Would imediate withdrawal from iraq result in a third world war?

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Alright
1) No, it was not
2) I looked very thoroughly, it's not logical
3) You gave me 11 reasons why you think we should not be in Iraq, this is by no means a logical argument for leaving Iraq, as (gasp...no!) you have to describe
a)What goals are we trying to pursue
b)What alternatives are available
c)Assess the value of those alternatives in terms of those goals
None of which you done, meaning that your argument is NOT LOGICAL
4) This may not be a classroom, but the rules of logic still apply, and anti-intellectualism isn't going to change that. Your argument is illogical, ****ing deal with it.
5) I'm not assessing the value of the conclusion that we should withdraw from Iraq, I'm assessing the process which you've presented to lead to that conclusion, which is not logical. Quit throwing this tantrum and ****ing deal with it.

Galen, your argument doesn't wash! You're saying, "Why were there?" is not the same issue as "Why we should leave?" Yet, you link "Why we should leave?" with "How we should leave?" That's not logic, that's hypocrisy. You can't have it both ways. "How we should leave?" is the opposite of "Why we are there?" So, you either separate all three parts into individual discussions, or we talk about all three at once. What you're trying to do is so convoluted that it is almost impossible to discuss anything of real value. And I personnally find it offensive that you are trying to reduce this discussion down to an exercise in logical equations completely void of any human elements.

How about a catagorical argument?
All this violence in Iraq was not present before the invasion.
All this violence in Iraq is present after the invasion.
Therefore, all this violence in Iraq is a result of the invasion.

A half a million people may have died as a result of our decision to go to war on faulty intelligence. The fact that you continue to refuse to even discuss this reminds me of the little bullshit tactics of avoidance as pstdkid, CurrentAffairs and GySgt.

Arrogant, narcissitic Americans just make me puke!

 

[Red_Dave]

I agree on some of your points. I tend to deal with facts and the known, just my personality. It is very possible that George Bush and the Republicans started a World War when they invaded Iraq for no reason. It is well known that almost all predictions by George Bush and the Republicans has been incorrect. I believe the answer is in the math. There are appx. 1.5 billion Moslims in the world. There are about a dozen seperate Moslim Sects. There are about 1 billion Sunni Moslims in the world. Iraq was a Sunni country. Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserve on earth, maybe the largest. Now what we have done is given Iraq to the Shia. I do not think 1 billion Sunni are going to sit by and let the Shia take over Iraq no matter what the U.S. does. Therefore I see all the actions by the U.S. after the fall of Saddam Hussein as a total waste. I like Murtha's plan. Withdraw to the borders and hope like hell we can contain this Iraq mess to within the Iraqi border. I fell it will be a very bloody mess but we cannot stop it. I think only the Moslim's can settle this problem.

i agree WHOLEHARTEDLY that we invaded for the wrong reasons but how is that a reason not to make the situation worse by leaveing?

 

[Red_Dave]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

Excluding your sarcasm, "armageddon" would involve a few more groups than just Sunni and Shia.

Now, in response to your sarcasm...Next question (or quip)?

No that was a genuine question. If iraqs state infrastructure falls [which is likely if we leave] there will be nothing to stop sectarian violence. The fact that some sunni and shia get along fine doesnt mean sectarian violence doesnt exist. Alot of people are saying the our pressence is making the violence worse but even if the iraqi-american violence stops after we leave the sunni-shia violence wont.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Listen, if you're gonna try to convince me that adherence to logic is a bad idea, by all means, give it a shot, but if you don't intend to prove that it's better that we treat whatever random thought we have as valid than we assess them based on whether they are justified through logic, then you're just making excuses.

Grow up, and ****ing deal with it. Any decision that does not follow a logical process is illogical, and thus all of your criticisms of my requirement of logic are merely attempts to make logic uncredible, which, by all means, if you can show this it'll be some of the most groundbreaking analytical accomplishments ever, but I doubt you're going to try to argue that it's better we be illogical than logical, and instead you're just trying to come up with excuses for your lack of logic.

I've never said logic was a bad idea.

I reject your premise that these are random thoughts.

As far as whether my process is being illogical, that is only YOUR perception, not an absolute.

So, if you want to have a conversation, we can do that. If you want to continue this non-sense of "galens world", then don't blame me for what follows.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Red Dave:
No that was a genuine question. If iraqs state infrastructure falls [which is likely if we leave] there will be nothing to stop sectarian violence. The fact that some sunni and shia get along fine doesnt mean sectarian violence doesnt exist. Alot of people are saying the our pressence is making the violence worse but even if the iraqi-american violence stops after we leave the sunni-shia violence wont.

I hate to say it, but yeah, that is a very real possibility.

 

[VTA]

I hate to say it, but yeah, that is a very real possibility.

It's beyond a possibility and has surpassed probability. It's a reality that exists. Sunni Shi'ite hate was kept only under control by a dictator who wasn't going to last forever. An Iraq embroiled in sectarian violence would have been a great destabilizing force in the Middle East and would have meant more trouble for those around it and those who do business there.

It might look ugly now, without what would have happened to compare it to, and I'm not suggesting that America went in under these pretenses alone, or even in principle, but a safety net to counter Sadaams eventual demise, either by natural causes or not was/is necessary.

America and Iran have been struggling far beyond the surface conflicts that are being reported, and it is in America's interest not to allow Iran to get the upper hand. What Iran fears is an American base with which to launch attacks against in Iraq and is doing all it can to keep this from happening - through it's aid to insurgents and threats and with attempted diplomatic efforts.

America might have hastened an already burgeoning reality, but it's not the root of the problem. This administration has left an ugly taste in everybody's mouth with it's handling of a necessary call to action, but America isn't going to leave Iraq until the situation has a far better prospect than what exists now.

