I emphasize that the following is not an attempt to politicize a tragedy, but merely an observation about human nature based on some pretty indisputable facts.
Right now this country is reeling, trying to make sense of the senseless deaths of thirty-two innocent people who died due to the actions of a single obsessed, unhinged individual. We call this a national tragedy.
In Iraq, it’s called a Monday. Day after day after day, the populace of that wartorn country has to deal with losses as calamitous and pointless.
Now…what typically happens in a tragedy such as this? Well, in America, sooner or later, the search for blame begins. It’s human nature. You can’t blame the perp: He’s dead. So we search for someone still alive to vent our spleens upon. Someone to whom we can say, “If it weren’t for you, then this wouldn’t have happened.” When the Twin Towers fell, that blame played out in Senate hearings. The blame for Virginia Tech will inevitably play out as well, with leading candidates for excoriation being (a) the school, (b) the shooter’s parents, (c) anyone who advocates easy and legal access to guns.
With all that as a given, doesn’t it make sense that the Iraqis, being as human as us, would be looking for someone to blame for an environment where our aberration is their way of life? Who are they going to target? Saddam? He’s dead. Bombers? They’re usually dead after the attack as well. Who’s left?
Us.
And that anger manifests itself in the only way it can: More violence against those whom they feel were responsible.
Which is why anyone who thinks that there’s going to be an end in the cycle of violence against Americans in Iraq is betting against human nature itself. The blame will continue. The anger will continue. And the deaths will continue. We will try to expunge our sense of dismay and go back to a state of normalcy. For Iraq, death, anger, blame and revenge IS the state of normalcy.
That’s why they hate us.
In case you were wondering.
PAD
• 
But PAD, where has it been established that the Iraqis hate us? I’ve seen polls where many are afraid of us leaving. Judging from who is being killed by the Iraqis, they hate each other far more than they hate us.
I think it would be interesting to have a referendum in Iraq on whether or not we should stay. I doubt it will happen because both sides of the argument here in this country are afraid of what the resuly could be.
Unfortunately, polls coming out of Iraq vary wildly, giving seemingly contradictory results depending on the day of the week, phase of the moon, the tides, how many American soldiers happen to be standing within earshot, etc…
Sadly, the bombs seem to be a lot more consistant.
-Rex Hondo-
Be very, very leery of Polls. All of them. A poll is almost always a very small sample of opinion, and the numbers (which you rarely know; could be 20, could be 200) can be manipulated to make you believe anything the pollsters want.
“But PAD, where has it been established that the Iraqis hate us? I’ve seen polls where many are afraid of us leaving.”
I have to think the fact that they keep killing us and that their religious leaders are encouraging Iraqis to kill American soldiers leads me in the “They hate us” direction. That said, it’s not mutually exclusive. They can hate our living guts but be afraid of our leaving because they’re concerned it will get even worse. But they can still hate us for bringing about this constant state of siege in the first place.
PAD
I play online a lot one of the people I ended up meeting thru a game I play lives in Qatar. We would end up talking about Iraq. He often would say the same thing to me ” Before you all got here Sunnis and Shiites where fighting, after you all leave they will continue to do so. Nothing you can do will ever change that.”
There have also been polls that say the majority of Iraqis feel attacks on America are justified. I can’t see how any of them are reliable, but PAD is right, the bombings on Americans will continue so long as we are there. And the fighting between the Shia and Sunnis will continue until their either exhausted or another strongman takes control.
Oh, and PAD, you forgot: (d) Violent music lyrics and video games. And I saw at least one person blame it on atheism and the teaching of evolution.
I have to think the fact that they keep killing us and that their religious leaders are encouraging Iraqis to kill American soldiers leads me in the “They hate us” direction.
But “they” aren’t killing “us”. The killers are a presumably small segment of the population and their victims are overwhelmingly Iraqi.
233 people were killed wednesday. None, to my knowledge, were Americans. If the killings are to lead us in any direction it would seem that it would not necesarily be to the conclusion that the hatred is mostly directed at Americans. There does not even seem to be much of an attempt to maximize the number of Americans who might be killed in these bombings. The targets seem to be intended to be Iraqis.
One other thing. You ask who is left. How about the ones who ordered the bombings? When the Towers were hit all of the hijackers were killed but it did not stop us from directing anger at the ones who planned and ordered it. The bombings in Iraq may well foment anti-american hatered but I’m going to guess that average Iraqi would rather see Al Qaeda leaders strung up than the US servicemen. Again, considering the victims, it stands to reason that if every US servicemen were gone the killings would continue (at best) and accelerate (at worst)
Posted by: Den at April 19, 2007 09:14 AM
And I saw at least one person blame it on atheism and the teaching of evolution.
