Fifteen die as US helicopter downed

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
61

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

My beef is that this thread has gotten a great deal of attention because it's 15 American soldiers who passed away.
[/QUOTE]

Actually this thread has received the attention it has because people are celebrating their deaths. I don't believe there are to many threads here mourning the lives of U.S. soldiers, if I'm wrong please let me know.

There are those here politicizing Iraqi deaths not because they care for these people but because it makes the U.S. looks bad, I hope you do recognize that. These same people who are gloating over the death of Americans and using the deaths of innocent Iraqis to promote anti-Americanism and are ones that support the resistance in Iraq which includes attacking the UN and the Red Cross. Do you really think this is what Iraqis want? Iraqis want security for their families and jobs for themselves so that they may bring food home to their children. Those fighting the U.S. in Iraq aren't fighting against the occupation they are fighting for occupation so that they may impose their rule upon the people Iraq. The U.S. is striving to create conditions in Iraq so that the people of Iraq with the help of the world may rebuild their country and live in a free society, the U.S. is gambling that the people of Iraq want to be free to make their own choices and follow beliefs they choose to follow or not follow. That is what the extremist fear.

62

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome: *
**These same people who are gloating over the death of Americans and using the deaths of innocent Iraqis to promote anti-Americanism and are ones that support the resistance in Iraq which includes attacking the UN and the Red Cross. Do you really think this is what Iraqis want? Iraqis want security for their families and jobs for themselves so that they may bring food home to their children. Those fighting the U.S. in Iraq aren't fighting against the occupation they are fighting for occupation so *that they may impose their rule upon the people Iraq.*
[/QUOTE]

Look back over history. Look back at which companies are receiving the moola for 'reconstruction' contracts in Iraq. Look back at US relations with Iraq since the beginning of the 20th century. Look back at the US relationship with Saddam Hussein. i think virtually everyone wants to "impose their rule" upon the people of Iraq.
If this was truly about security, jobs and food for the people of Iraq - then the US would have done its so-called "good" deed of the day and quit after they ousted Hussein and transferred all authority to the UN. Sticking around after then to impose their own version of democracy a la Karzai style, making sure that the 'reconstruction' contracts for the next 15/20 years go to American companies (Haliburton), don't really impress me much with any sort of more altruistic purpose for being there. Lots of other countries (albeit they are lacking in oil) are also ruled by dictators, lots of people in other countries go each day without security, food, or jobs. Are we going to do our benevolent act and invade each of these countries ? No, of course not. What makes Iraq so special that even the UN should not have authority over it - i am at a loss to understand.

63

Nadia,

Do a little research on how well the UN has administered post war Bosnia, a far easier task. There are lots of emerging stories of corruption, incompetance, fraud and inefficiency.

Now please answer a question. If the US has spent 10 billion of Myvoices' money so far, and projects spending another 87Billion, where is the profit for the US? For the most part the reconstruction contracts are simply management contracts. A huge portion of the dollars go to Iraqi subcontractors. (and frankly why shouldn't US money be administered by American companies?) Is it your contention that the war was STARTED simply to provide profits to cronies? Let's not forget that the companies you are talking about have done such things as engineer the Chunnel, and build out the largest of oil fields. The number of companies with the expertise, and personnel willing to go into near combat zones is pretty slim. and don't forget, the 87Billion is a GIFT, not a loan.

So in your mind, why did the US go to war? We certainly are not going to profit from this! Our soldiers are dying. It was an incredible risk to Bush's political career. And please do not forget that there were very few Democrats who objected on the floor of the House or Senate. What did make Saddam unique?

One thing is very certain. After going to war, continued low grade conflict in a portion of Iraq will not deter the US. As you can imagine, the US military is digging into the area of conflict. As the North and South are increasingly peaceful (when was the last British soldier killed?) more US troops will be available to deal with the trouble areas. The CIA will form a network of informers, Iraqi's themselves will tire of the conflict. So by this time next year will things be better or worse in Iraq? If there is substantial measurable progress, and the economy continues to boom, Bush will be reelected easily.