 

[VTA]

America and Iran have been struggling far beyond the surface conflicts that are being reported, and it is in America's interest not to allow Iran to get the upper hand. What Iran fears is an American base with which to launch attacks against in Iraq and is doing all it can to keep this from happening - through it's aid to insurgents and threats and with attempted diplomatic efforts.

Which leads us to...

U.S. Officials to Meet With Iranians at Talks on Iraq

Early on Iran helped America in Afghanistan, and after America took Baghdad, showed signs of diplomacy. It seems the hawks were too stubborn to accept these overtures, but necessity might have changed their minds.

I've said it before; what's happening in Iraq is a smaller part of a larger issue, focusing on it and wanting America to leave isn't going to resolve it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by VTA
It's beyond a possibility and has surpassed probability. It's a reality that exists. Sunni Shi'ite hate was kept only under control by a dictator who wasn't going to last forever. An Iraq embroiled in sectarian violence would have been a great destabilizing force in the Middle East and would have meant more trouble for those around it and those who do business there.

Here's something to think about. If you want to know if your sick, you go to the doctor. If you want to know what the weather will be like, you ask (or watch) the Weatherman. If you want to know what its like in Iraq, you ask an Iraqi.

The following are a few excerpts from Iraqi bloggers commenting on their own experiences in Iraq regarding sectarian violence and the difference between now and what it was like with the former dictator.

MJ: Several bloggers have described the war’s devastating effects of on Iraqi women—particularly due to a lack of safety. Can you describe more of these?

Morbid Smile: Since the war started, Iraqi women have been forced to live with restrictions that make it impossible for them to have any independence… As a girl, I cannot leave home without my father or another family member with me. It is very hard, because there are times when I'd like to be alone or stay with friends or people of my age. The same thing goes for my parents: they can't be available all the time to drive me where I want to go and then come back and pick me up later. Women rarely drive cars now and this is such a terrible thing. We had to give up many things in order to stay alive, though we are still not safe.

Iraqi Roulette: Yes, it is ironic because under dictatorship women walked around dressed in whatever they wished. It was never a problem in Baghdad and in other city centers for a woman to go out or to drive around alone, and I am talking here about my mother’s generation not mine. Yet now in free Iraq every group is imposing their own laws in each area. Women not wearing scarves have been beaten up in some areas or even shot. Also in some workplaces discrimination is practiced against such women… Most women who have to go out to college or work are wearing scarves just to stay safe and keep all sorts of fanatics from attacking them.

MJ: How about the sectarian differences that the fighting seems to be exacerbating?

Sunshine: Personally, I didn’t know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis until three years ago. My best friend is Shiite; we have been friends since we were 6 years old. Neither of us supports what is happening now. My grandparent's neighbors are Shiite; the mother has been my grandma's friend for over 35 years. We like their family very much, and we both feel very angry about this ridiculous segregation. You see Shiites and Sunnis married and living in the same house—many relatives of mine are married to Shiite men or women, and they won’t get divorced because of this silly segregation. They are Muslims before they are Shiites or Sunni, and in the end we are all Iraqis, no matter what our religion or denomination.

Iraqi Roulette: The thing is that Saddam has been replaced with another sort of dictatorship: the dictatorship of militias, street gangs, corrupt officials, fanatics, and terrorists. You are not free to contradict anyone you want. You have to tiptoe around any subject, so as not to say something you should not. The common joke in the Iraqi street is that at least Saddam was one obvious lunatic; now it is too hard to recognize and count them all.

And since there is diversity in any group, here's an Iraqi who feels the US needs to stay until the job (whatever that is) gets done.

Morbid Smile: I don't feel that the invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein were worth the price the country is paying now. I know that freedom is very expensive, but in my opinion there could have been other ways than war to get rid of Saddam and to achieve liberty. So far, Iraq is not free, and I don't think it will be free one day if the situation continues this way. But as long as the past can't be changed and time can't go back to undo what had happened, what has been started has to be finished… and the road is still long ahead.

I post it in the interests of fairness.

 

[VTA]

Here's something to think about. If you want to know if your sick, you go to the doctor. If you want to know what the weather will be like, you ask (or watch) the Weatherman. If you want to know what its like in Iraq, you ask an Iraqi.

The following are a few excerpts from Iraqi bloggers commenting on their own experiences in Iraq regarding sectarian violence and the difference between now and what it was like with the former dictator.And since there is diversity in any group, here's an Iraqi who feels the US needs to stay until the job (whatever that is) gets done. I post it in the interests of fairness.

Of course these people are feeling the pain. They're in the middle of a warzone, which, aside from the extreme violence they're subjected to, they're victim of what the situation is doing to people mentally. Average people, not soldiers or extremists, but average people are harshly effected and a majority are acting in negative ways. These kid's in these blogs not only have to contend with physical war, but the psychological effects it has on everyone arouind them.

How politically aware were they when Sadaam was in power? We know he kept the sectarian strife in check. What could it have been then compared to now? Obviously the magnitude of it is something our own intelligence didn't expect (though they should have), for these kids it must be humongous.

That said, I'm sure 14 year old Sunshine is not in the majority of Iraqi's in terms of knowing their differences. The adults who foster this nonsense are. Kid's, unless taught, usually don't steep their prejudices in such deep issues such as religion.

That's not really what I was talking about, though.

Sunni's and Shia aren't killing themselves because America's there. They're killing themselves because they hate each other; America's presence has been the catalyst for the fighting, not the root cause of the hate that exists.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by VTA
Sunni's and Shia aren't killing themselves because America's there. They're killing themselves because they hate each other; America's presence has been the catalyst for the fighting, not the root cause of the hate that exists.

We are in agreement here.

I think I posted those comments as an attempt to put a more human face on this issue. Not as an example of majority opinion. People can take for what its worth (to them).

 

[Red_Dave]

I hate to say it, but yeah, that is a very real possibility.

If thats the case then why risk the possibilty of a civil war ,and the bloody repercussions this could bring* occuring on your head?

*a conflict between Saudi-Arabia and Iran would be a bloody one, considering both sides are armed to the teeth and have no issues with killing civillians

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Since you have not given any reason WHY these little tidbits mean we should withdraw our troops from Iraq,

Do you really want to go here? Do you really? I've given many examples, links and sources on many threads explaining why I have come to this conclusion, yet you say I haven't. I'll tell ya, your assertion is not the hardest thing to disprove. Your assertion is ridiculous. No, check that, your assertion is "illogical" and throw in "irrational" while your at it. All you have to do is go back a few posts to see how wrong you are.

Here's something else to think about. Some people say the definition of insanity is going into the same situation with the same elements and expecting a different outcome. Well, you support the "troop surge", which makes me wonder about your sanity. Because we had more troops there last year and the violence still escalated. So what makes you think this will be any different?

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by galenrox
No dammit, what you're rejecting as being to "classroom", that's logic! This isn't a matter of opinion, this is what logic is, and anything other is illogical. Since you have not given any reason WHY these little tidbits mean we should withdraw our troops from Iraq, and yet you're still asserting that conclusion, it is an illogical equation. It's not an issue in which we can both be right, you're wrong, it's not a matter of debate.

This is not to say that the conclusion is wrong, just you personally are wrong in thinking you've come to that conclusion logically (and thus that the conclusion is logical). Deal with it.

Step back a minute and re-evaluate the steps that lead to his position before condemning it to the "Illogical Void".

What do you require of him in order to make the whole thing "logical" in your eyes?

I am not sure about you, but unless you are totally devoid of emotion, your opinion DOES come into play when talking about logic. Emotion clouds reason. Even if emotion seeps in on the smallest of levels, your logic is being affected and can consequently be called into question. Thus what you are stating as fact is simply an opinion.

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by VTA
Sunni's and Shia aren't killing themselves because America's there. They're killing themselves because they hate each other; America's presence has been the catalyst for the fighting, not the root cause of the hate that exists.

Aint that the truth.

Now, what do we do about it?

 

[MSgt]

Here's something else to think about. Some people say the definition of insanity is going into the same situation with the same elements and expecting a different outcome. Well, you support the "troop surge", which makes me wonder about your sanity. Because we had more troops there last year and the violence still escalated. So what makes you think this will be any different?

*sigh*......the numbers last year were spread throughout the Al-Anbar Province and primary concerns was the Syrian border. The border since has been beefed up with trained Iraqi military units backed up by U.S. Marines. It also helps that Syria has softened on their concrete approach to helping with this on their side.

The current troop surge is going to directly focus on the Sunni Triangle - mainly Baghdad to give the government a chance to breath and reach some crucial political milestones with the Sunni led insurgency.

This is what has occurred and this is what is occurring. This is the difference between what we did last year and what we are going to do in this next phase. We are working in phases. One of these phases included the British withdrawel from the Iraqi military controlled south. First was the Syrian border, secnd was the more easier controlled south, and third is the control of the major cities starting with Baghdad. It might serve you well to make note that there are more phases on paper that you probably won't like, but it all has to do with our withdrawel (which is what you have been professing to want all along). I am only briefly aware of another phase, but the eventual last phase is a complete withdrawel into the desert completely away from Iraqi sight. A relative calm and control is the measure of success we are looking for before we march to Kuwait and leave the mess to the politicians that got us there in the first place.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Might I suggest a little less "smoking" for you?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
*sigh*......the numbers last year were spread throughout the Al-Anbar Province and primary concerns was the Syrian border. The border since has been beefed up with trained Iraqi military units backed up by U.S. Marines. It also helps that Syria has softened on their concrete approach to helping with this on their side.

The current troop surge is going to directly focus on the Sunni Triangle - mainly Baghdad to give the government a chance to breath and reach some crucial political milestones with the Sunni led insurgency.

This is what has occurred and this is what is occurring. This is the difference between what we did last year and what we are going to do in this next phase. We are working in phases. One of these phases included the British withdrawel from the Iraqi military controlled south. First was the Syrian border, secnd was the more easier controlled south, and third is the control of the major cities starting with Baghdad. It might serve you well to make note that there are more phases on paper that you probably won't like, but it all has to do with our withdrawel (which is what you have been professing to want all along). I am only briefly aware of another phase, but the eventual last phase is a complete withdrawel into the desert completely away from Iraqi sight. A relative calm and control is the measure of success we are looking for before we march to Kuwait and leave the mess to the politicians that got us there in the first place.

Well, I hope things will be for the better.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Might I suggest a little less "smoking" for you?

Noted.

Do you still think there is no oil in Africa?

 

[MSgt]

Do you still think there is no oil in Africa?

I never thought that. TOT, Kelzie, and I were arguing over different things. My focus was on the largely non-Arabic lands and hers was about the north Saharan region. And since the issue was of America's absence from African lands, I simply mentioned that oil is not a factor. The argument ensued.

Wasn't this a over a year and a half ago?

 

[VTA]

Aint that the truth.

Now, what do we do about it?

That's for better minds than mine.
Convincing people to let go of ancestral, deeply ingrained ideologies is the hardest part of evolving and overcoming prejudices isn't something that can be forced on someone. It has to work it's way out, generation by generation.

 

[BodiSatva]

galenrox
Sometimes these theoretical arguments are commonly accepted, and thus go without saying, but that does not mean that one can ever be justified in not providing this when its requested, as it only gained its "goes without saying" status as a product of everyone accepting it as true (and if someone is asking about it, clearly they can't have already accepted it as truth, could be inclined to believe it, but not read to accept it as as good as fact).

This seems to be the foundation of your "Valid Logical Argument" idea. I agree wtih just about all of it but I am unclear as to what you are implying here.

Following is a hypothetical...

So...B reasonably requests information that will clarify A's position, as it is yet unclear and not accepted ground or truth is. Great.

Information must be provided to B from A in order to reach a conclusion together. Fine.

