General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2276455

    Will Iraq ever achieve stability …


    by jardinier ·

    without the permanent presence of a large number of occupying troops, presumably mostly from the US?

    Please note. As promised earlier, I will not make any adverse comments on the leaders of any nations until such time as they make some new move or policy which invites comment.

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3295589

      Maybe someday

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to Will Iraq ever achieve stability …

      I think that will be accomplished someday but any time soon so don’t hold you breath. Keep in mind that the planning for winning this war was fairly okay, but they failed miserably for winning the peace, and the administration is not pointing out any clear plan for this either. In the mean time, more American soldiers and innocent Iraqis are dying out there, which increases the chances of a future civil war.

    • #3295585

      If Good Fences Make Good Neighbors…

      by admin ·

      In reply to Will Iraq ever achieve stability …

      Good borders make good countries. Iraq will never achieve lasting peace as it’s borders were not set up to make good neighbors. The factions that make up Iraq are too far apart in ideology and belief to bring unification in a way everyone there can live with.

      It would be much easier to merge The United States, Canada and Mexico than to ever bring about a unified Iraq IMO.

      • #3295539

        I don’t know about that

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to If Good Fences Make Good Neighbors…

        I have no problem with Mexico – they have good food and culture. What could the Canadians bring to the table? ;o) Just kidding you guys!

        • #3295510

          There were several articles recently

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I don’t know about that

          about either massive immigration from the US to Canada as a result of the election results, or having a the northern states who vote democrat merge with Canada.

          There are socologists who have basically extrapolated that Albertans and Montanans are more alike than Albertans and Ontarians. And Ontarians and New Yorkers are more alike…etc.

          Apparently the web traffic from the US to the Canadian gov’t immigration website has gone up from 20,000 hits a day to over 100,000.

          All of this is covered in the major newpapers – so google away if you are interested.


    • #3295540

      Sooner or later

      by protiusx ·

      In reply to Will Iraq ever achieve stability …

      Iraq is one of many Arabic countries of which none has ever known a democratic form of government. The concept is as foreign to them as baseball and hot dogs. I must say that I would not have attempted to enforce a specific form of government on the area. I would have approached the different ethnic factions in the area and asked them to join together in a loose confederacy and divided the region along ethnic lines and then got the heck out of dodge. I know that some of my detractors will scoff at the division of Iraq based along ethnic lines but this is something the Arab nations know and are comfortable with. Divisions along family lines are deeply engrained into the people in that region and would have prevented blood shed.
      With that said I do believe that Iraq will one day be a reasonably safe place to live for Iraqi and Arab peoples. This will only be achieved once the political and ideological battles have been decided in the area. One must ask ones self ?why are the combatants in the area fighting as they do?? I think it is clear that there is a large force of non-Iraqi Muslim extremists in the area that are using Iraq as a battle ground to hurt the US. Their hatred of us will not stop once we?ve left the area as the new Iraqi government is seen as being a puppet to the US. If this government is to succeed it will do so only on the backs of Iraqi?s that are sick and tired of extremist ideology. One can look at Iraq as a model of our country during our revolution. During that time the ideas of freedom and democracy where vague and foreign to us as well.

      • #3295514

        Not how the US got its start

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to Sooner or later

        American ideas of freedom and democracy were actually pretty well developed during our revolution. Unlike Iran, we had a common law tradition that grew out of English everyday life, and we had been largely self-governing, with legislatures running for a long time… in the case of Virginia, for 150 years.

        • #3295496

          You are correct

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Not how the US got its start

          My analogy (if not all together a good one) was intended to point out that this area of the world and these groups of people have not known of Democracy before. They are closely aligned by family and tribal lines and hold to a traditional mistrust of anything western and new. I believe it to be a mistake to impose on them a form of government that they do not wish for themselves.
          That is not to say that I disagree with our actions in Iraq to date. I am merely suggesting (for the sake of this forum) that we could have done things differently once we took Saddam from power.

      • #3295488

        Just a thought.

        by cortech ·

        In reply to Sooner or later

        In the Middle East, religious and ethnic factions have been fighting for centuries. I agree that our ideas of democracy are as foreign to their way of thinking, as their ideals are to us.
        I don’t think real stability, as we define it, will ever exist. It doesn’t seem to be in their nature. (No ethnic stereotyping intended) But, if the Iraqi people would or could stand up to the fanaticals they might have a chance of some sort of peace.

        • #3312836

          Perhaps your right

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Just a thought.

          A good point and well said.

    • #3295506

      Not if the US stays for too long

      by delbertpgh ·

      In reply to Will Iraq ever achieve stability …

      Right now Iraq’s stability depends on the US stomping down the insurgency. But to succeed, it has to be done right, and done fast.

