Why the pessimism?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course you can... to deal with with the rebels.

Given that the US and international community never recognized the Taliban as the government, they were always rebels-in short, we went to fight the Taliban and AQ-we are still fighting the Taliban and AQ. same war.

Is Israel currently in a war against Hamas?

If you ask the Israelis, yes. BUt of course, still a strawman.

Exactly... it was the aftermath of the war and became a seperate conflict entirely. If this erupts into full fledged warfare, it'll be another conflict, not Gulf War II.

So then we are still at war in Iraq. Good to see you agree.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DanS

The problem is that you equate working through the UN as multilateral and working through groups of allies as unilateral. This is an unrealistic view. You're subordinating your perception of reality to an attempt to spin together a higher law of nations.

Actually, Dan, this issue of "unilateralism" will probably be a major issue the upcoming election. Kerry seems to denigrate anything Bush does, even if it with a coalition of 40 plus nations, as unilateral, while defending Clinton's intervention into Kosovo, which had neither the backing of Congress or the United Nations, and criticizing Bush's lack of unilateral intervention into Haiti.

In terms of working through Congress and the United Nations, I have never seen anything in my life that it was remotely like Bush and Blair's efforts to achieve a consensus at the United Nations to do something effective about Saddam Hussein. That Bush and Blair did not succeed in the end does not mean that their effort was not sincere.

During the Cold War, the United Nations was rendered ineffective by having a veto in each warring camp. In the post-Cold War world, one would have hoped that United Nations could be ineffective organization to unite the world in a common purpose and confront terrorism and genocidal dictators. But what I have we found? We have found a Europe and particularly a France that views itself as a check on American power as if United States were the problem and not the solution.

Thus we now face a Europe that actively opposes American power and operates inexorably to obstruct American foreign-policy. To the extent that we agree to operate within the framework of the United Nations, we fall directly into the European's trap.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Given that the US and international community never recognized the Taliban as the government, they were always rebels

So was the PRC a rebel group until the 70s?

still a strawman

No, a natural analogy.

So then we are still at war in Iraq. Good to see you agree.

No, not yet. We could get involved in another Iraqi war in the future. But as for now, the war is over. Small bands of roving guerillas and rebels do not a war make. When they become an organized group under a heirchical leadership, and actually engage in warfare rather than terrorism, then talk to me again.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So was the PRC a rebel group until the 70s?

Only the US stood in the way of recognizing Commusnit China as the government-almost everyone else had moved on. As compared to the fact only 3 states ever recognized the Taliban. Add to that the fact the civil war was ongoing in Afghanistan-add to that the US is still fighting the Taliban and AQ, the people we went there to fight.

No, a natural analogy.

Only for someone looking for strawmen.

No, not yet. We could get involved in another Iraqi war in the future. But as for now, the war is over. Small bands of roving guerillas and rebels do not a war make. When they become an organized group under a heirchical leadership, and actually engage in warfare rather than terrorism, then talk to me again.

GIve me a break. So 9 months after the insurgency begun-it still is not an independent conflict? I am sorry, this is to absurd to argue..you are wrong, that simple. Last time I looked the won the Spanish American war in 1898-and the Philipinno insurgency begun in 1899.... But in planet Imran, it takes what to qualify as a new conflict?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Doing 95% ourselves and 4% one partner and 1% 29 other partners is working through allies? Come on, this Coalition of the Willing is BS and you know it. 90% of them are names on a peice of paper contributing nothing substantial.

Would a UN force really be all that different? Whose troops do you think would do 90% of the dirty work?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So 9 months after the insurgency begun-it still is not an independent conflict? I am sorry, this is to absurd to argue..you are wrong, that simple. Last time I looked the won the Spanish American war in 1898-and the Philipinno insurgency begun in 1899.... But in planet Imran, it takes what to qualify as a new conflict?

An actual conflict between two declarable sides (at least). Who is the US fighting a war against? If you can't even really name the other side, it isn't a war. It's just guerrila terrorism, kind of like the ETA in Spain.

The Iraq war was over when the opposing side fell.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Would a UN force really be all that different? Whose troops do you think would do 90% of the dirty work?

IIRC back in '90 America sent about half of the troops.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

An actual conflict between two declarable sides (at least). Who is the US fighting a war against? If you can't even really name the other side, it isn't a war. It's just guerrila terrorism, kind of like the ETA in Spain.

The Iraq war was over when the opposing side fell.

GePap is right, Imran. This particular war will only be won when a stable and democratic regime has been established. If the objectives were only military, then America should leave right now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

GePap is right, Imran. This particular war will only be won when a stable and democratic regime has been established. If the objectives were only military, then America should leave right now.

Every war is only military objectives (that's why they call it a 'war'). The aftermath is just that! WW2 did not last until 1947 because we didn't pull out West Germany until that time. It ended in 1945 when the enemy surrendered. Guerrila rebels fighting against government forces did not mean the war contined.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Every war is only military objectives (that's why they call it a 'war'). The aftermath is just that! WW2 did not last until 1947 because we didn't pull out West Germany until that time. It ended in 1945 when the enemy surrendered. Guerrila rebels fighting against government forces did not mean the war contined.