What if A provides requested information and B declines evidence as valid and asks for better or new information that would enhance or validate A's claims in B's eyes...BUT, A HAS provided valid and relevant information already to B. B just does not get it or whatever.... A has made a valid and logical point but B does not agree. Logical is Logical. Valid is Valid. What then?

It seems that the rest of B's case would be built on a false premise and therefore B's conclusions about the rest of the situation would be incorrect and the all of B's assertions and demands would be irrelvant to the fact that A already made a logical and valid case.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
That's for better minds than mine.
Convincing people to let go of ancestral, deeply ingrained ideologies is the hardest part of evolving and overcoming prejudices isn't something that can be forced on someone. It has to work it's way out, generation by generation.

I think one of the best exports we have is to show how our system of government works with respect to dispute resolutions. How we debate our differences of ideology and political preferences while working toward a common resolution that benefits both sides. A win-win situation. A lot of times we don't achieve that. A lot of times we do. I think it is because we do have a system that works. The mechanics are sound. Even though we have some real whacko's.

"I'm no whacko"...
Kenneth Keith Kallenbach

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Do you really want to claim that my assertion is illogical? Really?

Alright, here's the process
Now what determines whether a conclusion is formed logically? Whether or not a logical process was followed. What is a logical process? It is following a course of premises that, if all parties agree that the premises are true, then they are all intellectually obligated to accept the conclusions are true. Now, obviously, if the set of premises are to lead us to a conclusion, there has to be a reason WHY these premises lead us to this conclusion, which is known as the "theoretical argument". If this was not required, anyone could state any fact as evidence as anything, because there'd be no requirement to say why that fact is evidence to the conclusion. Sometimes these theoretical arguments are commonly accepted, and thus go without saying, but that does not mean that one can ever be justified in not providing this when its requested, as it only gained its "goes without saying" status as a product of everyone accepting it as true (and if someone is asking about it, clearly they can't have already accepted it as truth, could be inclined to believe it, but not read to accept it as as good as fact).

So, let's assess whether or not you are correct in your assertion that I've been illogical. My claim is that your conclusion to withdraw troops is illogical, and that you haven't provided any evidence. Thus, for your assertion to be correct, I must have not followed a logical process to come up with the conclusion that you haven't provided any evidence.

First, there is some clarification in terms, as it bares noting that we are talking about evidence, not facts with potential implications. Evidence is facts that back up your conclusion as true (not neccesarily proving to be true, just proving it to be more likely to be true). Thus, for you to have provided any evidence, you must provide facts which proves that your claim, that the best course of action would be to withdraw troops from Iraq, is more likely to be true.

Now, obviously, in order to assess this, one must take a base level, as assessments such as "more" or "less" are comparative, and thus must be compared to something. So it would stand to reason that the base level would be our common ground, or areas of practical agreement (either points that either is willing to concede for the sake of this argument, or points on which we already, thus making point on which we agree for all practical purposes of this argument). So what do we agree on? We agree that we should not have sent troops into Iraq, we agree that we should not be in Iraq, we agree that there is no situation where the benefits of going to Iraq will have justified the costs, and so on and so forth.

So thus what is required to have evidence? You must provide facts that, considering our areas of agreement, makes it more likely that your conclusions are right. Thus for you to provide evidence, you must provide facts that address areas of disagreement.

And you haven't, thus you have provided NO evidence. But no, you're right, I'm obviously illogical


But let's keep going, into why this proves that your conclusion is illogical. For you to draw a logical conclusion, as stated earlier, you must have evidence and a theoretical argument which explains why the evidence logically leads to that conclusion as opposed to all other conclusions you could've possibly drawn. Now you and I have drawn different conclusions, and thus for us both to be logical, there must be a premise that is subjective in its analysis that we have analyzed differently that led us to different conclusions (for example, if you believe that the costs to America strategically and spiritually just for being in Iraq are so high that eliminating them bares enough benefit to offset the strategic costs of leaving Iraq, that would be a subjective area of analysis, thus allowing you to logically draw a different conclusion than mine). Yet you have not said anything I practically disagree with, nor have you said anything that would change my conclusions, thus meaning you have yet to provide an argument that would lead one to your conclusion as opposed to mine (and thus you cannot logically select your conclusion over mine if this is all you have, and as you have selected your conclusion over mine, it is FACT that your conclusion was drawn illogically).

There are subjective areas of analysis that we differ on, and I'd like to be able to debate you, but you can't debate someone who doesn't have an argument, you can't debate someone who has no reason to believe what he believes. And I know this makes you want to throw another temper tantrum, but if you don't have logical justification to draw the conclusion that you've drawn, then you don't have any reason to draw that conclusion. So stop ****ing whining about it and ****ing fix it.

Here, I'll even tell you what you need:
Analyze what you expect to happen if we pull out of Iraq, and analyze how uncertain you are, and what the costs of that uncertainty is.
Analyze what alternatives are available without withdrawing troops from Iraq, and likewise weight it for uncertainty, including the costs of that uncertainty.
Weigh them against each other.

That's it, that's ALL you have to ****ing do, and then we can debate it! Just stop complaining, accept that your conclusion is as of yet completely illogical, and ****ing fix it! You're wrong, deal with it!!!

If you don't consider Post #43 as evidence of my premises from which I have drawn conclusions, then I can't see how we can go forward from here. The examples and links I posted are just the tip of the iceberg regarding all the sources I have researched. Is it the best research? Absolutely not. But it is, in the context for which it is presented, valid information. And as such, I can logically deduce a set of premises from which a conclusion can be drawn. The fact that you reject these links as "evidence" of my "reasons", has more to do with you, than it does me. So like it or not, I HAVE presented enough evidence to show I have reasons for believing what I believe. And that those belief's, are a result of a logical process, as opposed to random thoughts.

I'm also ready to post even more links and sources, but I see no reason, at this time, why it wouldn't be a wasted effort on my part.

