Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Going into Iraq

  1. #1
    Low Tech grunt iris lily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,942

    Going into Iraq

    wait, didn't we just leave? We sent a warship, now "military advisors," but there will NOT be boots on the grounds, no there will not, the Prez says so.

    We've always been at war with Eurasia.

    More sounds of crickets on this website about our President and his Iraq strategy. Chirp.......Chirp.....

  2. #2
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    11,477
    And again, the Pink People For Peace who were actively protesting the war(s) here every day/week on our Village Green have been not seen once since Obama was elected.

    Chirp....chirp....

  3. #3
    Senior Member Yossarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lily View Post
    We've always been at war with Eurasia.
    Never get involved in a land war in Asia
    ~Vizzini

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    9,656
    I think it's more confusing to oppose reentry in a war the U.S. already started (the U.S. is THE reason Iraq is such a mess), as opposed to a brand shiny new war (relatively speaking).

    For me it's a weariness of keeping up with systems that I've long since decided are rotten to the core. We've always been at war with Eurasia indeed. U.S. imperialism doesn't mean well, it is rotten to the core, but it's also getting more and more stealthy. It's like reading a novel with a protagonist so evil and unlikable that eventually you just throw the book across the room sick of even spending time with the evil @#$#. That's what living with U.S. empire is like. And also most people probably lost track of what was happening in Iraq somewhere in the other dozen wars the U.S. helped start since then, I know I did (the Ukranian situation with the fascists the U.S. helped support isn't even cold yet). It takes great mental effort to even keep up on the histories of a dozen countries the U.S wants to kill people in, a new one appearing in the news every day, like a game of whack a mole.

    I haven't much of a clue what exactly is even really happening in Iraq now, or even what the Obama admin wants to be happening. What is pretty well known: U.S. arming of Syrian rebels almost certainly let to the growth of groups like ISIS - as if the arming them wasn't obviously a dumb idea that wouldn't end well from day 1.

    More sounds of crickets on this website about our President and his Iraq strategy. Chirp.......Chirp.....
    I'm not sure the Dem partisans even post much. The agreement to get out wasn't Obama but was Bush, but what was the alternative stay there and fight an endless war forever? I guess that could happen anyway.
    Trees don't grow on money

  5. #5
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,219
    I can see how, if we went into Iraq in the first place to eliminate a dangerous dictator and reduce the risk of terrorism, it would make sense to intervene in order to justify the loss of life and years of military effort. Maybe what ever we accomplished is being reversed by a ragged bunch of organized hoodlums sweeping through poorly protected areas.

    I was not in favor of us going into Iraq initially, but we did and that can't be reversed. A lot of young men and women gave loss of life and limb to get to where ever things are. To deny any military action to defend what was accomplished seems like an admission of how futile it these losses were.
    "what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver

  6. #6
    Senior Member CathyA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    9,116
    But I don't see how going back will make all those deaths/injuries right.
    And I think sending equipment over there is really short-sighted. After all, ISIS has already taken over equipment we had there earlier.
    And I DO think a lot of the losses over there WERE in vain.
    Why do we have to put our U.S. noses into everything all the time?

    I heard on the news tonight that Iran is also sending advisors. Richard Engel said it will be like driving a car with 2 steering wheels..........both wanting to go in a different direction.
    What a screwed up mess.
    And how can we ever believe what's being said about anything?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    9,656
    I can see how, if we went into Iraq in the first place to eliminate a dangerous dictator and reduce the risk of terrorism, it would make sense to intervene in order to justify the loss of life and years of military effort. Maybe what ever we accomplished is being reversed by a ragged bunch of organized hoodlums sweeping through poorly protected areas.

    I was not in favor of us going into Iraq initially, but we did and that can't be reversed. A lot of young men and women gave loss of life and limb to get to where ever things are. To deny any military action to defend what was accomplished seems like an admission of how futile it these losses were.
    This is what the economists call sunk cost fallacy . In economic terms it would be: we've all ready sunk a bunch of money into the losing money pit might as well sink more even though it's no better an investment than it was originally. I find it hard to believe ANYTHING was accomplished by the first mission to Iraq. But I certainly get why people are just kind of "meh" (apathetic). Because it's hard to see a good future awaiting Iraq either way.

    So an anti-war movement if there is one will be built on this: the U.S. can still kill more, it can still use chemical weapons (white phosphorous) to kill more, it can still poison the environment more (this is no small matter - tons of Iraqis were born with birth defects), destroy the infrastructure more, torture more - so yea abu grihab more, extraordinary rendition more, lock more in Gitmo etc. - and use it all as an excuse why we can't afford anything at all in this country. Although the meh is some of that stuff will probably happen just from the forces already taking over Iraq (well killing and destruction of infrastructure perhaps anyway). But the U.S. doesn't exactly have a reputation of improving situations any.
    Trees don't grow on money

  8. #8
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,219
    ANM, I think your sunk cost fallacy explanation is an elaborate way of saying not to throw good money after bad. I wonder about that too. The losses we had ended up giving the people more freedom in selecting their leaders in a fair election, but the whole region just seems too unstable to expect anything to be around for long. The terrorist threat of the Sadaam regime will probably be a debate for years to come.

    What I wonder is why the people seem so docile. The soldiers we trained seem to have fled without much of a fight and there doesn't appear to be any local resistance from a militia or underground. I can picture an armed unpopular take over of my neighborhood and see a lot of old hunting weapons coming out of closets. Maybe you have to be there.
    "what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver

  9. #9
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    25,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogar View Post
    ANM, I think your sunk cost fallacy explanation is an elaborate way of saying not to throw good money after bad. I wonder about that too. The losses we had ended up giving the people more freedom in selecting their leaders in a fair election, but the whole region just seems too unstable to expect anything to be around for long. The terrorist threat of the Sadaam regime will probably be a debate for years to come.

    What I wonder is why the people seem so docile. The soldiers we trained seem to have fled without much of a fight and there doesn't appear to be any local resistance from a militia or underground. I can picture an armed unpopular take over of my neighborhood and see a lot of old hunting weapons coming out of closets. Maybe you have to be there.
    I remember hearing a young Iraqi journalist interviewed on NPR in the early years of the Iraq war and it stayed with me. He pleaded for Americans to understand that it will take a while for democracy to bloom, for Iraqis to find their way, and for Americans to trust that young Iraq really does have hopes and dreams of a free country.

    But that sure is hard for us to see. And living in a constantly warring country is exhausting so the people there have limited energy for "fighting" for whichever bloke of the moment is in ascendency. And then, the Sunis and the Shiite--to me they are like the Methodists vs the Lutherans and I want to say to them "really how are ya'll that different?" But of course the conflict is really about tribal cultures and affiliations, just like Northern Ireland was class and culture wars, not Catholics vs Protestants.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    645
    When I help someone up off the sidewalk after they've slipped and fallen, I don't place expectations on them to never fall again. I won't accompany them along all their travels to catch them should they fall, but I also won't turn a blind eye to them when I see them fall again, because I hold some personal animosity toward them for not living as I think they should have lived to preclude having fallen again.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •