# The post-war war



## habilis (Jul 3, 2003)

Just for some persepctive on the so-called "post-war war"

In Vietnam, during the years of most action there was an average of 180 US soldiers killed per week, thats 26 dead per day. And close to 300 more wounded per week. There were occasional weeks when 500+ dead were comming home in caskets.

There is no "post-war war". There is a post-war propaganda campaign against Bush, which is just fine, but I think somebody had to call it.


----------



## Androo (Jul 3, 2003)

q


----------



## Ugg (Jul 3, 2003)

I remember those numbers very well even though I was younger than Androo.  Every newscast had the body count for the day, it was surprising how easily most people dealt with it.  

I haven't seen any comments about a post war war, so I can't comment on that but the war in Iraq can in no way be compared to the war in Vietnam.  There has been on average one dead US soldier per day.  Some are accidents, some are armed resistance, some are defensive but the fact remains that Americans are dying and being shot at and injured.  Do numbers alone justify when a war is a war?

What do you call it when Iraqis are killing American soldiers?  Terrorism? Personally I think terrorism has lost its meaning but it has to be called something.  Anger, maybe?


----------



## toast (Jul 3, 2003)

As I had written in several threads, including the long Iraq/Osama/WMDs/2004 thread, I am convinced the most interesting observations were, and now are, to be made in the post-war management of the Iraqi conflict.

What I remark is: the US army protected the oil fields, but not the museums. It was foreseeable this type of event would feed resentment against the US forces in place, which are called 'occupation forces' by some.

It is not a post-war war. It is what Huntington tried to describe as a clash of civilizations (which is an idea I personnally give very little credit to). I hope only one thing: no more attacks.


----------



## Ugg (Jul 3, 2003)

I agree that it is a clash, but I would call it a clash of cultures.  Americans who are accustomed to a certain sense of order, albeit one that is pretty rough around the edges, have to deal with Iraqis who knew only the order of oppression.  

A Slovak friend once told me that in the days of communist rule there was a saying that went, "Those who do not steal from the state, end up stealing from their families."  Many of the problems that are taking place in Iraq are a direct result of the new-found freedoms and the lack of an effective police force.  Russia experienced (s) much of the same thing after the fall of the Soviet Union.  

While one can't really blame the Iraqis for trying to get some of what they went without for so many years, one can blame the US for failing to provide the Iraqis with a safe and secure post-war country.  The longer the country remains in chaos, the greater the chances of there being a full-fledged post-war, war.  

Methinks you MAY have spoken too soon habilis.  It ain't over 'til it's over.


----------



## habilis (Jul 3, 2003)

The problem is, even if all the Iraqi's wanted to kill all Americans on their soil, they wouldn't be able to pull it off tactically; Nobody is supplying the Iraqi's with weapons, they live in a desert, not a jungle - hence nowhere to dig in and hide, our weaponry in so advanced that even if it was a jungle they'd stand no chance, and finally the vast majority of natives actually support us and our rebuilding effort.

Like I said well before the war started, in 20 years the Iraqi's - and many other Arabs for that matter - will look at GW positively, as a liberator of oppressed Arabs all across the Middle-East. Regardless of your or my opinion of the man, he bravely lit the torch of freedom for Arabs - when other civilized countries covered their eyes and put there head in the sand, apparently preferring that the Arabs remain oppressed. Listen - the truth is, in 20 years, no one will care that a few civilians were accidentally killed during the liberation campaign - what *will* matter is that these people are free from destitution and outright oppression - right?. First Iraq, then we cut off the head of the snake in Iran - look at the anti-government uprisings already occuring there, then Saudi Arabi will follow. The people, and the time, is ripe for societal evolution.

Just as there is no comparison between Vietnam and Iraq, there is no comparison between pre-21st century empires and the current default empire that is America. Nobody in the moderate world is buying the Evil American Empire act.

You are right though, it isn't over till it's over, and it won't be over for years to come.


----------



## Ugg (Jul 3, 2003)

I disagree with you on the desert issue.  They have the home court advantage.  Most GIs don't come from deserts and the Iraqi desert isn't a huge, flat expanse of sand, rather hilly, rocky and full of ravines.  Guerilla warfare would be more difficult in Iraq than in Vietnam, but it wouldn't be impossible.  Electonics are notorious for not functioning well in dry dusty and hot conditions and the US is increasingly relying on them.  