 

[Billo_Really]

President Bush wants nothing less than victory in Iraq; but over whom?
By Qahtan Sami Azzaman, November 6, 2006

It is not clear which army President George W. Bush wants to defeat in Iraq. Is it really America facing an army in Iraq? Does America really know who it is fighting?

We live in Iraq and Bush and his administration are thousands of miles away. To any insane person, we are better placed to interpret conditions on the ground in our own country than U.S. leaders.All around us we see nothing but chaos. The government and the state are fragile. They lack the basic means of governing. All around us are murderous militias wreaking havoc everywhere. Conditions are getting worse and worse by every passing day to the extent we the ordinary people have lost hope and know of nowhere to hide or escape.

Is Bush aware that these militias and their leaders arrived in Iraq under the protection of his invasion troops? Once they landed, they were given the reins of power in the so-called democratic elections his troops and administrators organized. These murderous militias belong to the Iraqi leaders which came to power through U.S.-sponsored, financed and backed elections. They came to Iraq on the back of U.S. tanks and armored vehicles. The members of the government which came into being as a result of the style of democracy the U.S. has imposed on Iraq are the ones who are directing their armed gangs to kill, kidnap and murder innocent Iraqis under the direct oversight of U.S. troops. These gangs who operate officially in Iraq and are part of the ugly sectarian pyramid of power the U.S. has established in Iraq are behind the scores of unidentified corpses municipal workers collect from the streets Baghdad every day.

Their carnage is of a scale the world has rarely seen before. They are killing on identity cards; they are liquidating former army members and officers; they are murdering doctors; intellectuals and university professors and journalists; they are ruining what little remains of the country’s infrastructure. The atrocities taking place in Iraq are beyond description. Women, children and the elderly are now the most vulnerable. Bush’s dream of turning Iraq into an oasis of democracy has turned into quagmire of sectarian violence. His claims of achieving victory are hollow.

The U.S. has no friends left in Iraq. Everybody in Iraq today laughs at U.S. claims of democracy, human rights and freedom.

In Iraq the U.S. has no specific enemy to fight. Iraqis are fighting each other. Iraqis are fighting the U.S. The U.S. is fighting everybody. But one thing Bush does not want to know – almost everybody in Iraq hates American now.

I said this is the tip of the iceberg. These sources and links are a cross-section of the many reason's I have used to draw a conclusion from. These links are not meant to be all inclusive.

As for this...

Originally Posted by galenrox
Yet you have not said anything I practically disagree with, nor have you said anything that would change my conclusions, thus meaning you have yet to provide an argument that would lead one to your conclusion as opposed to mine (and thus you cannot logically select your conclusion over mine if this is all you have, and as you have selected your conclusion over mine, it is FACT that your conclusion was drawn illogically).

Let me get this straight, in order for my argument to be logical, I have to change your mind by stating something you disagree with. Huh?

As far as "all I have", did you go to those links I provided? Did you read the sources that I posted? Without even looking, can you tell me what those sources were about? If you haven't checked those links out, then you don't know what I have. And if you don't know what I have, you are certainly in no position to make any qualitative judgements on my "alleged" evidence.

Originally Posted by galenrox
Now if you don't understand this, don't be ashamed, I'll explain it to you, but if you do understand it, then you understand why those premises do not lead to solely your conclusion, but can lead to several different conclusions. Thus for you to select your conclusion over all the other conclusions that these premises could be used in justifying you need something else, which you do not have apparantly (if I am wrong about this, please, out with it, put this all to rest), as without this there is nothing that allows you to choose any one of these conclusions over any other. Do you follow so far?

These very may well be premises to some conclusion, but as they are now they are not a valid set of premises for YOUR conclusion.

I'm sure you have heard of the term "pre-ponderance of the evidence". In contract law, there is a term that is referred to as "Reasonable Interpretation" In my line of work [electrical engineering], I am occasionaly required to determine whether a contractor has satisfied the terms of the Agreement. Which is to see if he performed his part of the scope as shown the Contract Documents. There are always disagreements between owner and contractor. For any contract to be valid, it must meet 3 requirements:

1. Both parties must enter into the Agreement of their own free will.
2. There must be a mutual payoff.
3. The "reasonable interpretations" of both parties must be ensured.

What that has to do with our discussion is this (keep in mind this is an analogy):
If there is a particular issue we disagree on, a contractor is not required to have the best interpretation, all he has to prove, is that his interpretation, is reasonable. And that is what I am saying to you. It is reasonable to conclude my position from the evidence. It may not be the best conclusion, but you cannot rule it out. It's like the Lancet report. When I say a half million people are dead due to our decision to go to war. You cannot say, without 100% certainty, that the report is bullshit. Due to the fact that nobody knows this answer, yet, and the institution doing the report, is one that is highly regarded in the field of epidemiology. So it is a possibiltiy that this assertion is true. And since you can't rule it out, it cannot be discounted. Or dismissed. Likewise with the level of violence. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would say that the level of violence in that country is the same as before the invasion.

So it is logical to conclude that the level of violence has been a result of the invasion. Because that is the only variable that is the difference between then and now.

So when you look at all the evidence, then step back and take a cognitive view of everything, it gets to the point where "enough is enough!" Things are just too bad to be fixed. And we are too much a part of the problem to be fixing it.

I've gone through this many times with TOT and GySgt. If you don't want to accept my sources and links as evidence, or you want to think that it is un-reasonable for me to draw those conclusions, that's fine with me. But don't put YOUR perceptions and value system on me.

 

[Billo_Really]

Here's a few more links that have shaped my opinion...