      We are already hated by a large and growing fraction of the Iraqi population. At some point, every hundred insurgents killed will be replaced by more than a hundred new ones, and once that begins, it will be impossible for us to leave cleanly.

      Of course, if we screw up the counter-insurgency, and then don’t recognize the time to leave, we could be there fighting fruitlessly for many years. At the end of which, we leave like we left Viet Nam, tail between our legs, and a government collapsing behind us.

      • #3312475
        Avatar photo

        But even worse

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Not if the US stays for too long

        If that was to happen every tin pot fool would see America as an “Easy Target” who where unable to even keep one little country {Iraq} under control.

        I personally believe that we are seeing the beginning of the uniting of a lot of the Radical Muslims into a more solid fighting force and if Arafat dies there will be no one to wield power over them to keep the killing to a minimum.


        • #3312316

          Arafat didn’t stabilize much

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to But even worse

          I wouldn’t credit Arafat with being a force for stability or moderation. His leadership is corrupt and incompetent, and can only endure by keeping Palestinians whooped up about fighting Israel. If they actually had time to think seriously about all the lies, bribes, and murder it takes to keep the PLO in power, they would have gotten rid of him. A lot of Palestinians are bitter about their lousy government, but cannot get a forum going in the middle of a war. Arafat doesn’t know how to lead anything but a war, and the way his party is constructed, he would collapse if the state of war ended.

          I think it will be very, very bad if we leave Iraq without attaining any worthwhile goals, other than over throwing its government. It’s an extremely hard place to win in. I wish GWB had picked an easier stage for his showcase-of-democracy project.

        • #3312238
          Avatar photo

          To be fair

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Arafat didn’t stabilize much

          Arafat always was and always will be a Terrorist. His entire organization the PLO is a Terror Organization remember the Achilles Laura “or however it was spelled”?

          But having said that he is now considered a Moderate? compared to the splinter groups in his organization which are now sick and tired of waiting for their promised victory. While I do agree that a lot of the “Moderate” Palestine’s don’t like him the actions of that area are making this number smaller every day. Now if he dies without naming a preferred leader which is most likely because he never allowed anyone enough power within the PLO as they would have become a threat to him I can see that group splintering into thousands of individual core groups each trying to outdo the other in horrendous attacks upon their perceived enemy, namely the Jewish State and their Supporters.

          How it ever came about that a known Terrorists was accepted as a Political leader is quite beyond me and the fact that he was elevated to his current position mainly by the Media only shows that he had at least the right idea in getting his people to follow him. Also the fact that he survived so many assignation attempts might have helped but even then I seriously wonder if they where staged as Mosard tends to work fairly effectively and if they really wanted him dead I can not see him living so long.


        • #3313307

          Also, Remember Israel illegally grabbed their land.

          by admin ·

          In reply to To be fair

          What would you do if your people were allowed to live on land that was located on Israels weakest neighbor, and then The State of Israel came in and took it by force? They are a desperate people, and although Arafat should not have become a political leader, if the US would have not turned a blind eye to, or even supported the State of Israels aggression towards its neighbors there would have never been any real support for Arafat.

          The nation of Israel was blessed by the west in setting up their original borders and they spit on this by becoming hostile and aggressive towards their neighbors. Now it has been so long that it’s a huge mess. Still, Israel should be forced to move back to the original borders by our country- The United States of America. After they have returned to their borders, then we should help keep those borders safe from both sides fairly. This would go farther than anything else possible to bring peace to that region and the world today. It is the right thing to do.

          This is not a justification- Terrorism is wrong. To fight it in any realistic sense though, you must first actually understand how it came to be a choice for anyone in a situation. To truly fight terrorism in this situation the legal borders must be restored.

        • #3312846
          Avatar photo

          If you think Israel will ever consider giving up

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Also, Remember Israel illegally grabbed their land.

          The Golan Heights you are in GA GA land as it is by far to strategically important to both sides.

          As far as the West bank goes I agree that Israel should be forced to pull back to the pre 6 day war borders but even that wall that they are building to place a uncrossable line between both sides is always in Israels best interests at the cost of Palestine.


        • #3312638

          That is why they should be forced back.

          by admin ·

          In reply to If you think Israel will ever consider giving up

          You do have a point about the Golan Heights. Israel could propose an exchange on the West Bank, or if it was removed by force then perhaps a third party peace-keeping force should maintain the Golan Heights.

          At any rate, the U.S. should intervene there if we want to militarily attempt peace in the Middle East.

