Iraq

[forgiven1]

I had a thought while reading this thread and I thought I'd share it.

Anyone know some people who are in Iraq now, and could give a truthful account (at least from their station) of how things are going. There's so much "horse manure" on the news and its all negative about the war. Maybe its time the Internet got some use for getting the truth out....

Also, anyone who is wanting to do this will need to be careful. The military can get nasty about posting on the net.

Here's a truthful account of one marine.

http://www.archive.org/details/JoelOyer_MarineInIraq

The truth is, there is much more to the war in Iraq than the buzz words of freedom and democracy. This war is actually making the world a much more dangerous place. The country was much more peaceful under Saddam, all the schools were open then, things were stable, the price of oil was stable, the world was a much more peaceful, there was no Al queda operating in Iraq, Sunni and Shia lived at peace. The country did not threaten America at all, that was a farce. This was a self serving war but it has blown back in America's face. It's so obviously about oil and domination it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Russia and China will not allow American domination of the world's resources to go unchallenged and even now all sides are gearing up for a big fight that'll make Iraq look like kid's play. It won't be long now, the endtime is unfolding according to prophecy.

[apothanein kerdos]

I had a thought while reading this thread and I thought I'd share it.

Anyone know some people who are in Iraq now, and could give a truthful account (at least from their station) of how things are going. There's so much "horse manure" on the news and its all negative about the war. Maybe its time the Internet got some use for getting the truth out....

Also, anyone who is wanting to do this will need to be careful. The military can get nasty about posting on the net.

Here's a truthful account of one marine.

http://www.archive.org/details/JoelOyer_MarineInIraq

The truth is, there is much more to the war in Iraq than the buzz words of freedom and democracy. This war is actually making the world a much more dangerous place. The country was much more peaceful under Saddam, all the schools were open then, things were stable, the price of oil was stable, the world was a much more peaceful, there was no Al queda operating in Iraq, Sunni and Shia lived at peace. The country did not threaten America at all, that was a farce. This was a self serving war but it has blown back in America's face. It's so obviously about oil and domination it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Russia and China will not allow American domination of the world's resources to go unchallenged and even now all sides are gearing up for a big fight that'll make Iraq look like kid's play. It won't be long now, the endtime is unfolding according to prophecy.

Okay...now...can you please come back to the real world?

I won't argue that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because I don't know. But to say that the Sunnis and Shia lived at peace, and Iraq was more peaceful and stable before the invasion...that's just ignorant. Major ignorance.

You were born in the late 80's or early 90's...I can tell. You must not remember seeing thousands of Iraqis gassed...or going back further, Kurds systematically killed.

I still remember seeing reporters entering Kuwait city, after Sadam had invaded it, and showing the mass killings that had begun. You are living in a fantasy world if you really believe what you said.

[CallMeBernard]

Right, along with reports of locals turning in insurgents and their locations.

It seems like the Iraqi public is getting sick of the insurgents and is beginning to give away their locations.

I read an interesting article about terrorist groups about a year or so ago, detailing the expected life story of a a terrorist group. This is as much as I can remember:

• Terrorist group has a 'justifiable' grievance, and some local support
  
• Terrorist group has some early successes and gains popularity/ notoriety
  
• Gov't over-reacts and hurts local civilians. Support for terrorists grows.
  
• As terrorists grow in numbers, it becomes easier for Gov't to put intelligence operatives in, or to gain intelligence from disaffected members.
  
• Gov't starts to get some (minor) success against terrorists.
  
• Terrorists panic, and do something stupid
  
• Local support for terrorsits wane. More intelligence flows to Gov't
  
• Gov't gets bigger successes, and possibly captures/ eliminates some leaders from the terrorists.
  
• Terrorists group starts to splinter. Each splinter tries to outdo each other with 'spectaculars' and increasingly hardline stances to show how different they are to the other terrorist groups (think IRA/ INLA)
  
• 'Spectaculars' kill more civilians, make the Gov't look like they are losing- but support for the terrorists is actually at an all time low. They can no longer rely on the local population to help/ support them.
  
• Terrorist groups start to realise the joys of diplomacy.
  