Cronkite: Time for US to Leave Iraq
By David Bauder
The Associated Press
Sunday 15 January 2006
Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, whose 1968 conclusion that the Vietnam War was unwinnable keenly influenced public opinion then, said Sunday he'd say the same thing today about Iraq.
"It's my belief that we should get out now," Cronkite said in a meeting with reporters.
Cronkite: Time for US to Leave Iraq

US Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
Zogby International | Press Release
Tuesday 28 February 2006
• Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay "as long as they are needed"
• While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
• Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
• Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11, most don't blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
• Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
• Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
US Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

Why We Should Leave
By Brian Katulis The San Jose Mercury News Sunday 19 March 2006

Brian Katulis | Why We Should Leave

Why We Must Leave Iraq

By Larry C. Johnson Davidcorn.com Thursday 25 August 2005

Sometimes in life there are no good options. It is part of our nature to always assume that we can fix a problem. But in life there are many problems or situations where there is no pleasant solution. If you were at the Windows on the World Restaurant in the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 9 am on September 11, 2001 you had no good options. You could choose to jump or to burn to death. Some choice.

A hard, clear-eyed look at the current situation in Iraq reveals that we are confronted with equally bad choices. If we stay we are facilitating the creation of an Islamic state that will be a client of Iran. If we pull out we are likely to leave the various ethnic groups of Iraq to escalate the civil war already underway. In my judgment we have no alternative but to pull our forces out of Iraq. Like it or not, such a move will be viewed as a defeat of the United States and will create some very serious foreign policy and security problems for us for years to come. However, we are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to achieve something approximating victory. And, what would victory look like? At a minimum we should expect a secular society where the average Iraqi can move around the country without fear of being killed or kidnapped. That is not the case nor is it on the horizon.

Leave Iraq Now

"Foreign Forces Must Leave Iraq as Soon as Possible," Declares the Head of the Shiite Alliance By Patrice Claude
Le Monde Monday 08 March 2005

The elected Parliament will meet March 16. From our special envoy to Baghdad.

Permanent American bases in Iraq? The question seems so incongruous to His Most Austere "Eminence Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim," (as the leader of the Shiite party which won the January 30 elections identifies himself on his visiting card) that he almost bursts out laughing. "Ha! Ha! No. No one in Iraq desires the establishment of permanent foreign bases on our land. The United Nations Security Council resolutions are clear: it will be up to the elected Iraqi government, when the time comes, to give those forces a specific departure date. As soon as possible."

"Foreign Forces Must Leave Iraq as Soon as Possible," Declares the Head of the Shiite Alliance

10 Reasons Why the U.S. Must Leave Iraq
________________________________________
1. The human cost of war is unacceptable.
2. The U.S. occupation is a catalyst for violence.
3. U.S. actions inflame divisions and the chance of civil war.
4. Iraqis want the United States to leave now.
5. Democracy cannot flourish under an occupation.
6. The United States has failed to rebuild Iraq or provide for Iraqis’ basic needs.
7. The Iraq war and occupation waste resources needed for U.S. domestic programs.
8. The U.S. occupation of Iraq destabilizes the Middle East.
9. Humanitarian aid is crippled by the occupation.
10. The global community wants the war and occupation to end now.

Ten Reasons Why the U.S. Must Leave Iraq : Resources : Wage Peace Campaign : AFSC

The Iraq Study Group Announces Verdict: US should leave Iraq
06Dec06

LONDON - (Alastair Sharp) A comprehensive diplomatic effort must be initiated by the US to replace the military operation currently mired in conflict in Iraq. That is the broad conclusion of the Iraq Study Group, a bi-partisan working group co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

The report’s executive summary notes that:
“The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors.” It is as yet unknown to what extent President George Bush will take the group’s recommendations into account when possibly realigning US foreign policy. But Robert Gates, the man chosen to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defence Secretary following Republican defeat in mid-term elections, was a participant in the group

The Iraq Study Group Announces Verdict: US should leave Iraq at Post No Bills >> Journal

The Plight of Damaged Iraq War Vets
By Andrew Weaver and Ray McGovern February 5, 2007

Editor’s Note: For many of the Iraq War architects, the use of military force in international affairs is an abstraction, something they learned about in political science classes or enjoyed vicariously through board games like “Risk,” reportedly George W. Bush’s personal favorite.

What the vast majority of neoconservatives in the Bush administration lack is real-life experience with the cruelty and terror of war. So, despite their stirring words about “supporting the troops,” the war’s architects don’t have a great record of supplying the troops in the field or helping them when they return. In this guest essay – which first appeared in the Baltimore Sun – research psychologist Andrew Weaver and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern discuss the plight of Iraq War veterans:

The California Nurses Association reported that in the first quarter of 2006, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs "treated 20,638 Iraq veterans for post-traumatic stress disorder, and they have a backlog of 400,000 cases." A returning soldier has to wait an average of 165 days for a VA decision on initial disability benefits, and an appeal can take up to three years.

Consortiumnews.com

Putin and the Geopolitics of the New Cold War: Or, what happens when Cowboys don’t shoot straight like they used to…
by F. William Engdahl

Putin and the Geopolitics of the New Cold War: Or, what happens when Cowboys don’t shoot straight like they used to…

The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy
From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives

by Michel Chossudovsky

The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy

Who are the War Criminals?

by Felicity Arbuthnot Global Research, November 10, 2006

Who are the War Criminals?

 

[Billo_Really]

>>>Here's a few more links continued...

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

The Lancet Study...

This has been the longest time I have been away from blogging. There were several reasons for my disappearance the major one being the fact that every time I felt the urge to write about Iraq, about the situation, I'd be filled with a certain hopelessness that can't be put into words and that I suspect other Iraqis feel also.

It's very difficult at this point to connect to the internet and try to read the articles written by so-called specialists and analysts and politicians. They write about and discuss Iraq as I might write about the Ivory Coast or Cambodia- with a detachment and lack of sentiment that- I suppose- is meant to be impartial. Hearing American politicians is even worse. They fall between idiots like Bush- constantly and totally in denial, and opportunists who want to use the war and ensuing chaos to promote themselves.