Hey, don’t forget the Pagans and the Gays. I wonder if there’s some way we can work Global Warming in there too…
-Rex Hondo-
PAD, you should listen to Glorious Leader Bush; they have to keep hating and killing us there, so they don’t follow us home and hate and kill us here.
Given the amounts of disinformation – or at least misinformation – from all sides, it is risky to rely on any set of ‘facts’, but I was under the impression that many of the lunatics causing the mounting death count were from outside Iraq? How do imported terrorists translate to “Iraq hates the US”?
Hey, don’t forget the Pagans and the Gays. I wonder if there’s some way we can work Global Warming in there too…
Considering how peaceful, nice, and well-adjusted most gay persons I’ve ever met personally are, it boggles the mind how so many crazies somehow blame homosexuality for violent tragedies. I’d even say the average gay man may be less prone to violence than the average straigth one.
I’ve read in the papers that Iraqs are throwing stones at American soldiers now, on account of Americans’ failure to protect them. So yes, I suspect they don’t love you guys very much. The Sunni feel you disenfranchised them, the Shi’ite feel you failed to protect them from the Sunni’s backlash. I’ve read of polls saying only the Kurds still support American occupation.
Heck I saw someone on CNN blame the rules that don’t allow students to carry guns at the school. He said if students were allowed to carry guns then someone would have got the killer before he had killed all those people.
What a scary thought, a university filled with armed students, just waiting to ‘protect themselves’.
Tom Dakers
PAD, I do not know if they hate US or not, but I completely agree with what you have written. And if only a 10% hate the US, that is enough to keep alive an endless cycle of violence, until they feel that what THEY have there is what THEY decided the want to have there (be it Saddam, the US, communists, the Pope or John Byrne).
I dunno, PAD.
I think that any hatred that some Iraqis have for Americans is very minor now in light of the far greater hatred going back and forth between Sunni and Shiia factions who have been at war for centuries.
But of course, as Bush his neo-con cabal were dreaming in 2003 of a post-Saddam Iraq flowering into a model of Jeffersonian democracy, they failed to read their history on the country’s old grudges.
It’s the arrogance of Bush and his cronies that brought Iraq to its current state of chaos today, and IMO, there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
There are a number of Iraqis that seem to hate us, but many of them likely hated us before we invaded. We’ve not had the history of making friends over there.
I’m sure that the constant deaths and the post Shock and Awe living conditions are used to try and foment hatred towards Americans. I’ve seen Iraqis on TV news broadcasts saying that the Americans have messed things up and that they wished we would go home. I’ve seen the calls for death to Americans by the various religious leaders as well. But how many of those people hated Americans to begin with?
See, another factor of human nature in times like this is to look for someone to protect us or to make sense of the senseless for us. Part of that making sense out of the senseless is sometimes having peoples’ beliefs or prejudices confirmed for them. People cling to that person as a leader and then that leader goes after targets that they, and those that follow them, already didn’t like.
You’re not going to have a fan of Marilyn Manson or Rammstein suddenly screaming for a ban of their works. You’re not going to have rabid fans of GTA suddenly claiming that playing that game makes you a psychotic killer. You’re not going to have fans of King, Bolen, McNabb or others claiming that love of violent fiction is a sign of a violent person. You’re not going to have the posters on this board demanding that Marvel pay for this because it was the shock and trauma of their depiction of Captain America’s death that drove someone over the edge. No, you’ll have the leaders and the people who follow those leaders who already were indifferent to, disliked or down right hated Manson, Rammstein, GTA, certain authors or Marvel demanding public hearings and lynching.
Same with the Iraqis and us. Maybe the death rate in Iraq is a tool to focus or intensify the hate, but the hatred was likely already, at least partly, there with many. The factors created by our presence there are likely just the latest excuse for some to hate us.
Rene: “Considering how peaceful, nice, and well-adjusted most gay persons I’ve ever met personally are, it boggles the mind how so many crazies somehow blame homosexuality for violent tragedies.”
It’s not the gays themselves, it’s our acceptance of them. That’s the concept spewed by some (Savage, Robertson, etc.) hate mongers on the Right. We’re either causing the fundamentalist Muslims to fight us to prevent our casual acceptance of “perversion” from infecting their countries or whatever deaths happen are God’s judgment on us for allowing homosexuals to be members of our society rather then shunned outcasts.
Yeah, makes total sense. (rolls eyes)
I think this is the closest we’ve come to a political truth in quite a while. I agree wholeheartedly.
