Why the USA-Iraq war?

[sciwriter]

I think the main problem of the USA-Iraq war, as previously in the Vietnam War, is that the President and staff haven't communicated why the USA is involved in Iraq. Hardly anyone believes that Democracy will end terrorism in a region that doesn't respect Democracy. Also the powers that be don't explain why USA went into Iraq while Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda guys based in Afghanistan committed 911.

Modern wars have been conducted mainly for economic reasons, and long wars are more profitable than short wars. The main reason for the war in Iraq is for the USA to control Mideast oil for sale to China.

Regarding Vietnam, Americans were told that USA was there mostly to kill Communists. This was ridiculous since the Soviet Union and China started planning to switch to a mixed Capitalist-Socialist economy starting in the 1960's. They realized Communism doesn't work; e.g., later in the 1970's, IBM trained Russian programmers in Siberia for the world market.

USA was in Vietnam mainly to control Southeast Asian oil & other markets, and to produce big profits for global military hardware manufacturers.

Today "Socialist Vietnam" is run by local mafias who, e.g., use cheap labor to manufacture Nike footware for sale on the world market.

Moreover…

The Vietnam was well underway to an end in 1970-71. By then it was just a matter of how to get out without a bloodbath. Nixon is my hero. He got us out. The Capitalist /mafia plunder of former Communist totalitarian markets is apparently a common practice. Organized criminal organizations are known as mafia in Russia and tangs in China.

I think as time passes the Capitalists and mafia increase the overall standard of living in former Communist countries. A Communist government previously forced the citizens to live at a low level except for the party elite. The key word is “force.” Also the Communist regime can pursue a war agenda without political consequences and thus maintain their agenda for a longer span of effort against an enemy. Since the citizens are used to “force” under the Communist system, they don’t adequately resist “force” imposed later by a mafia.

Oil is a major factor in the war in Iraq, and China and India are booming consumers of the oil commodity. Overall oil will be cheaper in a stable Mideast. The key issue of the USA-Iraq conflict is whether the Mideast will be stabilized by the nuclear and radical Muslim fanatics allied with China or under authoritarian or democratic regimes allied with the West. In either case the China’s and India’s demand will be satisfied by a portion of the oil production and eventually oil prices will rise.

[bescheid]

carl

Just only a minor contribution to your very fine presentation.

The Vietnam/USA war was tragic in self. For there is little I may offer in that reguard.

The Iraq/US war, is currant and valid. In as much to the US envolvment, I think perhaps this would be a question best answered by the Saudi famlies in power. The Hussien Iraq goverment was a direct threat to their status in the Middle East as the recogized power broker. Now the direct threat to the Saudis is the Persion percieved threat.

The camel people of Saudis are very cleaver, if they have at option, some one else to do their dirty work for them, then they are willing to pay for it. In this manner, it keeps their hands clean and some one else will then be the bad guy {USA}.

Charles

[hollister]

The camel people?

[leslie]

Why? Because our respective leaders have said that we go to war. Some misguided people think that in a democracy the people are the strength!! In the USSR when Stalin said 'we go to war' against the country with whom we have signed support agreements in the name of the country - to war went the USSR. If the people of the 'democracy' say we don't want to go to war/go to fight, they are labeled as 'objectors' and are punished. Bush decided to go and fight the Iraqis in the name of deposing Saddam Hussein, thus went America and Britain tagged on to the coat tails. And so it has been through history.
Leslie

[rdywenur]

The camel people?

Since your husband is in the service I am assuming you are pro Iraqi War and pro Bush. After listening too his last speech and his responses it only shows what an arogant SOB he is and always has been. It is always his way or no way. Thank God his term is nearly done with. He thinks he is King and not a President that was elected by the people and should be for the people.

[hollister]

Chris,
I was responding to Charles's statement (which I should have quoted -

bescheid said:

The camel people of Saudis are very cleaver

Charles

You are very much mistaken is you think that just because Wayne is in uniform - we are Pro-Bush and/or pro war. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. However, we both do feel that if people of conscience do not get involved to challenge what is perceived as the status quo - then the discussion becomes very one sided and takes on the appearance of truth because there is no one to challenge the "party line."

