The Iraqi Revolutionary War

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

During the American War of Independence, or the Revolutionary War, whatever you want to call it, American rebels fought to rid their country of an occupying army from the greatest power in the world so that they could build their country on their moral principals of equality and religious freedom.

The Iraqi rebels today are fighting to rid their country of an occupying army from the greatest powers in the world so that they can build their country on their moral principals which stem from their islamic faith.

Is there a big difference? If the British were on the wrong side last time, are we are on the wrong side this time? After all, we did have some claim to America after investing huge sums of money building the colonies and fighting wars with the French to protect them. What claim do we have to Iraq now?

Just a thought.

 

[wil]

When it comes to rebels, insurgents, terrorists, whatever...that is definitely what our fore fathers were... according to the conventional norm....and those that were in favor of it were less than 10% of the country...

But that is to me where the differences end. Your analogy would work if the Iraqi's stood up against Sadam. But those revolting now are there to disrupt the formation of their new gov't by Iraqi's or to regain power (bathists) or to seperate the country... Course seems the brits had something to do with drawing those lines in the sand that put three warring factions in the same country to begin with....

 

[Faustus]

Is there a big difference? If the British were on the wrong side last time, are we are on the wrong side this time?

Tactically, there's not much difference, since we're falling for the same kind of thing that ruined the British during the American Revolution (and the Roman military in its decline and fall, incidentally). Forces spread too thin over multiple military fronts, lack of unity and support for the cause at home, attempting to apply traditional military tactics to fight guerrila warfare... the list goes on. I'm sure someone's written a paper on it by now, in fact. One would have hoped that we took some lessons away from Vietnam, but it seems that we haven't. Of course, considering that neither our President nor anyone with a significant deal of power in his cabinet actually went to 'Nam, I guess I shouldn't be very surprised.

 

[iBrian]

I think the key difference in Iraq is that you're dealing with at least three distinct social & cultural groups - the Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurds.

And so far, the actions of a Sunni minority seem aimed not at ridding themselves of an occupying force (ie US and UK troops), as much as trying to forment a civil war - the aim being of splitting Iraq into different states to cater for each cultural group.

So I can't see it as a war against oppressors - but a civil conflict in it's own right and quite distinct from the American War of Independence.

 

[lunamoth]

One would have hoped that we took some lessons away from Vietnam, but it seems that we haven't.

I am not a lover of war by any stretch, but this really is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. I don't always agree with or fully understand the wars my country chooses to fight (if I did not have a new baby in the house at the time I would have been out protesting our invovlment in Iraq ), and it seems that if we are committed to peacekeeping there are some areas of the world that could use our help but we've turned away, or hesitated. The USA may be going the way of Rome, but we also can no longer be an isolationist country and say to hell with what's going on elsewhere.

If we are stretched too thin it is because other nations of the world are reluctant to spend their resources or put aside their interests to rise up against abusive dictatorships. The middle east is a mess and it can only be that way because a significant number of nations in that area want it to be that way. Africa is a mess. Why do its neighbors allow this to go on? Why do we?

Should we just step out, only care about our own interests, and let the rest of the world burn? Is that what we are doing?

,
lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

If the British were on the wrong side last time, are we are on the wrong side this time?

Just because there are winners and losers in a war it does not mean that there is a right side and a wrong side.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Faustus]

If we are stretched too thin it is because other nations of the world are reluctant to spend their resources or put aside their interests to rise up against abusive dictatorships. The middle east is a mess and it can only be that way because a significant number of nations in that area want it to be that way. Africa is a mess. Why do its neighbors allow this to go on? Why do we?

They don't have any oil or other useful resources that make it worth going in there and getting thousands of people killed in attempts to "spread democracy," for one thing.

Should we just step out, only care about our own interests, and let the rest of the world burn? Is that what we are doing?

Are you saying that Iraq wasn't invaded because it was in our own interests? Bush entered office telling his people to find him a way and a reason to attack Iraq. He had this on his mind from day one- long before 9-11 happened (not that Iraq had any connection to that anyway). The invasion of Iraq was done entirely to cater to US (well, US corporate) interests. Haliburton and other contractors are making money hand over fist over there. It certainly wasn't in the interest of the military guys who are stuck over there getting killed, but it serves the interests of the people in charge.