Peter,
You left out video games. I am sure they will end up listed as a cause of this, too.
I was waiting for Rosie O’Donnell to draw the comparison between Va Tech and Iraq, but she wasn’t stepping up to the plate. Thanks for pinch-hitting there, PAD.
Now, if they hadn’t hated the U.S. *before* we went into Iraq, you might have a point. I can’t help but recall posts online when 9/11 hit from people saying, “Well, it’s about time the U.S. had something happen to them like what happens to us every day.”
Please allow me to over simplify…
The suni’s want us to stay to keep the shiites from killing them, they want us to leave so they can more easily kill the shiites….
The shiites want us to stay to keep the sunnis occupied while they kill them. They want to us to leave so that the new military that we trained can more easily kill the sunnis.
The kurds want us to leave so they can tell the rest of iraq to pìšš øff… They want us to stay so that the turks will not cross the border and wipe them off the face of the earth….
The iranins want us to leave so they can help the shiites that we put in power wipe out the sunnis that we took out of power (that also lead 2 wars against the iranians under sadams rule)
so after that please address any questions to the as yet named war zsar… (my money is on michael brown)
John
>>>I was waiting for Rosie O’Donnell to draw the comparison between Va Tech and Iraq, but she wasn’t stepping up to the plate.
Christ Almighty, why does anyone care a fig (to put it as G-rated as possible) what the hëll Rosie O’Donnell thinks about anything?
Her mouth is a black hole from which no logic can escape.
Y’know, last night, I was watching The Daily Show, and there was a brief bit on the search for a “war czar.” And it hit me, out of the blue:
Why the hëll do we need a “war czar?” Don’t we have a Secretary of Defense and a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to handle the issues that would be covered by whoever ends up in this newly-created position?
And then I remembered what administration we were talking about…
You know, it’s my experience that all “Czars” typically do not die of natural causes. However, I wholheartedly volunteer to be the War Czar so that I can make a change in policy–we all need to sit around and sing “All You Need is Love” to solve this problem. Then, someone will shoot me dead and this will start all over again.*wink wink*
Seriously, though, why do we Americans feel it is our business and our right to move into another country and immerse in their affairs? Let them blow themselves to hëll, they obviously want to. Religious wars are a sticky business that we cannot hope to end. Any high schooler could have told the GW that–did he skip class that day or something?
Seriously, though, why do we Americans feel it is our business and our right to move into another country and immerse in their affairs?
Because they made the mistake of living on top of our oil supply.
Paul1963:
Agreed 100%.
I frankly think what’s going thru Bush’s mind is he’s applying his coursework from his old MBA days to how he manages the White House.
Thus, Bush is managing the war like a classic bureaucrat, delegating and spinning off authority to new positions whenever needed (or in his mind, anyhow) as opposed to handling it himself as, y’know, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
The beauty of hiring a “war czar” from Bush’s perspective is that 1) He can create the illusion that he’s taking action in order to correct a problem with no risk to himself and 2) the poor sucker who is dumb enough to take that job will have no authority, but will take all of the blame for the next disaster off of Bush’s shoulders.
Come to think of it, that is a classic MBA move.
“For Iraq, death, anger, blame and revenge IS the state of normalcy.”
That really bugs me. It’s been stuck in my head since this morning. Is there any way to show the Iraqi people that there could be another state? I’ve never understood the jihad mentality really. If you want to believe something different than I do, hey, more power to ya. But IS what’s happening there really all religion-based? Is that the (pardon the phrase, I just can’t think of another right now)stumbling block? Can they do anything about all this, with or without our help? (Personally, I’d like to see it done with our help, since we started all of it, but there have to be limits.) Or do the Muslims have one central authority that could be appealed to, a Pope-like figure?
Bill Mulligan:
One other thing. You ask who is left. How about the ones who ordered the bombings?
That’s something I also asked.
It occurs to me that hatred against the ones who ordered the bombings is undoubtedly contributing to the sectarian violence.
But can they get at the people who actually gave the orders? Probably not, those people are hidden somewhere. If a bunch of Shi’a are killed by a Sunni suicide bomber, the Shi’a who are left will likely retaliate against any Sunnis they can find, violently or otherwise. Much the same as, after 9/11, Muslims and those of Middle Eastern descent became pariahs and suspected criminals in America, and were hated.
Here’s the other thing that occurred to me:
Imagine you are standing around in the aftermath of such a bombing. You’ve lost family members, there is crying and screaming and carnage everywhere you look.
At some point you flash back to the pre-invasion days and think “even then it was never this bad…I never lost anybody I loved before this!”
Your grief and shock slowly turns to anger. You look for somebody to blame. You look around but don’t see anybody you know to be responsible for this. You may also look around not not see anybody whose religious beliefs are the same as the bomber. But you see American troops….and you think “you bášŧárdš! If it weren’t for you, this never would’ve happened, it never would’ve gotten this bad!”
Perhaps you won’t want to kill them…yet. But you may very well hate them. And perhaps, when you hear of the American death toll going up, you will bitterly say “good, I hope they suffered.”
I’m just guessing here, of course. I may very well be wrong.
Or do the Muslims have one central authority that could be appealed to, a Pope-like figure?
Heh…not even Christians have something like that, Sean. All of the violence in Ireland couldn’t have been solved by anything the Pope said, since in all likelihood the Protestants there would’ve heard the Pope telling them how to act and said “fûçk ‘im.”
The divide between Sunni and Shi’a, as I understand it, comes from a disagreement over whose word really matters. So no, far as I know there is no one person whose word both sides respect equally.
Well-put. And after all – the West *is* to blame for a lot of the terror and bloodshed in Iraq. I’m not just talking about this war – let’s not forget that Iraq was being bombed and boycotted for years before 9/11.
That the population of the U.S. or Europe is not to blame for these atrocities is obvious – but it’s difficult, *really* difficult to see that if you’ve lost family and friends to bombs or soldiers or chemical weapons and spend every day thinking this might be your last.
And so, ultimately, everyone is fûçkëd except for the people in power (on both sides) – who love this wonderful cycle that keeps everyone else down.
Thanks Jonas…I forgot, another reason Iraqis may not like the Americans there too much is because not all Americans, when they search for terrorists or criminals, have been what you would call gentle or respectful.
There was a picture in a recent issue of “Time” where American troops were writing numbers on the skin of Iraqi men and women in order to better keep track of them. Not only does this kind of thing remind people of some pretty bad periods in history, but apparently in that culture men are not supposed to touch women with whom they have no relationship. So I can certainly see how that would stick in people’s craw.
heartnut asked:
“Seriously, though, why do we Americans feel it is our business and our right to move into another country and immerse in their affairs?”
—–
Manifest Destiny.
The belief that we are superior because we are white and Christian and that we have to remake the entire world in our image.
Yes its me, Im going to try this again
Seriously, though, why do we Americans feel it is our business and our right to move into another country and immerse in their affairs?
Well in the case of Iraq, The first time because Saddam invaded Kuwait and we were asked.
The second time because after refusing to comply with 20 some U.N. resolutions to disarm.
And best of all To stop his continued genocide of the Kurds.
Which is why we are going to end up in Darfur.
Because they made the mistake of living on top of our oil supply.
Actually we get less then 25% of our oil from the middle east. The Americas supply most of our imports. It would not take much drilling of our own to completly eliminate our need for oil from the middle east
Your grief and shock slowly turns to anger. You look for somebody to blame. You look around but don’t see anybody you know to be responsible for this. You may also look around not not see anybody whose religious beliefs are the same as
the bomber. But you see American troops….and you think “you bášŧárdš! If it weren’t for you, this never would’ve happened, it never would’ve gotten this bad!”
Yes, just think before us bad Americans showed
up all they had to worry about was a despot leader wiping out whole villages with sarin gas, but it never would have gotten this bad.
“Seriously, though, why do we Americans feel it is our business and our right to move into another country and immerse in their affairs?
Well in the case of Iraq, The first time because Saddam invaded Kuwait and we were asked.”
That’s true.
“The second time because after refusing to comply with 20 some U.N. resolutions to disarm.”
Unfortunatly you couldn’t get the UN to sanction the invasion, so you can’t invoke it’s authority.
“And best of all To stop his continued genocide of the Kurds.”
A nice sentiment, but Saddam attacked the Kurds in the late 80s. At 2003 they were not attacked or suffering genocide. They were safe, partially because of the no-fly zone the US provided. In any case, you can’t justify an invasion in 2003 to prevent a genocide more than a decade earlier.
“Which is why we are going to end up in Darfur.”
I doubt you can now muster the miltary power, internal political support or diplomatic support on this stage to come to the aid of the people in Darfur. It’s a shame you decided to waste your energy and political power on an unnecessary war in Iraq.
“Yes, just think before us bad Americans showed
up all they had to worry about was a despot leader wiping out whole villages with sarin gas, but it never would have gotten this bad.”
Again , the attacks in Sarin gas occured way prior to 2003, and to the Kurds. At 2003 the not Kurdish Iraqis were living a harsh life under a dictator (as well as under UN sanctions). But now they are living a harsher life in a state of anarchy. This is not an improvement.
Unfortunatly you couldn’t get the UN to sanction the invasion, so you can’t invoke it’s authority.
Exactly… and we would be on resolution 50
today if we followed the U.N. We took matters
in our own hands because the U.N.
Saddam was on resolution 18 to comply with U.N.
resolutions. He was given 12 years to comply
peacefully to these U.N. (Not U.S.) resolutions
and apparently the U.N. had not the balls to
back them up.
“And best of all To stop his continued genocide of the Kurds.”
A nice sentiment, but Saddam attacked the Kurds in the late 80s. At 2003 they were not attacked or suffering genocide. They were safe, partially because of the no-fly zone the US provided. In any case, you can’t justify an invasion in 2003 to prevent a genocide more than a decade earlier.
So theres a time limit on genocide. Should we
have continued with the no-fly zones, which he
continuously violated, indefinitely? You cannot
believe that he wasnt also working on more WMD’s
at this time. He didnt quit using them on the
Kurds and Shi’a because he ran out, it was
because coalition forces were keeping him busy.
“Which is why we are going to end up in Darfur.”
I doubt you can now muster the miltary power, internal political support or diplomatic support on this stage to come to the aid of the people in Darfur. It’s a shame you decided to waste your energy and political power on an unnecessary war in Iraq.
I dont believe the war was/is unnecessary but
find it puzzling that the same people (Clooney,
Saranden, Robbins) who are
screaming about a unjust war in Iraq but want
us to go to Darfur to stop what I believe is
the same reason (minus the WMDs) Which I believe
the U.S. should do.
I do agree with your point about not being
able to muster the miltary power, internal
political support or diplomatic support but I
Blame that on bipartisan politics.
“Yes, just think before us bad Americans showed
up all they had to worry about was a despot leader wiping out whole villages with sarin gas, but it never would have gotten this bad.”
Again , the attacks in Sarin gas occured way prior to 2003, and to the Kurds. At 2003 the not Kurdish Iraqis were living a harsh life under a dictator (as well as under UN sanctions). But now they are living a harsher life in a state of anarchy. This is not an improvement.
And again theres a time limit on genocide? Did
you think the minute Saddams government was
toppled that everyone would hug and it would be
Ok? Keep in mind who is causing most of this
anarchy. Outside forces (Iran, Syria and god
knows who else) When the people of Iraq can
defend themselves without help is when the
anarchy will stop.
The Americas supply most of our imports.
True, but because there is one single global price for oil, any disruption in the supply, regardless if that particular source reaches us or not, affects what we pay.
It would not take much drilling of our own to completly eliminate our need for oil from the middle east
Actually, it would take a lot because we don’t nearly have enough domestic reserves to make up for what we import, even if we open up ANWR.
And of course, one of our major suppliers in the Americas, Venzuela, doesn’t seem to like us much either.
Actually, it would take a lot because we don’t nearly have enough domestic reserves to make up for what we import, even if we open up ANWR.
Couldn’t we at least try and see whats up
there?
And of course, one of our major suppliers in the Americas, Venzuela, doesn’t seem to like us much either.
Yeah. That one puzzles me. Im surprised Chevas
hasn’t made more of an issue out of that.
Another reason to see whats in ANWR
He’s already vowed to reduce his shipments to the US.
pat nolan:
I dont believe the war was/is unnecessary but
find it puzzling that the same people (Clooney,
Saranden, Robbins) who are
screaming about a unjust war in Iraq but want
us to go to Darfur to stop what I believe is
the same reason
That’s because Darfur is A LOT WORSE, pat.
I find your logic, if it can be called that, puzzling.
When Micha points out that you are mistaken about there being a “continual genocide” of the Kurds, you shoot back “so there’s a time limit on genocide?”
Look pal, nobody’s condoning what Saddam did against the Kurds, but do you have ANY IDEA how many guys like Saddam are out there? It is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of them all with the limited military resources at the disposal of the United States!
Right now in Iraq, we got rid of Saddam and now we have Muqtada in his place, who may be capable causing just as much death and suffering. If something happens to al-Sadr, somebody else will show up to fill the void. And so it goes.