Yes, the majority is as you describe but there is a group of very dedicated and earnest serving soldiers who do not accept everything that comes out of this administration - but also feel that someone has to stand up for the individual soldier and work to keep them safe and alive.

As Wayne has said on several occasions - when he went through OCS - it was hammered into them that their main focus as officers was the 3-M's Your Men, The Mission and last Myself. He is very disgusted to see that in today's Army the 3-M's are now 1. Myself, The Mission and lastly the Men.

[bescheid]

hollister said:

Chris,
I was responding to Charles's statement (which I should have quoted -

bescheid said:

The camel people of Saudis are very cleaver

Charles

You are very much mistaken is you think that just because Wayne is in uniform - we are Pro-Bush and/or pro war. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. However, we both do feel that if people of conscience do not get involved to challenge what is perceived as the status quo - then the discussion becomes very one sided and takes on the appearance of truth because there is no one to challenge the "party line."

Yes, the majority is as you describe but there is a group of very dedicated and earnest serving soldiers who do not accept everything that comes out of this administration - but also feel that someone has to stand up for the individual soldier and work to keep them safe and alive.

As Wayne has said on several occasions - when he went through OCS - it was hammered into them that their main focus as officers was the 3-M's Your Men, The Mission and last Myself. He is very disgusted to see that in today's Army the 3-M's are now 1. Myself, The Mission and lastly the Men.

Thank you Hollie for your response. Whilst composing my post reply. I had not actually thought of Wayne or for that matter of his personal feelings and opinions that are his to hold. For this is as it should be. And it was your duty to your husband to defend this, and I understand, for this is as it should be.

My remarks in as much to the Arabs as painted with a broad brush, are very reflective of my personal opinion of them as a whole, gained from experience of long past dealings with some.

It is very understandable that not all military people {USA} are in full agreement of the direction of their government {in this case, the Iraq war}but, the officers and men, will do their duty as they are sworn to do. For this is the life of a solder.

Also I have enjoyed{?} the occasion of military training {different military} and fully understand the mission as being the absolute primary goal of attainment for there is no substitute for success and victory. For also, as you have brought forward of the tree M,s. For any failure of performance of the men under the command of an officer is not a failure of the solders under his/her command, it is the failure of the commanders.

In as much to the declining quality of dedication of command personnel. This is a direct fault of training not properly commensurated to proper career goals both in the field and command centre duty.

Hollie, I know these things.

Now after all this, will my deportation papers be expected per cancellation of resident visa status?

Charles

[sciwriter]

Hi all! Good points! Camel=bedouins originating in desert, e.g., Saudis. In contrast, Iraqis originated in mountains. Carl

[bescheid]

sciwriter said:

Hi all! Good points! Camel=bedouins originating in desert, e.g., Saudis. In contrast, Iraqis originated in mountains. Carl

You do know your known world Carl. For in deed, who else would have known of the origin of the people between the two river of that of Iraq. For they are not of the Camel people. {perhaps I am negligent for not further explanation to Hollie of that term, sorry Hollie}

The primary Iraqi population were {I think I remember correctly as of 6000 BC} begin the migration from primary sources as Turkisch and that of Iranian from the highland area to the North.

Agriculture was invented some time during the period of BC 4000 by the now known as {Sumerians}, they invented as with the skill of irrigation, an urban society and the 1st written alphabet.

Sorry if I appear to be showing off, as this is very far from the truth. This part of the world before it become famous {infamous} was a strong subject of my University training.

The land will always stay. The people come and go. Their politics from the rising sun, and then to the falling sun, then it is gone.

Charles

[rdywenur]

Charles.. we use to refer to them as camel riders.

[bescheid]

rdywenur said:

Charles.. we use to refer to them as camel riders.

Camel riders, yes Chris, at least you are more diplomatic then my self. Perhaps maybe I should be so also.{what is the word for prejudice? Is it prejudice}. Or, perhaps I know them all to well.

Not a lightly taken subject with Arabs though with their camels. Also that of their horses, they place a very high value upon both. To the extent they will refer to them as {my children}. They will pay a very high price with out an eye lift for a prize horse and for that matter, the right young camel.