          Than again, perhaps peace is not what we are really trying to effect.

        • #3312601
          Avatar photo

          Actually the Israel Jordon Border

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to If you think Israel will ever consider giving up

          Seems like the most peaceful place in the entire area. They only shoot at each other occasional just to let the other side know that they are still there.
          But now that it is official that Arafat is dead I can not help but wonder what is going to happen now with the West Bank and other areas that should be Palestine.


        • #3313111

          Consider this…

          by packet spoofer ·

          In reply to Also, Remember Israel illegally grabbed their land.

          I am no expert on this subject, but from what I have seen, Isreal is constantly being told to give land in exchange for peace….if you just give them what they want…
          Why is it that most of Isreals neighbors want to extinguish them from existence????…The whole world body (UN) unanimously recognized Isreal as a soveriegn nation….why would they do this to people that illegally grabbed land…

    • #3313304

      Reply To: Will Iraq ever achieve stability …

      by packet spoofer ·

      In reply to Will Iraq ever achieve stability …

      Not if almost half of our country refuses to unite behind the president to stomp out terrorism….

      • #3313284

        If it only was possible…Terrorism cannot be stomped out

        by admin ·

        In reply to Reply To: Will Iraq ever achieve stability …

        Terrorism cannot be stomped out. It is like a great fire that stomping only spreads and fans. The fanned flames are called martyrs and the spread is called revolt.

        The way to control a fire like this is to cut off it’s fuel, not by stomping in it.

        • #3313607

          We tried that for 30 years…

          by packet spoofer ·

          In reply to If it only was possible…Terrorism cannot be stomped out

          It is not time to play nicey with the terrorists. They must be beaten down…..I just cannot agree….there comes a time to fight and there is a cost….and it takes a vision that when the dust settles, peace will once again prevail…..

        • #3312920

          Show me anywhere in history when Terrorism has been wiped out….

          by admin ·

          In reply to We tried that for 30 years…

          Show me anywhere in history when terrorism has been wiped off the earth by force and lasting peace has prevailed.

          You can’t. It starts at least as far back as Cain and Able and goes on yet today.

          You can eliminate a specific target like Al-Qaeda but Terrorism will never be stopped. Could they stop the Terrorists that threw the tea in Boston?

          You have been duped if you really believe that one. Specific Terrorists Targets can successfully be stopped by force- Terrorism on the other hand can never be stomped out.

          I am not a peacenik. I will support and use force when necessary. It’s not about force or nothing or force or peace- it’s about choosing the appropriate target.

        • #3312917

          Sir, with all due respect….

          by packet spoofer ·

          In reply to Show me anywhere in history when Terrorism has been wiped out….

          Broadening the definition of terrorism to include the perpetrators of the boston tea party, highlights the problem between our point of view….There is no moral equivilence between terrorism and the Boston tea party…

        • #3312844

          Ask the British of the day…

          by admin ·

          In reply to Sir, with all due respect….

          the tea party was only a symbol, that is true. But the British stood and fought for their own property at the time and we introduced guerrila warfare, cutting and running and generally disregarding the rules of war at the time.

          Personally, I am glad we did. The tactics were low blows, but for a good cause. Even England is better for it now that the Monarchy is basically useless.

          Terrorism is only a method and with all due respect has no morality attached to it directly. To intimidate someone into doing something can be a good thing. “Shock and Awe” for instance was meant to show overwhelming Terror . I support that. It depends on what it is used for.

          What we do need to identify and stop are specific Terrorist organizations. I am not broadening the term. The term is being narrowed to garner massive support but it is misguided. Everyone wishes Terrorism was not a reality- but it is, and I believe we should continue to use it as a tool when it is appropriate and continue to bravely and honestly face our place in this world.

        • #3312840
          Avatar photo

          WRONG that depends on which side of the fence you are STANDING

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Sir, with all due respect….

          What you have to remember here is that the Boston Tea Party was the beginning of the end of British Rule in the Americas and it was the winner who wrote your history.

          If you are to look at every battle between the rebels and the British Rulers you will find terror tactics used against the British. Exactly the same thing is happening today in Iraq where a city is under attack and the leaders have withdrawn to a safer place to begin launching their attacks again. Just like the Rabble who fought the British in what you would call “The War of Independence!”

          Have a good think on that before you start raising a flag and waving it for others to follow.


        • #3313116

          Col…can you please explain to me…

          by packet spoofer ·

          In reply to WRONG that depends on which side of the fence you are STANDING

          When did we go to england and Bomb and behead innocent civilians…These terrorists are not the moral equivilent of the people of the american revolution…I can see where you are coming from…rising up and rebelling….but to say that flying planes into civilian filled buildings….bombing cafe’s and pizzarias and busses is equivilent….that is just not true..

