Can the US win the Iraq war?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply
Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:20 pm

IreneY wrote: Was overthrowing him an afterthought? I mean after being stripped of his resources he didn't pose a threat right? I can't see people saying "reasons to go to war: a) overthrow Saddam because he's a tyrant b) see that he has no resources after we are done overthrowing him.
Stripping him of his resources is one and the same thing as overthrowing him.
You cannot take away his resources but leave him in power.
IreneY wrote:
OR

is it a case of attacking any goverment we don't like and has resources? Like S. Arabia whose goverment is not democratic either? Theoretically speaking it could become a threat to the whole world. Why didn't the US attack USSR? Lots of resources and a genuine world threat according to some (I do know the reason but that's one of the points isn't it?). China can be viewed the same way too can't it?
Saudi Arabia does not give indications of the cruel oppression and terrorism that Saddam did. Neither the USSR not China were by any means rich countries. North Korea poses more of a threat.
What I cannot understand is why there was no help for the Central Africal counties like the Congos or Rwanda. In my estimation that is the only argument that can be used to support the claim that the US is only looking out for its own financial welbeing.

User avatar
ethopoeia
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:33 pm

Post by ethopoeia » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:09 pm

Bert wrote:What I cannot understand is why there was no help for the Central Africal counties like the Congos or Rwanda
Well, Western Sahara was invaded by Morocco 31 years ago and the issue remains unresolved.
Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and 5 months later it was back to business as usual. :)

The point with the euro and the dollar is that, since both are valued against oil, the standard currency used for oil payments matters. When the US took over Iraq the second thing it did (first it seized all oil wells) was to return oil sales from the euro to the dollar.

The economic rationale is that, while all other countries must purchase foreign currency to buy their oil supplies, the only thing the US needs to do is print more banknotes.

So even if the greenback has devaluated 43% against the euro since 2000 and the IMF forecasts a bigger fall by 15-35%, the US will still be able to buy the same amount of oil by printing more banknotes.

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY » Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:02 pm

Bert wrote: Stripping him of his resources is one and the same thing as overthrowing him.
You cannot take away his resources but leave him in power.
a) that why I put the "OR"
b) stripping someone from his resources is a way of making one weeker. You take the fangs out of him so to speak. Overthrowing someone is a bit more drastic.


IreneY wrote:


Saudi Arabia does not give indications of the cruel oppression and terrorism that Saddam did. Neither the USSR not China were by any means rich countries. North Korea poses more of a threat.
What I cannot understand is why there was no help for the Central Africal counties like the Congos or Rwanda. In my estimation that is the only argument that can be used to support the claim that the US is only looking out for its own financial welbeing.
You mean internal terrorism for Saddam I suppose since he had nothing to do with Al-Qida. USSR and China didn't(don't) suppress populations sth cruel? Didn't (don't) they have as much potential harming power as Iraq? Why?

User avatar
ethopoeia
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:33 pm

Post by ethopoeia » Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:00 pm

IreneY wrote:USSR and China didn't(don't) suppress populations sth cruel? Didn't (don't) they have as much potential harming power as Iraq? Why?
Both China and Russia are big powers, and both permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Both China and Russia raised their voice against the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003.

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY » Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:07 am

I referred to the USSR not Russia although the Chechens (?) would not find much difference between the two. Tibetans would probably laugh ironically if it wasn't for Buddism

User avatar
ethopoeia
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:33 pm

Post by ethopoeia » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:34 am

Yesterday President George W. Bush aknowledged in a press conference that the U.S. "is not winning in Iraq". Two weeks ago, the new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, when asked if the U.S. was winning the Iraq war answered "no sir".

Furthermore, The Lancet (UK) published recently an Iraqi casualty study amounting to over 650,000 dead since 2003.

European media cover that the alleged reasons to go to war on Iraq (Iraq's WMD, Hussein's ties to Bin Laden, Iraqi participation in 9/11) were nothing but a bunch of lies.

Prestigious European media talk overtly about Global War on Oil led by the U.S. in the Middle East.

This makes a lot of sense, since it's obvious that Iraq is the world's 2nd largest crude producer.

Not to mention how the Bush family greased their way to the White House.

Well, I'm no Cuban commie, but in Europeanese you call that "imperialism" :?

User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Post by Amadeus » Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:58 pm

ethopoeia wrote:Yesterday President George W. Bush aknowledged in a press conference that the U.S. "is not winning in Iraq".
Mr. Bush is in denial and likes to play with words. Not only is the U.S. not winning, it is loosing the "war on terror" (which should've been a police matter, not a military one, btw). :roll:
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.

User avatar
EgoIoYoEu
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:52 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Hmm...

Post by EgoIoYoEu » Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:33 pm

Well...these answers (with a couple notable exceptions) are all so...in depth, and most have nothing to do with anything at all. Fluffy bunny bullcrap. Least of all with a straight answer. Why does everything have to be so complex? Latin is complicated...why should anything else be?

How about this. A simple answer. Novelty of novelties!

No. The US can't win. Why? Because the US has no clue what they are doing or why. And even if they do eventually come up with a reason, it won't matter because the "leaders" of my fine country are all inept morons who aren't sure how they got there or what they'll do now that they're there.

But, what does it matter anyways? Nothing we say will bring my cousins and uncles I've got over there back here. I've lost one already. So, we can sit here and discuss the pros and cons of it, or we can just make good use of one well-placed nuclear device. We've got plenty of THOSE. (Well, less now that we're selling them wholesale to our enemies.) But--while we're in front of our wonderfully globally connecting technological marvels...my advice to the SOLDIERS (who probably don't have time to ponder the quandries of the justice or injustice of war and signed up for gods-know-why) is kill 'em all, let the gods sort them out.

Biased, prejudiced and delightfully lacking in shades of gray or common human decency. Mmm...delectable. I do love being primitive and tribal. Call me Doric. Call me whatever, I don't really care. I just thought I'd put something a little less "politically correct" and with a serious lack of consideration towards globalized humanitarianism efforts. In a day and age of weak belly-aching and decay of tradition, I'm the oddity. Heh. Bet you guys aren't used to this, are you?

By the by. Latinus gaudium et utilis est! lol. I love Latin. :D
phpbb

User avatar
ethopoeia
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:33 pm

Post by ethopoeia » Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:24 pm



User avatar
EgoIoYoEu
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:52 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by EgoIoYoEu » Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:02 pm

Hehehe. Good one. International Court. Of course, I don't see any of /them/ in the trenches.

Plus, I don't think you have to be a logician to say that war is stupid. Really stupid. Who cares if it is sometimes necessary, as some say? That doesn't make it any less stupid. Yay! Fight for liberty, country, and whatnot. It's still stupid. I love my country, and I'm proud of my country (though my government is the laughing stock of the world), and I would gladly die for her. But my death would still be stupid. Do I need to say it' stupid some more?
phpbb

Post Reply