Arabs are an excellent customer for these animals. They still hold yearly and regular scheduled races. For the camels, they will buy foreign children for their light weight and train them for racing their camels. If the child fails to produce, then they are resold or worse. It is their way.

The below is not meant to be a damning attribute to Arabs manner, but, only as an illustration of show and tell.


www.gluckman.com/camelracing.html

www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=46543&d=10&m=6&y=2004

Charels

[rdywenur]

No so diplomatic Charles. I grew up in Utica and we had many Syrians and Lebanese people that lived there. (so I learned about the food first such as kibbe, stuffed grape leaves and baklava my fav and other Middle Eastern foods) They were always referred to as camel riders by those that weren't. As I grew up I realized the term. It was never used in a bad way.

[hollister]

A couple of book reccomendations for you:

The first is "The Utility of Force"
Book Description

“War no longer exists,” writes General Sir Rupert Smith, powerfully reminding us that the clash of mass national armies—the system of war since Napoleon—will never occur again. Instead, he argues in this timely book, we must be prepared to adapt tactics to each conflict, or lose the ability to protect ourselves and our way of life.

General Smith draws on his vast experience as a commander in the 1991 Gulf War, in Bosnia, Kosovo and Northern Ireland, to give us a probing analysis of modern war and to call for radically new military thinking. Why, he asks, do we use armed force to solve our political problems? And how is it that our armies can win battles but fail to solve the problems?

From Iraq to the Balkans, and from Afghanistan to Chechnya, Smith charts a stream of armed interventions that have failed to deliver on promises of resolution. He demonstrates why today’s conflicts must be understood as intertwined political and military events. He makes clear why the current one-size-fits-all model of total war, fought out on battlefields, that politicians still cling to must be abandoned in favor of new strategies that take into account the fact that wars are now fought among civilian populations. And he offers a compelling new model for how to fight these battles—and secure our world.

Clear, incisive and provocative, The Utility of Force will fundamentally change the way we understand war.

the second is - "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present"
The author of the acclaimed Six Days of War finds continuity in U.S. relations with the Middle East from the early 19th-century war against the Barbary pirates to today's Iraq war. As America's power grew, he contends, strategic considerations became complicatedby the region's religious significance, especially to the Protestant missionaries whose interests drove U.S. policyin the 19th century and who championed a Jewish state in Palestine long before the Zionist movement took up that cause. Meanwhile, Oren notes, Americans' romantic fantasies about the Muslim world (as expressed in Mideast-themed movies) have repeatedly run aground on stubborn, squalid realities, most recently in the Iraq fiasco. Oren dwells on the pre-WWII era, when U.S.-Mideast relations were of little significance. The postwar period, when these relations were central to world affairs,.... and the emphasis on continuity gives short shrift to the new and crucial role of oil in U.S. policy making. Oren's treatment views this history almost entirely through American eyes; the U.S. comes off as usually well intentioned and idealistic, if often confused and confounded by regional complexities.

[bescheid]

A very well experienced commander Hollie, thought perhaps to provide this for your fine presentation as an example of his work.

I think also he authered {The Futility of War}. The Brits lost a fine man, a superior officer commander and a human being.


{{General Sir Rupert Smith retired from the British Army in 2002. His last appointment was Deputy Supreme Commander Allied Powers Europe 1998-2001, covering NATO's Balkan operations, including the Kosovo bombing, and the development of the European Defence and Security Identity.

Prior to that he was the general Officer Commanding in Northern Irelnd, 1996-1998; Commander UNPROFOR in Sarajevo, 1995; the Assistant Chief of Defence Staff for Operations, 1992-1994; and General Officer Commanding 1 (UK) Armoured Division, 1990-1992, including the Gulf War. } }

Charles

[justjohn]

I just watched this movie yesterday and I felt that I should recommend this film to everyone that I know.

It is:

Why We Fight by Eugene Jarecki


It was on Shpwtime and I believe it is out on DVD.

Why We Fight is a documentary film directed by Eugene Jarecki that won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival.

It is available on DVD.

This will explain why we are in Iraq and soon in Iran.

Just Google it.