I try not to include lengthy articles, but since we're talking about polls and Iraqi attitudes, I thought this one was pertinent for consideration.


(By James Zogby: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17021 )
........In fact, Zogby International (ZI) in Iraq had conducted the poll, and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) did publish their interpretation of the findings. But the AEI's "spin" and the Vice-President's use of their "spin" created a faulty impression of the poll's results and, therefore, of the attitudes of the Iraqi people.


For example, while Cheney noted that when asked what kind of government they would like, Iraqis chose "the U.S. . . . hands down," in fact, the results of the poll are actually quite different. Twenty-three percent of Iraqis say that they would like to model their new government after the U.S.; 17.5 percent would like their model to be Saudi Arabia; 12 percent say Syria, 7 percent say Egypt and 37 percent say "none of the above." That's hardly "winning hands down."

EDITED OUT FULLY COPYRIGHTED ARTICLE - PLEASE REVIEW THE RULES REGARDING ARTICLE POSTING: RULES

I've read the Zogby article and note that it applies specifically to the Zogby poll (I referenced Gallup polls). Whatever style of government Iraqis would choose, they don't choose it seems to view American troops as foreign occupiers to be violently ejected.

Fortunately, the Iraqi people have a relatively high opinion of Bremer (if Baghdad is any indication).

47% say they "like" him as opposed to 22% "don't like" the rest are either ambivalent or unaware.


Do you have any evident to back this up, I am unaware that a significant number of the many reconstruction projects in process all over Iraq have halted.

What worries me is that the Special Republican Guard, Saddam's most loyal soldiers, never actually fought in the war. They spent some of the early stages just above Baghdad and they fled north....

I wander what they are doing now.....

Fighting against us now. That was Saddam's plan all along. Bog us down in a gureilla war.

What's also important is that this is a rather hopeful sign. The outnumbered remnants of a hated regime can cause trouble for a while, but they have no hope of victory.

Unfortunately I think our troops will be there for a while to come. In my opinion this has nothing to do with how well-received they are in Iraq and more to do with the political situation at home. I take my opinion from a recent discussion I had with my uncle. He did two tours as a platoon sargent in Vietnam and has some strong opinions on this present situation. He directed me here: http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

He told me about one particular situation when he was in Vietnam. His platoon was being used for some sort of night watch (I can't remember the name he gave it) in which they were perched around a village watching for enemy activity. They spent a month watching 5-6 people go in late at night with large bundles and 20-30 leaving before down. It was clear to them that this was an enemy camp but they were not allowed to act on it. Not only were they given specific orders to just watch but the entire army was under direct orders to not fire first. They had to receive fire before they could return it. I sat and heard stories (from two uncles at the same conversation actually) about the many times these orders were totally disobeyed for reasons of safety. Soldiers realized that their direct orders were a threat to their lives and they chose to ignore them.

Both of my uncles agree that this present war is, in this sense, another Vietnam. They see soldiers trained for a specific type of mobile combat instead being used at best as security guards and at worst target dummies. They are hampered by politically motivated orders to not engage unless completely necessary. (this has been told to me recently by returning friends)
I'm not trying to say I want our army to storm over these people in a murderous rampage, I don't want that at all, however that is exactly what they are trained to do. Instead they are being used as a tool for our leadership and put in harms way. The government didn't see this coming in Vietnam nor did they see it in Iraq but it is happening. It's sad that they clearly had no plans for this occupation. Why did it take them so long to appoint Bremer and send him out there? They hadn't even thought about having the position...


When we started talking about the militaries recently explained "boots on the ground" policy for tours of duty my uncles had flashbacks to Nam. If this administration doesn't start to look back to history for guidance we could be in for a long haul. "Advisors" were in Vietnam in 1958 and the war didn't end until 1973....

As an aside (since I have already typed too long) I would like to account another personal story: About a month ago one of the boys I coached in Track & Field came back from the war. (he graduated last year) He had pictures and I flipped through them. At least 25% of the pictures were of dead Iraqi soldiers or of American soldiers holding "trophies" from dead Iraqis. The worst picture was of the spilled brains of an Iraqi. I was shocked and asked him if this stuff was considered ok to do. His reply, "nah. not really, but they don't really do much to stop it." This boy was 19 years old and celebrating his pictures of dead Iraqis with anyone who would listen and look. The culture of hate over there is not something we see on television. I'm sure much of it is the natural outcome of having to kill people in war; you learn to dislike them and create reasons to rationalize your killing. My question is, how can these people be the same ones who are now supposed to spend years overseas standing on street corners with these same people?

Sorry about the length,
my $.02 + tax this time

Well clearly they had given the position some thought, Bremer was sent to replace Jay Garner who was appointed soon after major combat was over.

I understand concerns that the war might be micro-managed by politicians rendering the troops unable to fight effectively in Iraq. But I see no evidence that this is the case currently. What we did in Vietnam doesn't have to be what we are doing now, nor does it seem to be.

From what I understand commanders in Iraq are being given considerable flexibility.

From what I have heard from friends returning home they have been given flexibility, but it is one of those "enough rope to hang yourself with" situations. Honestly, how much flexibility does one have when standing in a small group on a street corner in a hostile nation? Or at a road checkpoint? (another friend will be returning this month the 19th and I will hear more)
The special forces and other covert agencies, on the other hand, seem to have excellent freedom in their operations and are doing an amazing job. They are essentially spying on and raiding suspected enemies. Those soldiers sitting on streetcorners or driving in "moving target" caravans are not in situations where they can defend themselves properly. It is obviously important for the security of the city that we have a presence but there must be another way. The comparisons between the present policy and the Vietnam policies, made by many veterans, are eerily similar; too much so to be ignored in my opinion.

I don't think we are doomed to recreate history, but if we don't stop to look back we just might. My vote in 2004 is, without a doubt, for a veteran of war.
If Colin Powell or Wes Clark tell me that the need outweighs the lives of our soldiers then I am much more likely to be comfortable with the decision.

I really hope you aren't suggesting that a vietnam style loss could come out of this occupation?

I don't think a "Vietnam Style" loss will occur because the American people won't let it! I learned this saying from Scotty on Star Trek: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

The war in Vietnam lost its momentum directly as a consequence of the informed soldiers coming home and telling their loved ones, friends, etc how it really is. The same will happen here. It is a different age right now, the people of this country are not quite so gullible.

That's interesting, all reports from soldiers in Iraq I've heard (including from some members here) are far from that description. Certainly none have said we might lose militarily. In fact they say thing are better than is being reported.

Let's get down to business, what evidence do you have that the war is significantly worse than is being reported?

The fact is, with the increase in Iraqi numbers, this fight gets worse for the terrorists everyday. They weren't making much of a dent when they started and things haven't changed. They're losing, badly...

Vietnam.

Are they?

41 G.I.s wounded & a blackhawk down(pun not intended)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CB10

Who controls Samara?-no one
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?p...p=1012571727172

Elected Iraqi leaders imprisoned-Ba'athists reinstated
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/...ain586841.shtml


U.S. commander warns of more attacks
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp...w/60987/1/.html

Iraqi provisional policeman killed by mourners. With such popular support from the "people" who needs enemies?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6-2003Dec6.html


My point? I don't believe that we are winning as handily as you believe. I think it's more of a draw right now. We need to do one of two things to "win" One-we get international support and the UN & Europe help us out. Or two--we redouble our efforts and possibly institute a draft. If we do that, then we need to go in with little regard for the people and handle them in a rough handed way. I'm not sure either path is what we have the stomach for.

Are they?

41 G.I.s wounded & a blackhawk down(pun not intended)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CB10

Who controls Samara?-no one
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?p...p=1012571727172

Elected Iraqi leaders imprisoned-Ba'athists reinstated
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/04/...ain586841.shtml


U.S. commander warns of more attacks
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp...w/60987/1/.html

Iraqi provisional policeman killed by mourners. With such popular support from the "people" who needs enemies?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6-2003Dec6.html


My point? I don't believe that we are winning as handily as you believe. I think it's more of a draw right now. We need to do one of two things to "win" One-we get international support and the UN & Europe help us out. Or two--we redouble our efforts and possibly institute a draft. If we do that, then we need to go in with little regard for the people and handle them in a rough handed way. I'm not sure either path is what we have the stomach for.

thanks for the backup Nebraska....great links!

I don't have the time to seek out links at the moment, however there have been numerous interviews in print and on television (including on Fox) of ex-military men who are uneasy with the handling of this war. Transport helicopters flying in open spaces, alone, during the day?!? That's not standard practice and, of course, they are shot down. Blackhawks are meant for stealth and surprise and they, too, are flying daytime operations and being shot down. I happen to know a special forces Blackhawk pilot (who worked the South American theater for years) who is disgusted with the present use of these airships.

These decisions are clearly not being made by the soldiers or the generals who know what they are doing. This is much a war of the media as it is between two nations and so I am cautious about most of the reports I read until I get lots of information on them:

For example, here is an situation in which the Palestianians fabricated gunfight and a death in order to move people to their cause pretty sneaky stuff

I have no doubts that our governmnt uses the same bait and switch tactics with the media to create the appearance of the war they desire. Of course they let bad news get out but they limit its scope. If NO bad news were released it would be obvious to Americans that they were being bamboozeled...

I think that the corporate need for stability in that country and Afghanistan as discussed HERE is reason enough for our government to stay there... There are pipelines to be built (that have been planned by Unocal and others for years) and they have a friend in the White house who can egt the the regime change they needed. Read the links on my post from that other thread...some scary stuff. Friends of Bush asked for regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq in 1998..

Do you think they will let us leave now?

I cannot understand why there is no option to vote never on the poll. For me, the War on terror is an ongoing and everlasting process. Obviously there will not alwats be actual wars like there are now, but it will have to be a constant battle in some form or another.

Terrorism for me is really an international form of crime, organised crime if you like, only not for material personal gain but usually a wider desire of something idealogical, political or cultural. Regardless of intention however my point is this.

Crime cannot be stopped because it is so dynamic sporadic and individual, terrorism whilst opertaing on larger, less individual basis is equally sporadic, unpredictable and impossible to stop. Since it does not come in standard forms, like the agression of a state.

Hopefully Al Queda will eventually suside into the background but us is not obvious when this will become a reality. It is therefore impossible to eradicate and unfortunately - unlike communism - it is a permanent phenomena Since its survival is not dependent on the stability of a state.

It wont end, it never started. But besides the differences in Eastern and Western philosophy-

It will "end" when the individual has accepted that it does not matter, that the dust will settle in this world, perhaps within this next decade, or once humanity itself has gotten over exsisting on this frequency, past on.

We concern ourselves so much of issues so much as how will kill who next or, using elaborate political words to emphasize minor "tragedies."

How to help: Let go of what makes you perceive in such a matter that you think you really see this world and it's people.

I add this to the conversation, since it has to do with how long the war will last. I disagree very much with those who say that things are getting better, and are under control. My previous posts were not intended to gloat over the fact that the provisional government is failing, but to point out that we still have quite a long haul ahead of us. Today is no exception. A third of the first Iraqi army battallion quit?? This group that was highly celebrated when they finished the 9 weeks of basic training? Things are just not right, and the administration is playing "Joe Isuzu" with us about it.

On a related tangent, many of the democratic candidates(including those who I like) repeat the line that they will seek international cooperation and want further training of Iraqis to defend their country. With this latest event, it looks as if the latter premise is just not going to pan out. The point? Our stay is going to be much longer than we have anticipated.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...iraq_new_army_1

US forces will remain in country for a minimum of five years. The force structure will change as the Iraqi government and security forces begin to take shape, but we will maintain a presence for at least that long.

I'm sure you've all read the story posted about the fact that just over a third of the soldiers in the first battalion of the new Iraqi army have resigned - mostly over pay. This bodes ill for the transition. What hasn't been mentioned is that the identical problem exists with the Iraqi police. The police force has also lost large numbers of personnel due to pay issues. Currently, the issue with the police has a much greater impact upon local security issues that involve our troops.

This is a disgrace. Most of all, because of the pay - the CPA pays the locals who mop toilets and fill sandbags more than Iraqi policemen or soldiers are paid. The results are unsurprising.

You have to understand that the average Iraqi citizen in the cities lives in constant fear of armed robbery, carjacking, and the molestation of their wives and/or daughters. The police that are on duty are mostly unarmed, and don't have any communications with which to call for backup in emergencies. Needless to say, this leads to relative freedom of action for armed criminals. The terrible crime rate in turn feeds into deteriorating support for the coalition; if not support for the insurgents.

We can still botch this horribly, if we're not careful. Five years, minimum - and it may not be due to Iraq being stable. If we do not fix current trends, it may be simply to cut our losses.

I think now that Saddam is gone, it will be much less because the resistance is being broken as we speak by raids by info provided from Saddam and documents he had in his possesion.

We may have our troops outta there by Christmas next year

Don't be in such a hurry. The situation may become much more fluid yet.

For example, the Shiites have been quietly supporting us as long as we were hunting their mortal enemies, the Baathists. Now that we've decapitated the Baathists and are going for the kill, what's to stop the Shiites from changing their minds and going after us to throw us out of their country? They're already calling for "direct democracy", which would result in giving them unlimited power. The situation is still in play with lots of blood feuds still simmering below the surface.

Or was the whole point just to get Saddam and the Baathists out of power and not create the type of society that we think the Arabs need (i.e., "democracy")?

Hmmm, that ain't much of a poll. Where's the option for... 'Untill the oil runs out'? Eigther EDIT and the UK will carry on their Zionist based occupation to protect their oil, or they will put another despotic tyrant in place just like they put Saddam there. One thing's for sure, they won't have elections!

Look what they did in Afghanistan, propping up the Northern Aliance. The Taliban no longer being friends of EDIT replaced by a bunch of narcotic dealing war lords. And now the Taliban are creeping back in. A complete disaster!

How many 9/11s will it take before Amerikka realises that training terrorists like Bin Laden and all the terrorists being trained in the School of the Americas. And all the tyrants being put into power to act on EDIT behalf. Will always turn around and bite the hand that raised them!

The world is no longer in a state of red, white and blue ignorance. We're waking up and we are everywhere!!!!

Edited intentionally inflammatory misspelled word

The old adage, be careful what you ask for-you might get it is very prescient here. If we were to truly allow democracy to flourish, and not to "help" the Iraqis craft their document with such a heavy hand, we would see an Islamic-republic take shape. It would either resemble a good society like Pakistan's or a bad one like Irans. What will we do then when the people clearly want such a republic?? Do we presume to better than they what form of government they want?

I think this will take longer because the squabbling is starting between the Arabs and the Kurds:

Article

If the violence between these 2 continues, it will take a long time to stop the fighting if this erupts into a civil war.

Good to see you change your Dec 18 position, GA! Welcome to the other side

My fear is that what we're seeing is similar to the overthrow of the Russian Czarist regime, which was followed by a few years of a very weak democracy, with no real democratic traditions to take hold, followed by war and famine where folks just wanted "order", followed by a very strong and aggressive totalitarian regime that was hostile to its own people and -- eventually -- to the USA. Lots of "order" then.

Civil war in Iraq might entice Turkey and Iran to join, so that they could settle old scores as well.

I've noticed lately that the administration has also backed off it's "scale-down by June" mantra. Things seem a bit more fluid than they've anticipated. D-Oh!

Don't get that welcome mat out yet. I am not ready to turn to the dark side yet

Anyways, I think that we will still see a possibly major pull out by December but there will be remnants of US presense to keep the ethnic rivals calm and take out whatever there is left of resistance

Why is there no spot for "five years" or "ten years"? Are you that optimistic?

Finally back to what I really wanted to talk about.

If the there is one single thing I would like to inject into the debate of efforts in in Iraq it is a heaping helping of Perspective.

We have lost almost 500 US troops in Iraq (496 since Tuesday). Does that sound like a large number? Sure when you hear it a million times a day. It is certainly a great loss for the country taken as a whole but strategically?

The are about 130,000 US troops in Iraq according to the "Boston Globe" that makes loses about .385% (If you use the 500 number). See in you ever catch that on the evening news.

In case the significance of that number goes unnoticed simply put, we're not going to lose this war militarily.

The only real chance of failure is political failure either in Iraq or here.

In Iraq the greatest problem is not sectarian conflict (Arabs and Kurds, Sunni and Shia, etc.) people have been crying wolf on that threat since before the war. The Iraqis aren't stupid. They know the terrorists are trying to start fights (ever since the murder of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqr al-Hakim). They have nothing to gain and will strive to keep the peace.

Power grabs by powerful individuals are a worry, but I believe they be over come.

The only other chance of failure is a failure in the will of the American people to finish this important task....

Five year for significant numbers of troops in Iraq is a serious overestimation.

So I'll repeat it: the terrorists are losing, badly

The question was really two questions.

I think U S forces will leave asap, within one year , when will the insurgency end, probably never, that is until another Dictator takes control on a par with Saddam.

Iraq is simply to divided, to many fanatical ethinc groups who will never allow themseleves to be ruled by the other in a Democratic process. It AIN'T gonna happen.

That kind of PERSPECTIVE and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee.

That kind of PERSPECTIVE is being CALLOUS and INHUMAN. We are now down to the level of comparing our soliders that lost lives to .385% of the total amount of soliders in Iraq. It doesn't matter if we just lose 1 life or 10,000 lives. 1 life is 1 too many to lose. Each man,woman,father,mother,son,daughter,husband or wife is too precious to lose in this sham of a war,dreamed up by Bush and his masters.

Lets use an example. Your immediate family is 10 people and you are traveling in a bus. There is a wreck and 1 person dies. The report in the paper describes the accident as only 10% died. Would that be appropiate and how would you feel. I am sure the families of loved one that died in Iraq feel the same way.

...and if we were discussing feelings that might matter .

The thread is to discuss when the conflict will end, therefore considering fatalities strategically (rather than emotionally) is key to this discussion.

I'm simply staying on topic.

So...

.325% hardly a quagmire.

I think were going to be there long after I die , were going to be there till the oil is all gone, I mean face it thats the real reason were there in the first place, WMD what a joke of an excuse that is ! Saddam never had or would of a had any weapons that could of threatened us as for his chemical weapons the last time he used them it was on the kurds an thats when we were buddies with him (wink wink ) it was ok then back in the reagan days! The other excuse used is we were there to free the people of Iraq well what about the other countrys that treat their people even worst then Saddam a.k.a( NorthKorea) Anyhow I think most the storys we have heard were propaganda from the Bush Lie factory.
Heck Honest to God I think Bush is more of a threat to us an the world then Saddam ever could have been!

And what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Other then to push the crazy baseless far-left rhetoric.

We will be there for awhile yet. Pacification of a population takes time, there will always be malcontents and so forth that benefited under the previous rule who no longer do. These people wish a return to the status quo that once existed. For example, Germany took five yrs to pacify (and that's after the civilian population finally turned upon the remnants of Hitler's Youth and other former Nazis, collectively known as the Werewolves).

Not to mention the steady stream of extremists that have come into the country....

wanderer I gave my opinnion I think we will be there till the oil is gone. It dont matter what really happens as long as the oil is there we will be there!

P.s. The only extremists there that don't belong there is the U.S.

That is a very sad attempt at an argument (and humor if that is what you were getting at). This is a debate site where we actuallly produce an argument with facts and not rants like that.



Well, i looked in your profile, which says you were born in 1976, which makes you 27, so i very doubt it. We may have a small band of troops (maybe 1000 or 5000) in there after the iraqis finally gets situated and get a new government elected for themselves.

As like your other posts so far, i think you are exaggerating.



Let's see...
Saddam starved his people. So does Kim Jong.
Saddam tortured his people. So does Kim Jong.

Seems like they do have a thing or 2 in common

Any other statements??

Popeye:


Okay. But now you have terrorists diverting their resources to a country where they think they can bog us down and they are too busy in Iraq taking our troops on that they are not spending enough time planning to use another airliner as a flying missile at another building. I know that sounds cheesy as an explanation but it makes perfect sense. We are keeping them busy on something that is preventing them from working on a plot to make 9/11 look like a small fireworks display. Think about it.