I'm not saying that guerilla warfare will take place nor that the Iraqis want it but that if it did, it wouldn't be as one-sided as you think. 

In twenty years, my friend, the families of those civilian victims will care that their relatives were killed by the Americans during the war and that many, many more died because the US lacked a post-war plan.  Or, in your mind, do the opinions of the Iraqis not matter?

The Muslim world has many problems and how to make the transition from a rural, agrarian, religious ruled lifestyle to an urban, post-industrial, secular one is a very difficult problem indeed.  It has been progressing in fits and starts for the last 100 years.  We've seen a few successes but far more failures.  It has often been said that if if weren't for the oil that the US, UK, Dutch, French, Russians etc, etc, were so interested in, the Muslim world would have dealt with its internal strife long ago.  Unfortunately the imperialists have said that they know better than those poor devils in the desert and as a result, the religious and internal strife continues.  

It remains to be seen whether the US in its new role as nation builder will be able to succeed where so many others have so utterly failed.  Did gw do the right thing?  History WILL tell us one way or another.  Does gw and the US have the guts to stay in Iraq for the next decade or so to ensure that another Saddam will not take over?  It is going to cost many more lives and billions and billions of dollars at a time when the US can not afford it and at a time when the military is spread too thin already.  

Evil is only relative in a religious context.  That America is an empire is unquestionable, the neo con policies have proven that.  That all empires are eventually toppled is a history lesson that gw must have slept thru at Yale.



> BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 3 ? Two months after President Bush declared the end of major combat, the commander of allied forces in Iraq acknowledged today that "we're still at war," and the United States announced a reward of up to $25 million for the capture of Saddam Hussein or confirmation of his death.
> 
> The statement from the commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez of the Army, came on a day in which 10 American soldiers were wounded in three separate attacks.



Link 

Well, this guy seems to have a different opinion....


----------



## Nizzarr (Jul 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *I disagree with you on the desert issue.  They have the home court advantage.  Most GIs don't come from deserts and the Iraqi desert isn't a huge, flat expanse of sand, rather hilly, rocky and full of ravines.  Guerilla warfare would be more difficult in Iraq than in Vietnam, but it wouldn't be impossible.  Electonics are notorious for not functioning well in dry dusty and hot conditions and the US is increasingly relying on them.
> 
> I'm not saying that guerilla warfare will take place nor that the Iraqis want it but that if it did, it wouldn't be as one-sided as you think.
> ...



Very smart guy.


----------



## habilis (Jul 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> ...in your mind, do the opinions of the Iraqis not matter?


Since when has the opinion of the proletariat ever mattered? Wars are fought between leaders, not pesants. So when it comes to the disgruntled feelings of a few, no, their opinions, and even their lives, *don't* matter, especially in the grand scheme of things - that's just the cold brutal truth of the world. Their lives were not lost in vane, they were lost to free the whole of all their people.


----------



## Ugg (Jul 4, 2003)

You're beginning to sound an awful lot like the people your father escaped from.


----------



## habilis (Jul 4, 2003)

Perhaps, but look, it doesn't matter if karl Marx is the president or George Washington - and for that matter Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Newt Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh, they all think like that, and rightly so, because they _do_ know better then the great faceless mass of the proletariat, that's how they became leaders.


----------



## Ugg (Jul 4, 2003)

No they don't.  Most of them are transformed by the power of the office, seduced might be a better word.  gw has never had a definining moment.  He went awol, his daddy's buds bailied him out of failing businesses, and from that bailout he bought the rangers.  Owning a baseball team is like driving a big truck so that everyone thinks that what you've got between your legs is bigger and better than everyone else's.  

He is not a great man, he will never be treated as one by the history books.  He came to power through his east coast elitist background, his granpa's and daddy's connections and money, his Yale education and the oil industry.  He didn't become a leader because he "knows better".  

Hmmm, I haven't checked the body count for today yet.  Do you know what it is?


----------



## Cat (Jul 5, 2003)

Necessity does not make actions just. Killing is wrong, whether of one man or of many and it doesn't matter whether the killer ahd good intentions or was a smart guy or the president.
You seem to think tha tthe few shuld suffer for the benefit of the many, this is utilitarianism. In choosing this, you give up all principles and rights concerning individual happiness and freedom. 
If you think the most apt at ruling should rule, then you will create just another self-serving aristocracy. The final and ultimate authority must always reside with the citizens of a country, not with an anonymous elite.
As soon as yuo decide that it is good and even necessary for one person to die or give in for the collective good, you prevaricate on his most elementary right, you get just another form of tyranny. All sacrifices made by the citizens of a country must be ultimately to their own collective benefit and must be made of their own free will. You must always have the righty to discuss, debate, protest and appeal before the government can decide to sacrifice you or your rights in the name of the common good.
The health of a democracy is always measured form the well-being of its minorities. Any form of aristocracy will ultimately only insure its own continued rule without considering the well-being of others.


----------



## toast (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *Necessity does not make actions just.*



Tell that to Paul Wolfowitz.


----------



## Cat (Jul 5, 2003)

I rather hope american voters will tell him ...


----------



## toast (Jul 5, 2003)

What American voters ?


----------



## Ugg (Jul 5, 2003)

Yeah, sorf of sad huh.  Unfortunately, Wolfowitz was hired not elected or even appointed.  The only way to get rid of him is to get rid of gw.


----------



## toast (Jul 5, 2003)

I'm not sure removing the head of state would mean replacing 100% of his administration. I think Wolfowitz is there, he was before, he will be, at different degrees. That's all folks, lobby politics. I told you, Condoleeza even has a tanker named after her...


----------



## RacerX (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *The problem is, even if all the Iraqi's wanted to kill all Americans on their soil, they wouldn't be able to pull it off tactically; Nobody is supplying the Iraqi's with weapons, they live in a desert, not a jungle - hence nowhere to dig in and hide, our weaponry in so advanced that even if it was a jungle they'd stand no chance, and finally the vast majority of natives actually support us and our rebuilding effort.*



The Iraqis seem to have no problems hiding WMD. They were said to have enough to wipe out millions so they wouldn't really need suppliers from the out side. They have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons ready to be deployed within 45 minutes as I recall.

And habilis, I don't know who was teaching you history, but this post-war-war as you called it seems nothing like Vietnam. It seems more like the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. As I recall the Soviets lost an average of 4 people a day over 9 years.



> _Posted by habilis on 03-11-2003:_
> *We will be welcomed with open arms.
> 
> Iraq will serve as a beacon of hope for all opressed people of the middle east.*



Yeah, and that _beacon_ says "if you think you have it bad now, wait until we get there." 

Funny how the only thing that was working in Iraq both before and after the war was oil production. Water, power and sewage (the utilities of _hope_) haven't work consistently since the beginning of the war. We have these luxuries, so why should we care if the Iraqis have them. What we cared about was making sure that oil production was safe.

Wonder why any of those people who did welcome us with open arms are not doing so any more? Try living in the conditions that we are leaving them in and you'll have your answer. Bush is making Saddam look like a hero to the average Iraqis.


----------



## habilis (Jul 5, 2003)

Racer: the vast majority of Iraqi's _did_ welcome us with open arms, and still do. A large percentage of these enemy combatants that are firing on US troops right now are from outside Iraq and from terrorist groups. A lot of the others are just in a real big hurry to get to the 50 virgins that Allah promises - which we're more then happy to oblige.

Afganistan. I think what's happened in Afganistan is a good thing. I think we left it much better then we found it, that is, unless you have a problem with women and children being educated, instead of being publicly beheaded for watching TV.

Now, the same goes for Iraq, it's a little bigger though, has a much larger population, so it follows that it will take longer. 