• Ceasefire
  
• Happy ever after. Kind of.
  

That's from what I remember. The Northern Irish situation, ETA in Spain and the Algerians all kind of fit this pattern. Note that towards the end the terrorists start to appear to get the upper hand even though they are losing all kinds of local support.

[CallMeBernard]

Right, along with reports of locals turning in insurgents and their locations.

It seems like the Iraqi public is getting sick of the insurgents and is beginning to give away their locations.

I read an interesting article about terrorist groups about a year or so ago, detailing the expected life story of a a terrorist group. This is as much as I can remember:

• Terrorist group has a 'justifiable' grievance, and some local support
  
• Terrorist group has some early successes and gains popularity/ notoriety
  
• Gov't over-reacts and hurts local civilians. Support for terrorists grows.
  
• As terrorists grow in numbers, it becomes easier for Gov't to put intelligence operatives in, or to gain intelligence from disaffected members.
  
• Gov't starts to get some (minor) success against terrorists.
  
• Terrorists panic, and do something stupid
  
• Local support for terrorsits wane. More intelligence flows to Gov't
  
• Gov't gets bigger successes, and possibly captures/ eliminates some leaders from the terrorists.
  
• Terrorists group starts to splinter. Each splinter tries to outdo each other with 'spectaculars' and increasingly hardline stances to show how different they are to the other terrorist groups (think IRA/ INLA)
  
• 'Spectaculars' kill more civilians, make the Gov't look like they are losing- but support for the terrorists is actually at an all time low. They can no longer rely on the local population to help/ support them.
  
• Terrorist groups start to realise the joys of diplomacy.
  
• Ceasefire
  
• Happy ever after. Kind of.
  

That's from what I remember. The Northern Irish situation, ETA in Spain and the Algerians all kind of fit this pattern. Note that towards the end the terrorists start to appear to get the upper hand even though they are losing all kinds of local support.

[Smalcald]

Well the military is obviosly doing a great job. But the military job was over in 2003 when we deposed Saddam Hussian, who was the threat.

And Saddam posed a threat to the United States in 2003 how?

Hi Forrest,

My point was not the legitimacy or not of the invasion. Saddam posed a threat to the region and possibly the world, just as Iran does now, and we had the excuse of 9/11 to take him out so we acted on it. In general the region is better without him than with him, although we can debate that. I personally don't think it was a good idea, BUT it did happen. My point was that we did our military job back in 2003, after that we put ourselves in the midst of a Nation Building exercise in the middle of a civil war, not something that is a wise thing. The bizarre thing is I am so surprised that conservatives would be so happy with nation building; it is something that they specifically spoke of not wanting to do anymore and I think many conservatives including myself are still against this sort of forign entanglement. We couldn't solve Haiti's problems; we sure as heck are not going to solve the problems of the various people who live in Iraq.

I say let them fight it out. If Iran gains too much power we can go back in and deal with them later but I don

[forgiven1]

Well the military is obviosly doing a great job. But the military job was over in 2003 when we deposed Saddam Hussian, who was the threat.

And Saddam posed a threat to the United States in 2003 how?

Hi Forrest,

My point was not the legitimacy or not of the invasion. Saddam posed a threat to the region and possibly the world, just as Iran does now, and we had the excuse of 9/11 to take him out so we acted on it. In general the region is better without him than with him, although we can debate that. I personally don't think it was a good idea, BUT it did happen. My point was that we did our military job back in 2003, after that we put ourselves in the midst of a Nation Building exercise in the middle of a civil war, not something that is a wise thing. The bizarre thing is I am so surprised that conservatives would be so happy with nation building; it is something that they specifically spoke of not wanting to do anymore and I think many conservatives including myself are still against this sort of forign entanglement. We couldn't solve Haiti's problems; we sure as heck are not going to solve the problems of the various people who live in Iraq.

I say let them fight it out. If Iran gains too much power we can go back in and deal with them later but I don

[forgiven1]

You were born in the late 80's or early 90's...I can tell. You must not remember seeing thousands of Iraqis gassed...or going back further, Kurds systematically killed.

