While We Wait: Part 5

[Symphony D.]

So you tell a sovereign nation that demands you leave to go screw itself because you know better than it does as to what it needs. I believe in legal terms that would be delivered as a Declaration of War. Name me one single way how the US can stay in Iraq if the Iraqi government demands we leave that does not involve overthrowing said government. Go ahead. Take all the time you need.

Also, Tom Clancy be damned, Iran isn't invading anyone. You may not have noticed, but a lot of the violence in Iraq was sectarian. That is to say, it was between Sunni and Shia. Iran is the only major Shia state. If Iraq is left free-standing, and Iran tries to muscle in physically, what you will see is a diversion of resources from states that currently sponsor terrorism against ourselves and Israel to supporting it against Iran. Jihad between Muslims has a long and bloody history every bit as ugly as between Muslims and Christians or Christians and Christians. If it tries to clandestinely assume a lot of influence with the Shia, it will be opposed by the Sunni bloc, who will try and ally with the Kurds.

It's also not a loss if you have to leave. It is not a draw. It is not withdrawing with honor and dignity. It's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The goal was to create a democratic state that could support itself. It has posted billions of dollars in profit, and if it decides to turn us out, there isn't a damn thing to be done about it. There is no staying. Which is part of the reason why McCain's position is deluded and out of touch with reality and only he keeps pushing the hundred years thing.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

So you tell a sovereign nation that demands you leave to go screw itself because you know better than it does as to what it needs. I believe in legal terms that would be delivered as a Declaration of War. Name me one single way how the US can stay in Iraq if the Iraqi government demands we leave that does not involve overthrowing said government. Go ahead. Take all the time you need.

Also, Tom Clancy be damned, Iran isn't invading anyone. You may not have noticed, but a lot of the violence in Iraq was sectarian. That is to say, it was between Sunni and Shia. Iran is the only major Shia state. If Iraq is left free-standing, and Iran tries to muscle in physically, what you will see is a diversion of resources from states that currently sponsor terrorism against ourselves and Israel to supporting it against Iran. Jihad between Muslims has a long and bloody history every bit as ugly as between Muslims and Christians or Christians and Christians. If it tries to clandestinely assume a lot of influence with the Shia, it will be opposed by the Sunni bloc, who will try and ally with the Kurds.

It's also not a loss if you have to leave. It is not a draw. It is not withdrawing with honor and dignity. It's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. The goal was to create a democratic state that could support itself. It has posted billions of dollars in profit, and if it decides to turn us out, there isn't a damn thing to be done about it. There is no staying. Which is part of the reason why McCain's position is deluded and out of touch with reality and only he keeps pushing the hundred years thing.

That leaves two arguments I can think of. One- the risk of Sharia law being adopted in Iraq. Two- the risk of persecuting Christians. If both don't apply, you're probably right.

 

[a_propagandist]

What about the good of the Iraqis themselves? There is the risk of an Iran-based Muslim state (in their sphere of influence) if the Americans withdraw, as well as increased terrorist morale.

Listen, if they want their democracy so bad, they will get it. Even if they have to win it with AKs and RPGs. We Americans assume too often that the world is helpless and we are the sole protectors of democracy. Also, it would decrease terrorist morale; they would no longer be able to point to Iraq as an example of "American imperialism".

@ Lucky, that's assuming our military spending even has an effect on terrorism. Why don't you detail how a high spending lowers the number of terrorist acts? (Note: DHS vs DoD)

That leaves two arguments I can think of. One- the risk of Sharia law being adopted in Iraq. Two- the risk of persecuting Christians. If both don't apply, you're probably right.

If they want sharia law, let them have it. We can't stop them from getting what they want. As for the Christians, any Muslim state like that will persecute Christians.

 

[Symphony D.]

That leaves two arguments I can think of. One- the risk of Sharia law being adopted in Iraq. Two- the risk of persecuting Christians. If both don't apply, you're probably right.

It doesn't matter if either applies. You are aware of the meaning of the word "sovereignty"?