The latest horror is the study published in the Lancet Journal concluding that over 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the war. Reading about it left me with mixed feelings. On the one hand, it sounded like a reasonable figure. It wasn't at all surprising. On the other hand, I so wanted it to be wrong. But... who to believe? Who to believe....? American politicians... or highly reputable scientists using a reliable scientific survey technique?

The responses were typical- war supporters said the number was nonsense because, of course, who would want to admit that an action they so heartily supported led to the deaths of 600,000 people (even if they were just crazy Iraqis…)? Admitting a number like that would be the equivalent of admitting they had endorsed, say, a tsunami, or an earthquake with a magnitude of 9 on the Richter scale, or the occupation of a developing country by a ruthless superpower… oh wait- that one actually happened. Is the number really that preposterous? Thousands of Iraqis are dying every month- that is undeniable. And yes, they are dying as a direct result of the war and occupation (very few of them are actually dying of bliss, as war-supporters and Puppets would have you believe).

For American politicians and military personnel, playing dumb and talking about numbers of bodies in morgues and official statistics, etc, seems to be the latest tactic. But as any Iraqi knows, not every death is being reported. As for getting reliable numbers from the Ministry of Health or any other official Iraqi institution, that's about as probable as getting a coherent, grammatically correct sentence from George Bush- especially after the ministry was banned from giving out correct mortality numbers. So far, the only Iraqis I know pretending this number is outrageous are either out-of-touch Iraqis abroad who supported the war, or Iraqis inside of the country who are directly benefiting from the occupation ($) and likely living in the Green Zone.

The chaos and lack of proper facilities is resulting in people being buried without a trip to the morgue or the hospital. During American military attacks on cities like Samarra and Fallujah, victims were buried in their gardens or in mass graves in football fields. Or has that been forgotten already?

We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons – with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?

There are Iraqi women who have not shed their black mourning robes since 2003 because each time the end of the proper mourning period comes around, some other relative dies and the countdown begins once again.

Let's pretend the 600,000+ number is all wrong and that the minimum is the correct number: nearly 400,000. Is that better? Prior to the war, the Bush administration kept claiming that Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis over 24 years. After this latest report published in The Lancet, 300,000 is looking quite modest and tame. Congratulations Bush et al.

Everyone knows the 'official numbers' about Iraqi deaths as a direct result of the war and occupation are far less than reality (yes- even you war hawks know this, in your minuscule heart of hearts). This latest report is probably closer to the truth than anything that's been published yet. And what about American military deaths? When will someone do a study on the actual number of those? If the Bush administration is lying so vehemently about the number of dead Iraqis, one can only imagine the extent of lying about dead Americans…

Baghdad Burning

No Light at Tunnel's End
Jim Lobe, Electronic Iraq, 5 February 2007

WASHINGTON (IPS) - A long-awaited study by the U.S. intelligence community released here Friday concludes there is little, if any, light at the end of tunnel in Iraq.

News & Analysis: No Light at Tunnel's End

An Appeal for Redress from the War in Iraq

Many active duty, reserve, and guard service members are concerned about the war in Iraq and support the withdrawal of U.S. troops. The Appeal for Redress provides a way in which individual service members can appeal to their Congressional Representative and US Senators to urge an end to the U.S. military occupation. The first Appeal signatures messages will be were delivered to members of Congress on January 16, to coincide with at the time of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in January 2007.

The wording of the Appeal for Redress is short and simple. It is patriotic and respectful in tone.

As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.

An Appeal for Redress

COST OF WAR

Below is a running total of the U.S. taxpayer cost of the Iraq War. The number is based on Congressional appropriations.

The War in Iraq Costs
$404,371,732,115

National Priorities Project - Cost of War

URGENT ACTION
Iraq: Incommunicado detention/ fear of torture or ill-treatment
PUBLIC AI Index: MDE 14/011/2007
23 February 2007

UA 44/07 Incommunicado detention/ fear of torture or
ill-treatment

IRAQ Iqbal Ibtissam (f), aged in her 30s
Amal Ibtissam (f), aged in her 30s, her sister
Amal Ibtissam's baby daughter
Scores of women and children

Sisters Iqbal and Amal Ibtissam are among scores of women and children being held incommunicado by Iraqi security forces and government militias in the city of Najaf, south of Baghdad. Amal Ibtissam, who is pregnant, is being held with her baby daughter, aged less than a year old. The detainees are at risk of torture or ill-treatment. There are grave concerns for their safety and
wellbeing.

The group of women and children were detained on 29 January, when Iraqi
security forces, supported by US forces and pro-government militias, launched a massive attack in al-Zarqa, a rural area near the city of Najaf. Some 300 armed men were reportedly killed in the attack. They were members of a religious group calling itself Jund al-Sama (Soldiers of Heaven), who were said to have been plotting to kill senior Shi’a religious clerics based in Najaf.

In the aftermath of the attack, Iraqi security forces and pro-government
militias reportedly raided the houses of members of Jund al-Sama and arrested scores of women and children, including Iqbal and Amal Ibtissam, and Amal Ibtissam's baby daughter. It is thought that they were arrested because of their family links to members of Jund al-Sama. All those arrested are reportedly being detained in a makeshift detention centre, formerly a school, in an area called Hay al-Ansar in Najaf. Nothing is known about the conditions in which they are held, but the detainees have had no access to the outside world.

Iraq: Incommunicado detention/ fear of torture or ill-treatment - Amnesty International

 

[Billo_Really]

>>>And a few more links...

Response to Bush's Escalation Speech
by Jason Lemieux | Sat, 01/13/2007 - 7:19am

In his recent speech, the President referred to tactics that many in the military are familiar with, including ‘clean and sweep’ and door-to-door home “visits” by U.S. military personnel. These approaches have failed miserably during the nearly four years of occupation, and have served to alienate and enrage the Iraqis against the U.S. presence in their communities. Clean and sweep operations haven’t worked, and they never will. The problem, contrary to what Bush states, is not that we have neglected certain areas or haven’t remained in one area long enough to ‘hold’ it after the sweep. The problem is that this is not a war of geography in which terrain can be “cleared” of resistance and “held.”