        • #3313101


          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to WRONG that depends on which side of the fence you are STANDING

          While I think the analogy doesn’t quite hold true, you can’t dismiss it totally.

          The Rebels did use tactics that were unconventional and radical for their time. Hit and run, ambush etc., were not considered civilized by European armies.

          And many loyalists were driven from their homes by rebels – some were tarred and feathered, some run out on a rail, some had their places burned. Do you think its more humane to tar and feather someone than to kill them? Think about it – they didn’t have burn units back then, tarring and feathering would have left a person in agonizing pain for years. Is this not the use of terror for political purposes? Isn’t that what terrorism is? And while it may have been directed at adult males, it certainly negatively affected women and children as well. But of course the winner gets to write the story.

          And of course there are other examples in modern history. When the area that became Isreal was run by the British, there were jewish terrorists that used bombs in public areas (King David Hotel), as well as ambushes and assasinations. But of course, the winner gets to write the story.


        • #3313043
          Avatar photo

          I’ll be happy to explain

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to WRONG that depends on which side of the fence you are STANDING

          The proper definition of terrorism is

          Main Entry: ter?ror?ism
          Pronunciation: ‘ter-&r-“i-z&m
          Function: noun
          : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
          – ter?ror?ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
          – ter?ror?is?tic /”ter-&r-‘is-tik/ adjective

          Now I’ll be the first to admit that durring the War of Independence the US militia didn’t fly commercial jet aircraft into British Buildings but but at the same time they did not have things like this to use. The Militia fought a constant rearguard action for the first few years of the war and followed the scorched earth policy denying the British from obtaining supplies from the land. This also meant that vast numbers of fellow American civilians where forcible displaced to hinder the British advance. Also any suspected sympathizers to the British where harshly dealt with by the Militia they not only had their homes destroyed and families split up but more often than not where left with hideous scars to scare others off from offering any support to the British.

          The same type of thing happened in the Transvaal durring the Boar War and was used very effectively by the Dutch farmers who in reality had no chance of standing up against the British Army so they concocted other means of fighting the British.

          They used hit and run tactics and torture for gaining information from the enemy. If you where to have a close look at the methods employed by the Dutch and the Americans in their respective wars you will find them both similar.

          And while the American solders didn’t behead their prisoners they did line them up against a wall and shot them {I believe you call it a firing squad.} Where you are missing the point is that you seem to think that the destruction of a whole building is the only form of terror but back in the days of your War of Independence you didn’t have access to this type of thing so your people used what was at hand.

          If my memory serves me correctly it was durring that war where a submarine was first used in an attempt to break the blockade of a harbor. Now it may not seem like much now days but back then if you where a sailor and something came from under the water and destroyed the Boat that you where a crew member on that would be just as terrifying as seeing a jet aircraft bearing down upon you. If not more so as at that stage this had never happened previously and would be unexplainable.

          Terror takes many forms and the whole idea it to strike fear into the enemy, it is even more effective when it comes unexpectedly with common items that no one would think of as being dangerous.


        • #3312842
          Avatar photo

          Well remember this

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to We tried that for 30 years…

          The British thought the same way and brought about over 400 years of terrorist war between Ireland and the UK.

          The good old “Gun Boat Diplomacy” failed miserably in India which was split due to religious lines into two countries Pakistan and India and even then the rapid retreat beat by the British left hundreds of thousands on the wrong side of the line and left to fend for themselves mostly they where murdered.

          That conflict continues today.

          What is currently going on is nothing more than a Knee Jerk Reaction to something that was previously unthinkable to most US citizens and so their Government had to look as if they where doing something to keep the peace.

          But what ever made them think that Iraq would be an easy battle is beyond me. All it is achieving is to unite the fanatical Religious Muslims to band together and attack their perceived main hated enemy America!

          A Gulf War Veteran asked me just why did I think that it was Iraq that was next in line after the mess in Afghanistan was left virtually unattended leaving the drug lords to run vast areas of the country.

          My response was that Iraq could not expect to stand against the might of the COW forces where as every other country mentioned had the ability to fight to a stalemate. But that now appears to be happening in Iraq.

          The real trouble here is that American civilian’s are unable to comprehend that some others in the world just might not like them all that much and that shotting the living daylights out of some place and then stopping to ask questions may prove far more counter productive than other means that are likely to work better.