The other difference between Darfur and Iraq is that I don’t think anybody who is upset about Darfur is suggesting the U.S. go in there and fix everything ALL BY ITSELF, as the U.S. insisted on doing with Iraq. You can go on all you want to about the “coalition,” but we both know it was pretty much just the U.S. and Britain along with a bunch of other countries that contributed little or nothing. And no, Poland doesn’t count for very much because they only had 2,460 troops there in 2004 compared to the 130,000 the U.S. had and the 9,000 the UK had. In 2004 only seven coalition members had more than 1000 troops committed. Only two coalition members (the aforementioned UK and US) had more than 5000 troops committed. As you must certainly know, many of the members committed no troops whatsoever.
Plus, I very much doubt that a U.N. task force, composed of the pooled military resources of many of its member nations and sent to Darfur, would be ordered to effect regime change. We’ve all seen how well THAT works, and some human beings learn from the mistakes of the past.
The bottom line is that Saddam was a threat to NOBODY outside of the people in Iraq, and he hadn’t done anything on the scale of the 1988 gassing of the Kurds in a long frickin’ time. Do you honestly think that it’s worth hundreds of billions of dollars…thousands of dead U.S. troops….and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis…to bring ONE SINGLE MAN to justice, when that man wasn’t even a threat? Please. You’ve gotta be smarter than that.
Another reason to see whats in ANWR
If a place is a WILDLIFE REFUGE….you don’t DRILL there! It should be off-limits.
It amazes me that there are people who say “oh, fûçk the animals, fûçk the endangered species, all that matters is oil. Let’s not devote all our resources to finding alternative energy sources, instead let’s just punch a lot of holes in the ground of the Alaskan wilderness and continue to guzzle gas like it was gonna evaporate if we didn’t use it quick enough. And if the planet goes to hëll, so what?”
Ok, Pat…
What do you see as success in Iraq. None of this Bush garbage of us standing down when they stand up or that Iraq will be safe once it can defend itself. Before I waste any more time on arguing the stupidity of this venture with yet another person, I wanna know what you see as the actual outcome of victory in Iraq. What’s going to happen? Tell me what the outcome is going to be that’s going to make the next ten years of hëll over there worth it in the end. What’s the end result. And don’t tell me the Bush pipe dream, tell me what you see happining in Iraq and why you think it’s more likely to happen then us ending up with yet another Iran type country that hates us and funds those who wish to harm us.
“Another reason to see whats in ANWR”
The Federal Governments own stats say that America uses 20,000,000 barrels of oil a day. That works out to about 7,300,000,000 barrels per freaking year.
The USGS made the following estimates of technically recoverable oil and natural gas liquids from the ANWR Coastal Plain:
There is a 95 percent probability (a 19 in 20 chance) that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.
There is a 5 percent probability (a 1 in 20 chance) that at least 16 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.
The mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
What that means is that you’re looking at, at best, two years of recoverable oil and, at worst, less then one year’s supply from the Coastal Plain. Estimates vary on the inland areas of ANWR, but most experts see it as, at best, ten years worth of oil at present day consumption rates. Since our consumption rate is likely to go up, you can’t even count on the best projection holding up by the time the first barrel is pumped from ANWR’s stock.
Not really worth the effort I’m afraid. Far better I think to look into ways to reduce or overall oil use and start looking at how to get off the habit as much as possible.
Posted by The StarWolf
Given the amounts of disinformation – or at least misinformation – from all sides, it is risky to rely on any set of ‘facts’, but I was under the impression that many of the lunatics causing the mounting death count were from outside Iraq? How do imported terrorists translate to “Iraq hates the US”?
You mean like the imported terrorists who destroyed the not-that-much-worse-than-average-for-the-area local government and most of the infrastructure when they invaded the country on a pretext slightly less plausible than Germany’s pretext for invading Czechoslovakia?
Posted by: CHV
But of course, as Bush his neo-con cabal were dreaming in 2003 of a post-Saddam Iraq flowering into a model of Jeffersonian democracy, they failed to read their history on the country’s old grudges.
As the late John W. Campbell Jr said in a story blurb in Astounding/Analog:
Posted by: Micha
Unfortunatly you couldn’t get the UN to sanction the invasion, so you can’t invoke it’s authority.
Well, yes and no – there were UN resolutions in effect that said in effect that any nation who was part of the coalition that were involved in Guof 1 could unilaterally deal with Iraq if it ignored the sanctions.
Which is, howver, irrelevant because, no matter how hard Bush the Smaller clicked his heels and wished for a pretext, there were no WMDS or other illegal arms in Iraq.
Even worse, the hate will be for generations as the current adults, teenagers, and children teach the next few their experiences. There will be many who will try not to, but there will be just as many who will.