...and it seems that if we are committed to peacekeeping there are some areas of the world that could use our help but we've turned away, or hesitated.

I hate to say it, but we're not committed to peacekeeping. If we were, we would have started our assistance in places like Niger, Sudan, Somalia... there are a lot of places in Africa that are/were in far worse straits than Iraq was at the time of our invasion. And if we're going to talk about dictatorial regimes with weapons of mass destruction, what about Iran and North Korea? Oh, right. They're in a position to fight back (and potentially kick our ass). Trying to argue that our invasion of Iraq, which was done under the guise of American interests and protecting us from the nonexistent WMDs, was somehow couched in this Kumbayah, save the world "peacekeeping" is, IMHO, trying in hindsight to make acceptable decisions that were probably criminal in their negligence and duplicity.

 

[lunamoth]

They don't have any oil or other useful resources that make it worth going in there and getting thousands of people killed in attempts to "spread democracy," for one thing. Are you saying that Iraq wasn't invaded because it was in our own interests? Bush entered office telling his people to find him a way and a reason to attack Iraq. He had this on his mind from day one- long before 9-11 happened (not that Iraq had any connection to that anyway). The invasion of Iraq was done entirely to cater to US (well, US corporate) interests. Haliburton and other contractors are making money hand over fist over there. It certainly wasn't in the interest of the military guys who are stuck over there getting killed, but it serves the interests of the people in charge.

That sounds like a lot of speculation and conspiracy theory to me. Are we pure in our intentions? No. But I do not think it was all done for revenge or economic advantage. Call me naive, but I think there were some just reasons for this, even though if it were up to me I still would not have authorized this war.

I hate to say it, but we're not committed to peacekeeping. If we were, we would have started our assistance in places like Niger, Sudan, Somalia... there are a lot of places in Africa that are/were in far worse straits than Iraq was at the time of our invasion.

I agree. We only go where it is somehow in our interest. But I am not as cynical aobut the intentions of the US as you seem to be.

And if we're going to talk about dictatorial regimes with weapons of mass destruction, what about Iran and North Korea? Oh, right. They're in a position to fight back (and potentially kick our ass).

I don't want it to happen and you don't want it to happen, but do you really think that the US would heistate to attack those countries if they felt an immediate threat? Do you want to repeat Iraq? But what if there was a united front of nations with the goal of changing those regimes? And the people of Iran like their country the way it is--they vote it in!

peace,
lunamoth

 

[taijasi]

Support the UN!!! After all, there are still millions of people in this world who do! We don't need to reinvent the wheel here, but the US might just need to start paying some of its BACK DUES, and perhaps stop circumventing the UN's efforts.

I'm afraid I agree with Faustus though, word for word. Her attitude, relative to this nation's blood-stained hands, corporate greed, and all of the selfish reasons for the phoney war ... are exactly how I think it is. And she comes off as positive compared to my attitude.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be taking measures to prevent global terrorism, but the US is fueling the fire (including that of hatred and separativeness, fear and paranoia, especially with Patriot Act I & II - what horse****, and with domestic spying). C'mon, let's get real. The average American now thinks Saddam actually can be linked to Sept. 11, and what was it that happened to Osama again???

Sorry, I just become so enraged to even see ... ummm, nearly any of our political "leaders" on the tube, that I know not to even go to those propaganda channels. No need to break the TV - yet!

I have utmost faith ... in the efforts of certain politicians, but it may just take some massive Peace Protests in this nation, on campuses and at workplaces - on an even vaster scale than Vietnam, to make any progress at this point. Oh, you know, another few Kent States ... for enough people to actually care, and to get the attention necessary to impeach this nut.

Right now, the President has already committed several impeachable offenses. Why is nothing being done about it? Why has the American Gov't broken down? Let's face it, for the time being, nothing can really be accomplished, and the big corporations, the military powers, the War Pigs ... are going to rule the day. Ozzy sang about this, back when Black Sabbath was still a bit of a peace-oriented, protest band. Yep. Several songs, even showed up in later lyrics of his solo stuff. Look:

War Pigs
Children of the Grave

Killer of Giants
Thank God for the Bomb

Alas, all the kids know today is Ozzy the freak, from TV.