Check out what this CIA political analyst for Iraq, who received all the intelligence at the time, has to say about Halabja. It's a ways into the movie.

Saddam had lots of enemies in the region that he had to fight against as any government would but answer me this. If it was Wrong for Saddam to invade Kuwait, why was it ok for America to invade Iraq when Iraq was absolutely no immediate threat to the US? Doesn't that fact make the US a rogue nation. That's not even mentioning the countless other invasions and covert opperations to undermine other governments that were no immediate threat. Freedom and democracy are not excuses to do wickedly or you are no better than any other wicked and power hungry government.

[apothanein kerdos]

You were born in the late 80's or early 90's...I can tell. You must not remember seeing thousands of Iraqis gassed...or going back further, Kurds systematically killed.

Check out what this CIA political analyst for Iraq, who received all the intelligence at the time, has to say about Halabja. It's a ways into the movie.

Saddam had lots of enemies in the region that he had to fight against as any government would but answer me this. If it was Wrong for Saddam to invade Kuwait, why was it ok for America to invade Iraq when Iraq was absolutely no immediate threat to the US? Doesn't that fact make the US a rogue nation. That's not even mentioning the countless other invasions and covert opperations to undermine other governments that were no immediate threat. Freedom and democracy are not excuses to do wickedly or you are no better than any other wicked and power hungry government.

You expect me to listen to that anti-semitic drivel? Making Israel and the Jews to blame for most of this? This guy even denies that chemical weapons were used in Iraq by the Iraqis? Does he also deny the Holocaust?

You're far more naive than I thought. Let me guess, we're fighting this war for oil and Israel. Those darn Jews.

[forgiven1]

You expect me to listen to that anti-semitic drivel? Making Israel and the Jews to blame for most of this? This guy even denies that chemical weapons were used in Iraq by the Iraqis? Does he also deny the Holocaust?

You don't seem to have gotten the context of what the guy was saying. He wasn't a Jew hater, he was just pointing out some aspects of how Israel operates on political and covert levels mainly. Do you think Israel is as pure as the driven snow. Of course they aren't, no government is. The Massad is as notorious as any other covert agency. Also he pointed out that according to the intelligence at the time, those Kurds in Halabja were collateral damage of the war with Iran because both sides were using chemical weapons at the time and there was a battle in the Halabja area and the Kurds got gassed. He said the condition of the bodies showed the kind of gas used and it was actually Iranian gas of a kind Iraq did not have. The investigation was never pursued. Now, I can't prove that but I would hope this man being the CIA political analyst for Iraq at the time would have a whole lot better intelligence on the matter than you or I would and those were his conclusions after having seen the intelligence for the matter. Anyway, it's common knowledge where Saddam got most of his chemical weapons to fight Iran with, America. Anti semetic is much too loose a term these days if it means you are not to criticise the government of Israel.

The war is mainly about geo-political advantage, oil, and protecting Israel. I don't think that's any secret.

Edited June 1, 2007 by forgiven1

[apothanein kerdos]

Right, because Israel has so much to gain out of instability in the region.

Also, as for your "CIA" guy on Iraq - he's an idiot. We have documents, video, practically an admission from multiple people in Saddam's regime that they purposefully targeted Kurds with their chemical weapons.

Basically, he has an agenda and is purposefully leaving out facts.

As an addendum: stop saying this war is for oil. Money has been lost and oil companies, as well as the American public, have lost out on it...and even if it were for oil, it wouldn't make it wrong.

This war is exactly what Bush said it was about - we mistakenly thought they had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was hazy, but still supported the idea that Saddam had these WMD's. The Russians, French, Germans, and all others thought he had them too. Even Clinton (during his tenure as president) declared that Saddam had them. In the post-9/11 hype, Bush and Congress made a hasty decision to go to war with Iraq. They did was any government would do - they saw a perceived threat and subsequently attacked and demolished that threat. Unfortunately, their intelligence was wrong and now we're stuck there doing a job and finishing a job that probably shouldn't have been started. Regardless, we're there, so while we're there, let's win.

That version certainly isn't as exciting as the conspiracy-like thoughts as to why we went to war, but it is the most likely scenario.