I think the hope is “free” Iraq will result in a massive victory against terrorism. Even if victory is achieved (whatever that may be since it continues to remain undefined) it will not do a thing to global terrorism. They will simply shrug and continue to look for targets.
The damage of the Bush admin probably will not be completely known for 20+ years. Look at us now, Osama and Sáddámņ are a direct result of Reagan policies in the early 80s. He put them in power, giving them ability to become massive headaches 20 years later. Shoot the tactics being used against our soldiers now are probably techniques taught to then to help in the cold war.
Even worse, the hate will be for generations as the current adults, teenagers, and children teach the next few their experiences. There will be many who will try not to, but there will be just as many who will.
I think the hope is “free” Iraq will result in a massive victory against terrorism. Even if victory is achieved (whatever that may be since it continues to remain undefined) it will not do a thing to global terrorism. They will simply shrug and continue to look for targets.
The damage of the Bush admin probably will not be completely known for 20+ years. Look at us now, Osama and Sáddámņ are a direct result of Reagan policies in the early 80s. He put them in power, giving them ability to become massive headaches 20 years later. Shoot the tactics being used against our soldiers now are probably techniques taught to then to help in the cold war.
Um, maybe I’ve got my history screwed up, but weren’t WE the ones who originally supplied Saddam with the materials to gas the Kurds, under the ‘leadership’ of Big Daddy Bush, because the Kurds were allied with Afghanistan which still had a strong Soviet influence at the time? When the US was digging up drums of “WMD” in 2003, weren’t those drums shown on the news labeled in ENGLISH? Our memory of Middle-East History seems to end in 2001.
Posted by: pat nolan at April 19, 2007 09:24 PM:
“Exactly… and we would be on resolution 50
today if we followed the U.N. We took matters
in our own hands because the U.N.
Saddam was on resolution 18 to comply with U.N.
resolutions. He was given 12 years to comply
peacefully to these U.N. (Not U.S.) resolutions
and apparently the U.N. had not the balls to
back them up.”
I am not a bog fan of the UN. But to justify an attack on UN resolutions but then disregard the authority of the UN ridiculous, even if you were smart enough to include in the original resolution allowing you to act on your own.
“So theres a time limit on genocide.”
So, you didn’t invade Iraq to save the Kurds from Genocide, but to punish Saddam for a massacre that was not prevented 15 years ago? So the invasion cannot be justified by an immediate danger to the kurds. Is your justification for the invasion is that US should act as a police force punishing genocides years after the event? If so, thtere’s really no rush in Darfur. If you wait a few more years you can go to Rowanda.
“Should we have continued with the no-fly zones, which he continuously violated, indefinitely?”
It seems that he no fly zone was working quite well protecting the kurds from Saddam. Considering the results of your new method, I think this was the preferable strategy, if the goal was to prevent harm to the Kurds.
“You cannot believe that he wasnt also working on more WMD’s at this time.”
If he did, you were unable to proove it. Meanwhiile, the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons.
“He didnt quit using them on the
Kurds and Shi’a because he ran out, it was
because coalition forces were keeping him busy.”
Yes. At 2003, prior to the invasion, the Kurds and Shia were not attacked by Saddam. Had an attack occured, you could perhaps had done something about it, especially with the good wil after 9/11. But now you can’t do anything about the massacre actually taking place at present in Darfur, or the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. And the Shia and Sunni are coming close to a mutual genocide. If you invaded Iraq to preemptively prevent a genocide that you believe could have happened (but was so far prevented by the fly-zone), that’s not a very good reason.
“I dont believe the war was/is unnecessary,”
Clearly. But so far, I don’t find your justifications for Iraq convincing. I did find the justification for a war in Afghanistan and kosovo convincing, so you cannot accuse me of opposing any war, just this one.
“find it puzzling that the same people (Clooney,
Saranden, Robbins) who are screaming about a unjust war in Iraq but want us to go to Darfur to stop what I believe is the same reason.”
Except that in Darfur people are dying now, and in Iraq, people died 15 years prior to the invasion and were not dying at the time of the invasion. Now, after the invasion, they are dying. So things are really backwards.
“I do agree with your point about not being
able to muster the miltary power, internal
political support or diplomatic support but I
Blame that on bipartisan politics.”
I believe that’s called democracy. It would be ironic if you went to Iraq to bring democracy and came back wanting a one party system.
“Did you think the minute Saddams government was
toppled that everyone would hug and it would be
Ok?”