And what terrorists are doing in Iraq isn't really helping their cause either. Al-queda blows up a marketplace full of Iraqi civilians to try to turn civilians on our troops, muslims will see that it is obvious Al-queda won't stick to killing Americans but fellow muslims. This happened when they blew up that Saudi Residential compound in the capital of SA. Fellow Muslims, who survived the blast, asked why Al-Queda is targetting them and that Al-Queda be punished for it etc so al-queda is just hurting itself

Its not an argument its a fact we are in Iraq for the oil! And no GoAmerica its not funny in fact its sad Name one other reason that we are there besides Oil

If its wmd there are None (Unless Bush plans on planting some like he did with the fabricated jessica lynnch story )

If it is to liberate the people how come we weren't told that right of the bat!
how come were not liberatin north korea or china or cuba then, ya know why Cause the oil is in the middle east!

Can't you people wade through all the propaganda pushed on us by the White House
an see the truth!

And as for my opinion of us having our military in Iraq just look too history
Iraq is going to be another territory of the U.S. just like Porto Rico , Guam , The Philippians ect.

Most of us here at AD require more than a talking point assertion repeated over and over, to be considered a fact. No matter how hard you want it to be true.


This has been discussed on an earlier thread, but again, just because you claim it's fabricated, doesn't necessarily make it so.

My friend you are giving us centre-left wingers a bad name. I will tell you, I have read all the conspiracy theories, about how its all about oil, about how its all about the oil ransaction standard and the value of the dollar, about how it is all about the privatisation of Iraq industry, and so on.

Now there is an enormous amount of privatisation of Iraq Industry going on, which is unfortunate and will cause problems in the long term, and I am sure the new government will very quickly make sure that it returns to the Oil transaction standard of the US dollar, after Hussein switched it to the Euro.

There are a dozen different ways that the US, either as a government or as individuals, are taking advantage of the situation for their own gain. But the question is, were these 'profits' the original excuse for the war? I think it is silly to assume that the war in Iraq is entirely about oil, a simple calculator will prove this.

Oil is currently valued at about 30$ per barrel. The US cost for the war, including reconstruction, is approaching 100 billion dollars. Thats about 3.4 billion barrels worth of oil. The entire US strategic oil reserve is only just under 600 million barrels. Considering that the Iraqi oil Industry is the only one that is not going to be privatised, the US cannot excersise direct coltrol over its clients or sales. Certainly a pro-US government in Iraq would favour the US, but unless Iraq drops the price of the oil it sells to the US (which it cannot do as a member of OPEC) then how exactly is the US supposed to recoup its costs? Best case is that Iraq now sells most of its oil to the US, but that just benefits Iraq, not the US which could have gotten its oil supplies elsewhere for the same price.

Unless the US attempts to manage direct control over Iraqi oil, such as have US industries take over the business, or have Iraq leave OPEC, there can be no real oil benefit to the US.

So rather than repeat "Its all about Oil" perhaps you could explain to me exactly WHAT about oil it is? Yes, the US dollar is slightly bolstered by Iraq returning to the US dollar as its oil currency standard, but the US cannot halt this change by invading people. Iran, Venezuela and Russia are all considering moving to the Euro as well, so the war cannot have been just about this.

In terms or privatisation of non-Oil Iraq industries, yes a lot of US companies will probably make a great deal of money in the short term off of these contracts, but do you really believe that the US would invade a country because the aftermath might give some financial benefit to some private sector industries? Better to spend a tenth of the 87 billion spent and just hand it out to these industries, much cheaper.


I have said several times, I think the Iraq was was about fear and lashing out. I think the administration was embarassed and hurt by the September 11th attacks, and by their inability to score any kind of tangible victory over Afganistan or Bin Laden. I think this offered a relatively easy way for the US to "score one for the good guys", in the absence of any other victories. The fact that Hussein was a genuinely bad guy made justifying it simple. They should have stuck with that rather than this silly WMD thing which has turned out to be at worst an outright lie, at best a serious exaggeration.