The anti-US contingent on these boards swoons at every US death thinking that the sky is falling. Before 9/11 the casualties in Iraq would have rattled the US public. Things have changed. US presidents think in only two time frames, the next election, and the first history book after his retirement.

I have had a number of conversations with military officers in my community. Within the US military, (and I am talking about some top military planners at the local naval War College), almost no one predicted a complet melt down of all civilian rule in Iraq. Almost every one felt that some general would emerge, with a number of divisions of Rebublican Guard who would insure security in exchange for a seat on the ruling counsel. The option that happened was called "cataclysmic victory". Your idea of the "good deed of the day is hopelessly naive. It would take a year or more to assemble a force of 130k men to provide security through the UN. It would make the administration of the country hopelessly complex, and finding enough troops would be a long shot.

What was special about Saddam?

First he outlasted sanctions, which used to be the weapon of choice for lefties like Chomsky, and the UN. He wrote a new rulebook that said that if you are hopelessly cruel to your people you can outlast the rule of the world. That cannot be allowed to stand.

Second, he is sitting on a huge pile of wealth. The minute sanctions are lifted, his weapons programs would have been fully funded and rolling again.

Third, he had two sons more blood thirsty than he, and with even less judgement. Uday and Qusay would have guranteed thirty more years of turmoil in the area.

Fourth, he was by all accounts a genocidal tyrant. How many genocides does one get?

It is the Nexus of risk that made is downfall inevitable.

64

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**and don't forget, the 87Billion is a GIFT, not a loan.*
[/quote]

As i asked, how many orphanages, schools, and hospitals will be constructed with this "gift"? What's the precise number? What's the actual proportion of this $87 billion going towards Iraq's health infrastructure as opposed to rebuilding its oil industry?

[quote]
We certainly are not going to profit from this!
[/quote]

Come again? The US won't profit from having a pliable Iraqi "president" in place, one who is less uppity than Hussein?

[quote]
What did make Saddam unique?
[/quote]

What makes most Arab dictatorships unique ? Certainly not their export of bananas.

[quote]
As the North and South are increasingly peaceful (when was the last British soldier killed?)....
[/quote]

i believe it was this past Friday (31 October), but was only reported by the media three days later. However i read this somewhere last night, and i am sorry i don't have the reference saved.

[quote]
*So by this time next year will things be better or worse in Iraq? If there is substantial measurable progress, and the economy continues to boom, Bush will be reelected easily. *
[/quote]

Are you referring to the Iraqi economy or the American economy ? i am worried about Bush's reelection but that is not the yardstick i use to measure "progress" by. Genuine progress, for me, is how many children get vaccinated, how many pregnant women have access to a basic level of healthcare service, how many orphanages are constructed, how much social-financial support the widows of Iraqi soldiers will receive.

[quote]
Your idea of the "good deed of the day is hopelessly naive. It would take a year or more to assemble a force of 130k men to provide security through the UN. It would make the administration of the country hopelessly complex, and finding enough troops would be a long shot.
[/quote]

Why shoot down the idea before it is even attempted ? Muslim and some European countries could supply peacekeepers - Bangladesh, Indonesia, Norway, Denmark - as four examples right off the bat.

[quote]
[Saddam] wrote a new rulebook that said that if you are hopelessly cruel to your people you can outlast the rule of the world. That cannot be allowed to stand.
[/quote]

"Hopelessly cruel" ? Hopelessly cruel is the genocide of 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, in Rwanda. How was that situation any different than your descriptions of Hussein's atrocities?

[quote]
*Second, he is sitting on a huge pile of wealth. The minute sanctions are lifted, his weapons programs would have been fully funded and rolling again. *
[/quote]

We have been through this so many times, it is not even funny.

[quote]
Third, he had two sons more blood thirsty than he, and with even less judgement. Uday and Qusay would have guranteed thirty more years of turmoil in the area.
[/quote]

Pretty much any tinpot Arab dictator's son is like Uday and Qusay, give or take a few dozen playboy magazines.