I believe that’s what Bush thought, since he did not prepare for this eventuality. I can’t say that I forsaw the emount of inter secterian violence that erupted. but I was aware of the possibility that the people of Iraq would turn on thteir ‘liberators’ and on each other, and that democracy would be a hard fit. I was actually hoping Saddam crushed their souls enough so that they would not react violently when the americans came. I also did not forsee that the US wil do such a bad job dealing with the situation after the Iraqi army was defeated.
“Keep in mind who is causing most of this
anarchy. Outside forces (Iran, Syria and god
knows who else).”
I am not certain that is true. Some of the violence is caused by outsiders, some by Iraqis supported by outside forces, and some by Iraqis. Furthermore, complaining about these outside forces is pointless. The minute you decided to step into Iraq, you’ve stepped into the whole middle east, with all the problems involved.
“When the people of Iraq can
defend themselves without help is when the
anarchy will stop.”
Part of the reason for the anarchy is that the Shia are ‘defending themselves’ against the Sunna, the Sunna against the Shia, the religious against the secular, the bandits against the citizens, the tribes against the cities, the outsiders against the insiders, and the insiders against the outsiders. the Iraqi army is just another gang, whose members are as associated with the various tribes, sects and ideologies as the rest of the people. That’s anarchy. Things like that can end in one of four ways.
1) some internal force becomes strong enough to subdue all the others, and they submit to his authority.
2) An external force subdues everybody.
3) The different factions come to a sort of deal among themselves, and reach an uneasy truce (see Lebanon and Gaza).
4) They continue fighting for years (see Somalia and other parts of Africa).
“Posted by: campchaos at April 20, 2007 07:23 AM
Um, maybe I’ve got my history screwed up, but weren’t WE the ones who originally supplied Saddam with the materials to gas the Kurds, under the ‘leadership’ of Big Daddy Bush, because the Kurds were allied with Afghanistan which still had a strong Soviet influence at the time?”
I don’t know if there is any proof the the Americans supplied Saddam with WMDs, but there is no connection between the Kurds and Afghanistan. To the best of my knowledge the US has nothing against the Kurds.
I don’t know if there is any proof the the Americans supplied Saddam with WMDs, but there is no connection between the Kurds and Afghanistan. To the best of my knowledge the US has nothing against the Kurds.
The Kurds were giving support to Iran, which at the time was at war with Iraq. That was Saddam’s justification for gassing them. Yes, the US did sell many weapons and materials that could be used to make WMDs to Saddam in the 1980s. The people that brokered the deal: Ðìçk Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
I always find it amazing that republicans in particular pull out the gassing of the Kurds in the 1980s as a justification for the Iraqi invasion in 2003. Under Reagan and Bush 41 (until Saddam invaded Kuwait), Saddam’s brutality of his own people was completely overlooked because they found him a useful counter to Iran’s influence in the region. Then of course, after the first Gulf War, Bush 41 first encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Saddam and then abandoned them when it was clear that he had no international support for direct military intervention in Iraq by his coalition. I believe the word for using something you ignored while it was going on to justify an action 15 years later is “chutzpah”.
The No-Fly Zone actually worked out pretty well for the Kurds. Yes, Saddam repeatedly violated it, but we also repeatedly shot down his planes and the Kurds were largely autonomous in Iraq from 1991 until 2003.
As for using UN resolutions to justify the invasion, again, it seems like many of Bush 43’s supporters want it both ways. They want the authority of the UN when it suits them, but also the right to ignore it when it doesn’t.
As for Darfur, the most sickening thing I read about it came from everyone’s favorite hatefilled harpy from hëll, Ann Coulter, who posted a rambling and incoherent blog last week attacking those who support intervention to stop ongoing genocide (as opposed to using past genocide to justify an invasion). In it, she actually complained that the people committing genocide weren’t killing off people fast enough and compared them to FEMA.
Please, someone tell me what redeeming qualities this “person” could possibly have.
You don’t have to look at Iraq – take a look at, say, Baltimore City. Nine VTechs over the course of last year, but where’s the national outcry? Hëll, there’s barely a state outcry. We tolerate this stuff when it happens a few people here, a couple there. We get shocked when it suddenly happens to one group of people in a couple of hours in places where we could conceivably find ourselves – in shopping malls, at universities and colleges – but other than that, it’s not that we’re numb to it, we just plumb ignore it.
Please, someone tell me what redeeming qualities this “person” could possibly have.
I think what those theorectical redeeming features are would depend on your point of view. From the Conservative point of view, she’s blond, tall, thin, and tirelessly attacks their political enemies.
From my point of view…to the best of my knowledge she has no children, so her genes will not be passed on to future generations
But, when with the conservatives come to realize that her bile is doing more harm to their movement than good?