Can anyone say Halliburton! Cheney+oil+Halliburton=Iraqi War
all it takes is common sense to see this



YA





HAVE YOU READ A PAPER IN THE LAST YEAR , THE WHITE HOUSE ALL BUT ADMITTED IT WAS A MADE UP STORY

As for our troops being there , they will be there till big oil says so

Anyone-but-bush,
Your post lacks any credibility and substance whatsoever. If you choose to believe that troops will remain in Iraq until the oil runs out, or Halliburton says they can come home, that is certainly your choice. but it flies in the face of facts, logic and common sense.
I would recommend if you have a point to make, that you provide some links or sources to back it up. We're not your average flame-baiting debate board here at AD. Most members will not engage in debate with one liners, blanket generalizations and partisan talking points, no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from.

As for my opinion to the question for debate:

When will it end?
We've already started the drawdown from 130,000 to 105,000 troops in theater. Not only might a democratic president further increase the pace of this next year, but the soon to be growing (IMO) presence and influence of the UN (for better or worse) will lend to conditions for us to remove most troops except for a token force by the next two years.

I am sorry, you keep making assertions with no evidence so it is hard to argue. Firstly, in your last post you said it was all about Oil, but haliburton has been given no oil contracts, just reconstruction contracts.

Secondly, due to the increase in value of shares, Cheney's shares have increased an estimated $400,000 or so due to the Haliburton contracts. Thats not personal profit, thats just value of held shares. Actually, thats a misnomer, because Haliburton's shares were very low before, meaning Cheney had previously lost money, his net profit is probably about half of that. He also gets about $200k a year from Haliburton in deferred salary payments, but those are in no way tied to stocks or anything else, Cheney would make those war or no war.

Oh, and Cheney also publicly declared that he would make no personal profit off of Haliburton's stocks, all profits he made would be donated to charity.

So please explain (without just repeating the same assertions) how the war is all about oil? I asked that last message, you seem to have ignored it...

I am totally against the War in Iraq, but I am just as against silly conspiracy theories which explain how one guy organised the entire war to make a tiny amount of profit on one of his stock holdings.



No, actually. I read that it was greatly exaggerated, and that much of the tale was overblown based on initial faulty reports, but so far almost all the blame for that lies on the media, not on the White House.

Fuel prices for unleaded in my town range from a low of $1.54 to a high of $1.74.

No, this war was not about oil, but the preceding thirty years of watching the innocent die in Iraq sure was.

All it takes is common sense to see that the US finally did the right thing.

I have said it before, faulty intelligence or not, the bourdon of proof was on Saddam. Failure to provide that proof was reason enough to invade and free 25 million HUMAN BEINGS from the grip of that madman. All it takes is common sense to see this.

In the never ending quest for perspective (and to nudge a thread I consider infinitely interesting back on topic)

I would like to point out that yet again the wolf cries of civil war have proven false (for the fifty-eleventh time I might add ). This latest push by the shiites show once again that Iraqis are simply not dumb enough to let ethnic violence take hold in their country. Even in the aftermath of the bombings in Kurdistan (which incidentally plays to my theory that the terrorists are behind most of these supposedly sectarian bombing and the Iraqis know it) the Kurdish leaders urge solidarity.
Irbil bombings toll reaches 101

Iraq is progressing, it seems almost imperturbably on its way to democracy. Iraq will quiet down in months, certainly by the end of this year most US troops will be leaving...

Bragging Notice:

Ha! Four days in advance, (more than that really I and a number of other, Iraqi, [key point] commentators have been saying this for some time.


US reveals 'al-Qaeda Iraq plot'

This is gold!

The article outline the most important points of the conflict (Lack of a popular uprising against Americans, terrorists leading the resistance, plans to prevent a sovereign Iraqi government from arising, etc.)

...and explains why the "resistance" (if we can still call it that) is failing so miserably against the coalition. Iraq will indeed quiet down by ... August.

There's that my prediction, I'm feeling lucky (except about that whole WMD thing...)
Edited to add: Just in case any one gets the wrong idea, no, I am not an Iraqi.

in the broader scheme of things, the war is about oil. the us already has 702 foreign military bases article.

ю



it seems obvious that they are doing this to basically control the middle east's oil supply