli Defense Force comment. Ridiculous statements like that show a certain level of military intelligence.

Oh, and never take anything I say about U.S. or Bush's foreign policy as being "against the troops".