Oil Fields. About the oil fields being protected; indeed they were protected to preserve oil revenue for rebuilding Iraq for Iraqi's which also involes hospitals, funding a police force, and rebuilding a new government - who's got a problem with that? The oil revenue is theirs to do with as they please. -point2; if the oil fields had been neglected, left behind, and allowed to be destroyed and burning for months, polluting the sky and choking the residents like in the first Gulf War as you would have preferred, you would now be saying that GW intentionally let the oil fields be destroyed, and he's killing Iraqi women and children with the pollution, and now the poor Iraqi's have no money to rebuild, and the oils fields were 'mismanaged'. <Insert your own oil conspiracy here>

I just watched an unbiased hour long show on C-SPAN, more like a documentary that showed American contractors going in to Iraq to rebuild all the sewage facilities, water treatment plants, pumping stations, and many other water utilities. They found that almost all the raw sewage treatment plants have been offline long before the war ever started, which means the raw sewage was bypassing the facility and running directly into the river. Consequently, all the people that lived downstream from the river were in a very bad situation to say the least. We're talking about millions of gallons of raw sewage a day pouring down stream affecting hundreds of thousands of people. All this is a result of the unrestrained decadence of SH, while he built rediculous castles to honor himself and his regime, the simplest requirement of human life went derelict.

You look at these new and old problems in Iraq like they were created by GW, but in accountable reality, it clearly was not.

Don't turn to the dark side, don't let hatred cloud your vision of reality.


----------



## Cat (Jul 5, 2003)

> Afganistan. I think what's happened in Afganistan is a good thing. I think we left it much better then we found it, that is, unless you have a problem with women and children being educated, instead of being publicly beheaded for watching TV.



Afghanistan is on the brink of civil war, with a puppet government wiht no real power beyond the capital. For anybody outside of urban area's (that means 99.99% of the population) nothing at all has changed, except there are new graves. Why does this remind me of the current situation in Iraq?

The US had no right and no duty to attack Iraq. There was no justification before, there is no justification now. The reasons that have been given have changed constantly and non are in themselves convincing or sufficient.
You have unprovokedly overthrown a government and are now an occupyng force. This means that the "coalition of the willing" is responsible for everything. Every death, every birth, every human soul is in the hands of the coalition. Be careful what you do to them. Deciding the fate of a nation is an enormous responsibilty and it seems that the coalition is not up to it. This suggests that they should have taken another course from the beginning. There is no post-war war, ther is civil unrest. Iraq does not need foreign soldiers, but domestic police, justice and government.


----------



## Ugg (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> *Racer: the vast majority of Iraqi's did welcome us with open arms, and still do. A large percentage of these enemy combatants that are firing on US troops right now are from outside Iraq and from terrorist groups.
> 
> *



It is still debatable as to whether they did or not, the Kurds did, definitely, but they make up only a small part of the population.  And the majority of those who did welcome the troops with open arms were kids in search of chocolate, not exactly "proof" is it?  

Where is the proof to back up your claim that "a large percentage.....are from outside Iraq and from terrrorist groups".  The figures I've heard put the "imports" at a negligible number and how do you define terrorists in Iraq?  If someone kills an Iraqi's civilian brother and he wants to kill an American in retaliation, is that terrrorism?  I think the word is beginning to lose its meaning from being used so loosely.


----------



## toast (Jul 5, 2003)

70 virgins, if I recall well, that's 20 more.

Open arms or not, the post-war situation has created a credibility gap between representatives and population. Is it due to the journalists' attitude ? Should they go in politics ?

This is the post-war war. Masses, newspapers, heads of states - none black, non white. I think like Tim Grieve from Salon.com: the next war will be Bush vs. Supreme Court.

Do not tell me I'm trying to get Bush as deep in the mud as I can. Whatever I can think of him, I recently learnt we Europeans have elected worse than Dubya.


----------



## RacerX (Jul 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by habilis _
> Racer: the vast majority of Iraqi's did welcome us with open arms, and still do. A large percentage of these enemy combatants that are firing on US troops right now are from outside Iraq and from terrorist groups.



That is not what the administration is saying. Are you getting information from some other source? The house to house round ups are of Saddam supporters. And these people are not given a trial to prove their innocence. Until we supply support for their basic needs (regardless of money from oil funds) we are not liberators, we are invaders. 




> A lot of the others are just in a real big hurry to get to the 50 virgins that Allah promises - which we're more then happy to oblige.



That is offensive. Are you trying to be an ugly American? 



> Afganistan. I think what's happened in Afganistan is a good thing. I think we left it much better then we found it, that is, unless you have a problem with women and children being educated, instead of being publicly beheaded for watching TV.