Iraq is not the 51st State of America. We don't have the authority to dictate to them what they can and cannot do. We can certainly hope they do certain things, but unless you really do want to make it a colony and prove all those people who have cried "Imperialism!" for the past five years right, it doesn't matter.

4,161 Americans have died and 30,561 have been seriously wounded, among other members of the Coalition, under the premise of bringing republicanism to a nation that has known 30 years of despotic tyranny. To presume we have the authority to fight a war for that kind of objective, and to then turn around and dictate how the people vote and live their lives is the ultimate farce, and makes that expenditure of life nothing more than a sick joke.

If they do something distasteful you levy sanctions and embargoes; cripple them. Ground war is a last result, as this episode has demonstratively proved.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Now I think about it, there is an alternative course- agree to withdraw as soon as the Iraqis want as long as they promise freedom of religion, and threaten (intending to use it) war if they defy it.

Sanctions and embargos can be ignored.

 

[Symphony D.]

Now I think about it, there is an alternative course- agree to withdraw as soon as the Iraqis want as long as they promise freedom of religion, and threaten (intending to use it) war if they defy it.

So, you would say "Hey, that investment we made of thousands of troops lives, the trust we painstakingly scrapped together, and the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent? Screw that! Protect religion or we bomb the stuff we rebuilt for you after we originally bombed it and turn all of you against us"?

Well, I'm glad you're not in the military.

Sanctions and embargos can be ignored.

Yeah, that turned out real awesome for Saddam Hussein.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

So, you would say "Hey, that investment we made of thousands of troops lives, the trust we painstakingly scrapped together, and the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent? Screw that! Protect religion or we bomb the stuff we rebuilt for you after we originally bombed it and turn all of you against us"?

Well, I'm glad you're not in the military.


Yeah, that turned out real awesome for Saddam Hussein.

1: Saddam Hussein was not deposed until the Americans invaded- the sanctions were not what caused his downfall.

2: Maybe not such a good idea, but I think I have one- turn it over to the Chinese. As long as they keep it a democracy and don't persecute the Christians, they can plunder the oil. (Civil rights are more important then material needs)

Even if that seems distasteful, I think you would agree that America should try to do something to prevent persecution.

 

[Symphony D.]

1: Saddam Hussein was not deposed until the Americans invaded- the sanctions were not what caused his downfall.

You just said they could be ignored. His economy was reduced to no more than the GDP of Kentucky and he couldn't rebuild his military or conduct and improvement of infrastructure or public welfare. Dictators survive such things--republics don't, and quickly cave.

2: Maybe not such a good idea, but I think I have one- turn it over to the Chinese. As long as they keep it a democracy and don't persecute the Christians, they can plunder the oil. (Civil rights are more important then material needs)

Whut.

No, really. Whut.

Even if that seems distasteful, I think you would agree that America should try to do something to prevent persecution.

Yeah, I'm not really in favor of harebrained blackmail or imaginary Guns N' Roses albums as solutions to problems that for one aren't likely to arise and that for two can be solved by... conventional, non-crazy thinking.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

You just said they could be ignored. His economy was reduced to no more than the GDP of Kentucky and he couldn't rebuild his military or conduct and improvement of infrastructure or public welfare. Dictators survive such things--republics don't, and quickly cave.


Whut.

No, really. Whut.


Yeah, I'm not really in favor of harebrained blackmail or imaginary Guns N' Roses albums as solutions to problems that for one aren't likely to arise and that for two can be solved by... conventional, non-crazy thinking.

Now I think about it you're probably right. But you haven't given a rational response to the question of why it would be so bad to give Iraq over to the Chinese.

 

[Symphony D.]

I'm still stuck on the part where you somehow think that blithely turning over a supposedly sovereign democratic country to a one-party state which conducts some of the most systematic abuses of human rights in the world as a colony--as if you were loaning them a car for the weekend or something--is a good idea that would totally work as advertised and play well with pretty much anyone who had a brain, anywhere. Most especially in Iraq itself.

I reiterate: whut?

Please never get into politics.