(We better)
Stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's goin' down?

andrew
​

 

[Faustus]

That sounds like a lot of speculation and conspiracy theory to me.

It's not. There are statements from people in Bush's administration that corroborate everything I said there. Do some reading- type "Haliburton Iraq contract" into Google and see what comes up- Haliburton, the company that gave Cheney quite the golden parachute when he left, received a no-bid contract to engage in "rebuilding" efforts in Iraq. This was before the contract was even offered to any other countries. They're making money hand over fist over there, and they're just the most well known of companies run by Bush's friends who are getting a helping hand in return for their various campaign donations and the like. These aren't conspiracy theories- these are things that have been printed right in newspapers for years now (and I'm talking the Times, the New York Times and others, not the Weekly World News). Even conservatives are admitting that this stuff is going on- they just don't think it matters. Apparently.

Call me naive, but I think there were some just reasons for this, even though if it were up to me I still would not have authorized this war.

So list them out for me. None of the reasons presented to Congress and the American people in justification of this invasion were accurate or "just." We were going in there because Saddam had WMDs. Except there were none (which anyone with half a brain knew long before we had boots on the ground, anyway). We did not go in to spread democracy, win hearts and minds, none of that crap. Those were not in our stated mission objectives. We took manpower away from the conflict in Afghanistan, which was already woefully undermanned to begin with, and which is actually relevent to national security, to engage in an invasion that had nothing to do with anything. This isn't me being cynical, this is reporting basic facts I've read in newspapers, magazines, books and so on. If anyone's being cynical, it's the current presidential administration and their manipulation of our government, our military and our courts. You want to worry about cynicism, I'd go look at them first.

But I am not as cynical aobut the intentions of the US as you seem to be.

It's not cynical if you're reporting fact. We assisted Saddam in getting into power in the first place. We also assisted Osama bin Laden at one point. We've been quite happy to pay terrorists to do our bidding and pull little strings to organize "regime changes" for years- now it's coming back to bite us in the ass, and we're scratching our heads trying to figure out why. Check out the book Terror Inc. for a good summary of just how pure and wholesome our government's motives generally are. I'm sure you can find it on Amazon- it's a quick read, and it gives an excellent summation of American involvement in the Middle East.

I don't want it to happen and you don't want it to happen, but do you really think that the US would heistate to attack those countries if they felt an immediate threat? Do you want to repeat Iraq?

No, I want our government to be held accountable for its irresponsibility and its hypocrisy. I'm not pointing out Iran and North Korea because I particularly want to march in there, I'm pointing them out because they both fit the profile that Bush painted when he listed our reasons for attacking Iraq. And we know they have WMDs, are run by lunatics and are hotbeds of anti-American sentiment. Yet Iraq was the place we attacked. Why? If it was a decision made for pure, benevolent reasons, feel free to tell me what they were, because Bush himself made it very clear from day one that we were doing this to find WMDs and protect Americans from "terrism." It wasn't until there were no WMDs that this suddenly became all about freeing those poor Iraqis, who no one gave a **** about until we needed some kind of good-sounding reason for our actions over there.

Support the UN!!! After all, there are still millions of people in this world who do! We don't need to reinvent the wheel here, but the US might just need to start paying some of its BACK DUES, and perhaps stop circumventing the UN's efforts.

That might start by not appointing people like John Bolton to the UN, essentially mocking all that it stands for. Much as I hate to say it, the US deserves every bit of ridicule and disgust being heaped upon it these days. Or I should say that the US government does. There are many Americans who disagree with the policies of the government, but it's hard to argue with people who wrap themselves in the flag and fundamentalist values and say, essentially, "Either you support us, or you support terrorism."

Right now, the President has already committed several impeachable offenses. Why is nothing being done about it?

Well, he hasn't gotten a blow job in the Oval Office yet, and he's a deeply religious Christian. Ahem. Sorry, trying to keep a straight face as I say that. Somehow I don't think that Jesus would be too into most of our president's policies.