I brought up Afghanistan with reference to the Soviet Union. As it stands now, women and children are still being tortured the way they were before we got there. Our troops have no orders or mandate to stop any of the acts that are currently happening.



> Now, the same goes for Iraq, it's a little bigger though, has a much larger population, so it follows that it will take longer.



We didn't provide security when we went into Iraq. Things went from bad to worse thanks to us.



> Oil Fields. About the oil fields being protected; indeed they were protected to preserve oil revenue for rebuilding Iraq...



Iraqis didn't need the funds from oil fields to rebuild Iraq. We are responsible for rebuilding that country. We are responsible for paying for rebuilding that country. We are responsible for their security. We are doing a bad job.

Further we are responsible for what is most likely going to be the next weapon of terror. We didn't secure Iraq's nuclear plant when we came in and a ton of material was lost. We used uranium shells to destroy Iraqi tanks but have no plan for cleaning up those tanks. One pound of that material an a bomb strong enough to vaporize it is all that is needed to contaminate a large city. If we were trying to stop terrorism and keep weapons out of their hands, I can't think of a worse way of doing it then we have done so far.

Lets hope your city isn't the one contaminated by a potential weapon we left lying on the desert in Iraq. 



> I just watched an unbiased hour long show on C-SPAN, more like a documentary that showed American contractors going in to Iraq to rebuild all the sewage facilities, water treatment plants, pumping stations, and many other water utilities...



There is a major difference between disrepair and destroyed. The plants could have been brought back to full operation if they were protected. They were not. Parts and pieces destroyed are not replaceable, and now totally new plants are needed. That was an incredible waste. We save the oil fields because it was profitable for members of the administration. If the rhetoric they have been handing out was true, then their actions would prove it.

If we were there to stop weapons we should never have used uranium shells without a plan to clean them up. We should have never left the nuclear plant unattended (we did believe that they had nuclear weapons, right?). If we were there to liberate the people, we would have provided security when the government there fell (instead of leaving the country open for looting). We should have protected the things that the people would need the most. 



> You look at these new and old problems in Iraq like they were created by GW, but in accountable reality, it clearly was not.
> 
> Don't turn to the dark side, don't let hatred cloud your vision of reality.



Don't let your love affair with George Bush cloud yours. What I've said about the possible weapons of terror George has let out in this war should be enough to snap you back to reality... then again, with you, maybe not.


----------



## Ricky (Jul 5, 2003)

Habilis:  Starter of Controversial Threads.


----------



## habilis (Jul 6, 2003)

toast: was it 70 virgins? my bad. 50 or 70, it's all good! I mean, write down the 70 absolute hottest babes you have ever seen, that's what's promised to you for murdering children. And what's really really sick, is that adults are actually teaching this to children by the thousands - and they BELIEVE it - I have an infinitely bigger problem with that then I do with GW's policy.


> _Originally posted by RacerX _
> That is offensive. Are you trying to be an ugly American?


Don't have time to fully respond to your post right now, but about this ugly American thing, Yes, I was trying to be ugly to make a point; if nothing will be done about this extreme form of religious hate brainwashing, certain people in this country will fight this kind of hate with their own brand of coercion, a gentle ethnocentric push to sway public opinion - and that's just the problem, nothing's being done to stop the hate.


----------



## toast (Jul 6, 2003)

[potentially offending]

If I recall well, jihad is muslim-territory exclusive, so you get no virgins for 9/11.

Moreover, those virgins may just be white fruits, as explained in this article. I read at the time it was free to consult, now you'll have to pay for it. Plus, it's in French. Maybe a Google search about Christoph Luxenberg (the analyst who launched the debate about the virgin/fruit question) will help.

[/potentially offending]


----------



## habilis (Jul 7, 2003)

I'll have to look into these white fruits. I looked but that article was inaccessible and in French. I did use Sherlock to translate the first page though, finally used that thing for something.




BTW: my G4 died last night, see this thread


----------



## toast (Jul 7, 2003)

I read the article at the time it was free to consult. The guy is claiming the translation is bad and that some terms have been flawed by Allah-scholastics. He says the virgins aren't human but fruit. Virgin fruits. I don't know what to think about it.

I'm pretty sure, however, that jihad should not be fought outside muslim territory. Hence, killing people outside this specific context is sinful.


----------