 

[das]

And an additional whut: the Chinese? Seriously? Leaving aside all kinds of ethical and American concerns, why would they even want to go there themselves? What do the Chinese have to do with this at all? Have I missed something?

 

[Neverwonagame3]

I'm still stuck on the part where you somehow think that blithely turning over a supposedly sovereign democratic country to a one-party state which conducts some of the most systematic abuses of human rights in the world as a colony--as if you were loaning them a car for the weekend or something--is a good idea that would totally work as advertised and play well with pretty much anyone who had a brain, anywhere. Most especially in Iraq itself.

I reiterate: whut?

Please never get into politics.

1- I consider religion a high priority
2- The threat of war with America would act as a detterent. (Perhaps even a threat of trade embargo could be tried- now I think about it, it would probabl work on the Chinese)

And an additional whut: the Chinese? Seriously? Leaving aside all kinds of ethical and American concerns, why would they even want to go there themselves? What do the Chinese have to do with this at all? Have I missed something?

They'd want the oil.

 

[das]

Have they shown any interest in acquiring Iraqi oilfields so far?

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Have they shown any interest in acquiring Iraqi oilfields so far?

No, but they have shown interests in economic growth. Iraqi oil at the moment is an unrealistic option.

 

[flyingchicken]

Iraqi oil at the moment is an unrealistic option.

Very well.

 

[Masada]

Just a side note, something like half a million Abyssinian Christians have already left Iraq.

So America, threatens to go to war with China, because it abuses its newly gifted colony from America, whut? How's that going to end with tea and coffee or mushroom clouds?

 

[Neverwonagame3]

flyingchicken, what I meant was that, as America is NOT going to do what I recommended (the fact it definetly won't is almost certain), Iraqi oil is an unrealistic option for China. In this hypothetical, it would be plausible for them.

Just a side note, something like half a million Abyssinian Christians have already left Iraq.

So America, threatens to go to war with China, because it abuses its newly gifted colony from America, whut? How's that going to end with tea and coffee or mushroom clouds?

America can easily cut off China from Iraq militarily (Kuwait is still independent), so the economic risk would make sufficent threat. Human rights don't compromise China's strategic interests.

 

[das]

No, but they have shown interests in economic growth. Iraqi oil at the moment is an unrealistic option.

Military occupation of a reasonably distant country known for its internal troubles is not a viable method of economic growth, especially at this juncture, what with the whole human rights thing limiting exploitation options somewhat.

America can easily cut off China from Iraq militarily

Which is another reason why China does not have interest in Iraq. If it were really desperate for economic growth by military expansion, there are many directions for it closer to home. Such as southern Siberia. Perhaps more difficult to conquer, but definitely easier to hold on to after that is done.

The only country that I could think of as genuinely wanting to occupy Iraq would be Iran. I don't think anybody else wants it, which is just as well, except inasmuch as it keeps America from shirking the responsibilities it has taken on itself by this point.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Military occupation of a reasonably distant country known for its internal troubles is not a viable method of economic growth, especially at this juncture, what with the whole human rights thing limiting exploitation options somewhat.



Which is another reason why China does not have interest in Iraq. If it were really desperate for economic growth by military expansion, there are many directions for it closer to home. Such as southern Siberia. Perhaps more difficult to conquer, but definitely easier to hold on to after that is done.

The only country that I could think of as genuinely wanting to occupy Iraq would be Iran. I don't think anybody else wants it, which is just as well, except inasmuch as it keeps America from shirking the responsibilities it has taken on itself by this point.

In this hypothetical, China would be allowed to confiscate the oil and give it to it's own companies.

 

[BananaLee]

2- The threat of war with America would act as a detterent. (Perhaps even a threat of trade embargo could be tried- now I think about it, it would probabl work on the Chinese)

Umm.. I'd like to put you in the direction of the same Blackadder quote that I busted out a while back: -

Captain Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

Private Baldrick: But, this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

Captain Blackadder: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

Private Baldrick: What was that, sir?

Captain Blackadder: It was bollocks.