          Besides GWB telling you that Iraq was involved in terrorist activities what real proof has ever been offered to prove this point. Your Allie in the UK has had to admit that he was wrong and made a mistake. Unfortunately most Americans are unable to accept that a mistake has been made and what is by far worse if a definitive win doesn’t happen soon you are proving to the world that you are not the super power that you think you are. If a handful of poorly organized religious fanatics are capable of bring the Mighty USA to a stand still others will see this as an opportunity to launch their own attacks on your homeland.

          When the War on Terror was started most of the world was behind your actions it was only when your leader started becoming a megalomaniac that support started dropping off and is continuing to do so for your actions. I think you are going to be learning a very nasty lesson.

          Incidental do not think that it is the Muslim menace who is at fault here as if you look back to what was once Yugoslavia it was the Christians who where responsible for attempting to wipe off the face of the earth the other religions in their country.


        • #3312794

          Needed to win: commitment, purse, and a fair chance

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to We tried that for 30 years…

          If you’re going to take on a struggle that will cost lives and money and political resources for years, you need a good reason for the commitment. Otherwise, your country will grow tired of the sacrifice, and leaders will doubt the rationale. Remember Viet Nam? Was winning it worth a year of struggle and maybe 2,000 G.I.s? Sure, if it’s easy, why not? Seven years and 58,000 lives, and still no sight of the end? Nope. We bailed.

          Open-ended commitments are expensive in terms of cash. We haven’t yet tried to balance our books; we’ve just put the whole bill for Iraq on credit. If it goes on long enough, you have to stop putting it on the tab, and start putting down cash. That means budget cuts for other worthy items. Remember, we’re already running a half trillion dollar federal budget deficit, and a half trillion dollar trade deficit; our currency has dropped 25% in value in the last year; and we depend on foreigners to put their savings into our bonds, so we can keep on doing it. We could be heading for money trouble, in a big way, soon.

          But also needed is a fight we can win. It’s not easy turning a socialist country into a thriving capitalist society. It’s not easy turning a dictatorship into a democracy. It’s not easy making three mutually hostile peoples (Shiite, Kurd, and Sunni) share wealth and power cooperatively. It’s not easy building political and legal traditions where none existed before. It’s not easy doing all of these things in the midst of revolution, sabotage, and crime. And it’s hard, above all, to turn Arab and Muslim peoples back toward the modern era, and away from the medieval and the radical and the murdering martyrdom they more and more idolize. While we occupy one of their countries and shoot them, no less.

          We’ve got ourselves a heck of a fight. You can bet your Social Security on that. (The master strategist in the White House already has.) Hope we’ve got the sticking power, the money, and a fair chance to win.

        • #3312672
          Avatar photo

          Regarding the 3 mutually hostile people

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Needed to win: commitment, purse, and a fair chance

          I would say you where putting that one mildly as a more general response would have been something about “Hating each others Guts and taking every opportunity to kill each other off!” The only thing that was preventing them previously was their mutual Hatred for the previous ruler now that has been removed they just have to revert to form.


        • #3312632

          Saddam’s techniques

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Regarding the 3 mutually hostile people

          I think it was not hatred of Saddam that kept the factions from killing each other. I think it was being too scared of the boss to worry about your rivals.

          I’ve wondered if it takes a Saddam to run Iraq. I wonder if the country is just so fractious that only rule by terror will hold it together.

        • #3312603
          Avatar photo

          It seems to be that way in that part of the world

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Saddam’s techniques

          Even Turkey has its own problems with the Kurds living within its borders wanting their own homeland.

          India was a prime example of breaking up a country along religious lines and that didn’t work out all that well either.

          I really wish I had a better answer but currently Saddam ways seems like the best available in Iraq. With him in power there was never the problem of outsiders coming in causing problems like there is today. Even the most Radical Religious people kept a very low profile.

          The current administration I think is doomed to fail because anyone who is willing to take on power lives under the constant threat of having members of their family kidnapped and killed unless they do as they are instructed and that is no way to run a country constantly giving into the faction that has the loudest mouthpiece. Even if that was accepted there would be other factions who would do the same thing for different results.


        • #3313102

          So do I Del…..

          by packet spoofer ·

          In reply to Needed to win: commitment, purse, and a fair chance

          So do I……

    • #3312667

      The same has been said before

      by ippirate ·

      In reply to Will Iraq ever achieve stability …

      In such places as most of mainland Europe through history and post-cold war Russia. You can also include Japan, China, South Africa, as well as a lot of Central and South America. Some are better examples than others and some have gone a lot farther down the path of stability than others but all have stabilized (sometimes in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds/internal opposition) or are in the latter processes.

      Is Iraq going to be different? I think yes, in it’s own right, it is one of several nations in a region known the world over for being unstable to begin with.

Viewing 5 reply threads