The people that Bush tries to paint as ‘terrorists’ are really local antagonists. They are citizens of Iraq who feel that the U.S. military is so oppressive that it is worth destroying one Humvee at a time. When sweeps are conducted the insurgents merely go to ground, sitting passively in their homes with their families as our soldiers rifle through their belongings in a vain attempt to find contraband that isn’t there, or is so well hidden that it would take far too long to uncover in the sweep of such a large area. They will always have more time to hide than we have to search. The entire time, American soldiers wearing full body armor and supported by armored vehicles and aircraft are breaking down doors, pulling up carpets and otherwise tearing the house apart. They will not, of course, put everything back in its place when they are done. The soldiers will speak directly to women, giving them orders and sometimes even making physical contact in order to get the women clustered together in one room, where they are easily controlled. The damage done to the familial and tribal honor by ignoring the patriarchal rules of this culture causes a hundredfold more harm than the success gained in these sweeps. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have had their houses tornadoed countless times in a vain attempt to find the ‘terrorists,’ and all of them are now supporters of the resistance.

Bush and his commanders continue to speak in terms of physical successes in which we kill the ‘terrorists.’ Because the American people have had such myopic rhetoric shoved down their throats so many times, it is impossible for them to see that this war is already lost; it is lost in the minds of the Iraqi people. The Iraqis see us as the enemy now, and for every AK-47 and artillery shell that we capture from the myriad insurgent factions during a sweep, those factions will gain a far more valuable gift in the form of young men and women willing to fight to defend their families’ honor. Later, when the sweep is over and our troops attempt to ‘hold’ the swept area, they will be attacked by IEDs every time they turn around. Many of those IEDs are preplanted, and are able to remain emplaced for up to a month before they are detonated. Others will be hastily buried every time the Americans are a couple blocks away, heading into another tragedy. It is so easy, 12 year-old boys do it with laughable ease.

Response to Bush's Escalation Speech | Iraq Veterans Against the War

What is the foreign policy community saying about Iraq behind closed doors?
by Fernando Braga | Wed, 11/15/2006 - 11:12am

What is the foreign policy community (those that make decisions, not the tongue flappers like O'Reilly) really saying about Iraq behind closed doors?

Below are excerpts from one candid talk (a "luncheon briefing") from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), an institution of elite government, business, and military people that helps shape a "non-partisan" US policy Behind the Bipartisan Drive Toward War, by Laurence H. Shoup.
Basically Haass, a strategic foreign policy thinker (not simply a Bush man or neo con), says that the US cannot win in Iraq and that the era of US dominance in the middle east is over. He says the US should concentrate on how to deal with strategic decline.
What is the foreign policy community saying about Iraq behind closed doors? | Iraq Veterans Against the War

“He called me from Iraq: ‘I have no idea what we’re doing here, mom.’
18 May 2005

May 18, 2005 - Interview with Nadia McCaffrey, member of the BRussells Tribunal Advisory Committee (Inge Van de Merlen)

September 12, 2001: Day 1 after the attacks on the WTC towers in the US. 34-year-old Patrick McCaffrey, husband and father of two, was upset enough to join the Californian National Guard. The National Guard is usually deployed in case of disasters or other emergency situations within the United States. A few days after 9/11 the Bush administration, without much warning, changed the regulations so that Guard units could be sent to Iraq. Patrick was killed on June 22, 2004 and in the record is registered as ‘casualty #848’. “My son never thought he’d find himself in the war zone,” his mother Nadia McCaffrey said. Since his death she has been traveling around the world to try to convince people of the insanity of the war in Iraq.

WTI : World Tribunal on Iraq : “He called me from Iraq: ‘I have no idea what we’re doing here, mom.’

Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam, UN Survey Finds
18 May 2005

Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam, UN Survey Finds - The NewStandard

by Chris Shumway

A major study by the UN and Iraqi officials found that life in Iraq has decayed significantly since foreign forces invaded, following a general trend seen in most sectors since the imposition of a global embargo in 1990.

WTI : World Tribunal on Iraq : Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam, UN Survey Finds

Haditha: A City Crushed under the Occupation
20 Jun 2005

No Authority, No Security, No rights...just the Killings

Sabah Ali - Articles from inside Iraq - part 2

SOS from Haditha

In the Name of God the Most Merciful, The most Gracious,

In the name of the people of Haditha, its women, children, and old people

We call upon you, all the people of Iraq and the world: SOS

The American troops, accompanied by the Iraqi National Guards, are waging the most ferocious attack against our town, for three days now. They violated our blood, honor, and peaceful houses where not a single piece of weapon, fighters, or armed men were found. They killed old people, women and children; they bombed the houses with airplanes. We swear by the name of God that there was not a single piece of weapon in them. They killed Sheikh Ismael Al-Zawi, speaker of Al-Seif mosque, while he was going to pray at dawn. They forced families out of their houses, occupied them and used them as their headquarters. The INGs have stolen all the houses properties, including even children and women clothes. They closed all the roads to the town hospital, the wounded were left un attended. They killed women and children without any reason; there were no fighters among them. Please help the people of Haditha; even with a word … Our sanctities, houses, women, blood, and honor are violated by the INGs who come from the south. They swear bad words against the Companions of the Prophet in the streets, and on the American Tanks. They call Ahl Assunna bad words and say "This is the day of revenge of you, Sunnis"

WTI : World Tribunal on Iraq : Haditha: A City Crushed under the Occupation

When is enough enough?

Bottom line galen is that the evidence is so overwhelming that I cannot concieve of anyone having the position that this [being in Iraq] is a good thing. And after these 3 posts of links, it is still just the tip of the iceberg.