[quote]
Fourth, he was by all accounts a genocidal tyrant. How many genocides does one get?
[/quote]

i am not certain. Ask the people in Rwanda.

[quote]
*It is the Nexus of risk that made is downfall inevitable.
[/QUOTE]
*
And it is the refusal to allow foreign forces to occupy their country, that will make Dubby's downfall inevitable as well.

Please your turn now, OG, to answer a few of my queries. Firstly, when do you anticipate that the US will install a new 'president' in Iraq and entirely withdraw all of its forces subsequent to handing over power to the Iraqis? i mean, afterall, Bush HAS stated hasn't he in public that the US has no intention of staying there a day longer than necessary. So when does this date arrive? Within the next five years ? Three years? Ten years ?

i want to know precisely what proportion of the $87 billion will go towards the social, sewage, health, and educational infrastructures. Remember, whatever we have stated about Hussein, it is a FACT that pre-sanctions Iraq was one of the most advanced Arab countries, on a par with Greece when it came to some of its medical indicators.

As far as dictators go... close your eyes and pick any Arab country at random. Chances are you will have a betterlooking version of Saddam Hussein running most Arab countries. Are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait next ? i know they have not committed any "genocides" yet, but they aren't exactly gleaming shining examples of human rights beacons either.

65

The theory is that if Iraq is a free society and the people embrace that then perhaps it will spread throughout the region evaporating support for extremist thus helping the U.S. and the coalitions war on terror.

Not handing it over to the UN is political and can be discussed in another thread if you wish.

66

UTD, are u sure about that theory. Because if this theory proves correct, and there are elections in lets say Saudia Arabia, who do u think is most likely to win. And lets just not think about democracy, what do you think will happen to the oil prices worldwide. Surely the newly elected govt. will not selflessly raise the production to counter any price hike. What will they gain by that??
With prices running at 100$ a barrel, how will you ever be able to drive that SUV of yours.

67

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome: *
**The theory is that if Iraq is a free society and the people embrace that then perhaps....*
[/QUOTE]

That theory has yet to prove itself in reality, in my personal opinion. An unwilling society has never found foreign implementation of "democracy", to be acceptable.

68

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *

I don't believe there are to many threads here mourning the lives of U.S. soldiers, if I'm wrong please let me know.

[/QUOTE]

Ah...is that what is bothering you? There is not many (if any) threads by American's mourning the deaths of the 9000 plus civilians killed by the US military in Iraq, including little kids and babies. In fact there are threads where people like you and other American's making countless excuses for the killings of innocent Iraq's by American troops. The list of excuses in endless.

There is thread after thread that has been posted by the American's celebrating the "shock and awe" operations of the US military which led to 9000 plus Iraqi civilians being killed, which you have praised as well. In fact you have gone step further and posted threads when Iraqi's have been killed, remarked about the positive effect on the US markets of such a thing, not to mention when you posted a thread making light of Arafat's illness. Hypocrisy.

69

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Actually this thread has received the attention it has because people are celebrating their deaths. I don't believe there are to many threads here mourning the lives of U.S. soldiers, if I'm wrong please let me know....
[/QUOTE]

May be when 15 US soldiers die in a car/bus accident in Germany or other "peaceful area" you'll get the condolences (what the heck is its spelling)... but being killed as part of illegal occupying forces does not really win any sympathies.

70

Armed Resistance to an invading force (which the US is) is acceptable under international law. Soliders die all the time. What else is new? Its collateral damage as far as i am concerned. You want your boys out tell Bush. Dont bang on us when we see the enemy losing morale and people.

71

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *

May be when 15 US soldiers die in a car/bus accident in Germany or other "peaceful area" you'll get the condolences (what the heck is its spelling)... but being killed as part of illegal occupying forces does not really win any sympathies.
[/QUOTE]

Changez, these people have been praising the bombing campaign known as "shock and awe" - which has killed well over 9000 Iraqi civilians, calling for daisy cutters to go into action in civilian towns, boasting of the postive impact on the US markets after Iraqi's are killed, and making fun when leaders in the Muslim world have health problems. The hypocrisy in unbelievable.