In this case, where the war was explicitly sold with a moral argument in it, though, I would argue that separating military objectives from 'moral' objectives would be fallacious at best.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Every war is only military objectives (that's why they call it a 'war').

So, what are the military objectives in the war against 'terror'?

[Imran Siddiqui]

We are talking about the war against terror (which isn't really a war). We are talking about the war against Iraq.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In this case, where the war was explicitly sold with a moral argument in it, though, I would argue that separating military objectives from 'moral' objectives would be fallacious at best.

It's also what you have to do. Wars aren't won when their 'moral' objectives are achieved. Only when military ones are.

[Chemical Ollie]

I'm just spamming this thread to bookmark it and easily find it in "My Threads". I might write something on the topic later.

[Alexander's Horse]

The coalition forces are just flotsam on the Tigris. Here today, gone tommorrow.

Then it will be business as usual again.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's also what you have to do. Wars aren't won when their 'moral' objectives are achieved. Only when military ones are.

OK, let's reassert. The US destroys the Baath. 6 months after they leave. Some Baath partisans take back the power. Was the war won?

Seriously, your definition of war is pointless. This particular one won't be won until Iraq is stable and democratic. Else, the term 'war' would only be valid when it involves military operations from official legal states. So, what about the war on terror? the war against crime? the war against drugs?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The US destroys the Baath. 6 months after they leave. Some Baath partisans take back the power. Was the war won?

Yes... if the US destroys the Ba'ath party and then leaves, and then later the Ba'ath take over again, that doesn't mean the US lost the war, they lost the peace.

the term 'war' would only be valid when it involves military operations from official legal states.

Yes, mostly. Doesn't have to be official legal states, it can be an organized opposition force with leadership, etc.

So, what about the war on terror? the war against crime? the war against drugs?

None of them are truely wars. Even the 'War on Terror' isn't a real war.

This particular one won't be won until Iraq is stable and democratic.

The war is over. Having Iraq being a democratic state is part of the nation building aftermath of the war.

[Oncle Boris]

That would be because you are a lawyer interested in pointless semantics. Yeah, it may not be a war in the sense of Geneva's convention, but who cares, really?

Iraq was justified as a morally right war- therefore, it requires that both the war and the peace be won. Anything else is a failure, and you know it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Iraq was justified as a morally right war- therefore, it requires that both the war and the peace be won. Anything else is a failure, and you know it.

According to its justification, Iraq has easily already been won. Saddam is gone. Was it justified on the ground that we'll build a democracy in the ME? No, it was justified on getting rid of Saddam, a brutal dictator.

Any 'failure' is a failure of the peace. The war has already been won. And it isn't semantics because that is what the word means... man, do I hate revionists .

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
According to its justification, Iraq has easily already been won. Saddam is gone. Was it justified on the ground that we'll build a democracy in the ME? No, it was justified on getting rid of Saddam, a brutal dictator.

Any 'failure' is a failure of the peace. The war has already been won. And it isn't semantics because that is what the word means... man, do I hate revionists .

No, if you get rid of Saddam only to have him replaced by someone just as bad, you've actually lost.

Well, you don't really care, don't you? As long as he protects free market and oil wells, he's fine, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, if you get rid of Saddam only to have him replaced by someone just as bad, you've actually lost.

But that doesn't change the fact that you've won the war!

Simply because Germany rose up and took over France in 1940 doesn't mean that France did not win WW1.

Well, you don't really care, don't you? As long as he protects free market and oil wells, he's fine, right?

And the strawmen come out in full force. Wouldn't expect anything less from a commie bastard who'd rather see a Stalinist paradise .

[Zevico]

This argument is over nothing but a faulty definition.
Imran takes war to mean an actual military conflict. By his definition of war, America won the war. This is not in dispute.
Whether the USA will achieve its goals in going into Iraq is the matter being discussed. If someone as bad as Saddam gets into power, then the goals of the USA will not have been achieved.
The true underlying justification of the war, as Imran stated, was to get Saddam out because of the danger he posed--not because he had WMD but because the USA thought he would be crazy enough to use them. I really don't understand what this argument was about...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
According to its justification, Iraq has easily already been won. Saddam is gone.

Uh, no. Not until you find all those BCN weapons and destroy them. Or perhaps Syria got them already? Heads will roll!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Iraq was justified as a morally right war- therefore, it requires that both the war and the peace be won. Anything else is a failure, and you know it.

And so WWI was a failure from the POV of the Commonwealth. We bled to win the war on account of the danger to Britain, but the peace was lost. Do you agree?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I am pretty impressed with the amount of informations Oerdin provides here. I sincerely hope, that they won't cause him to get in troubles.

I sincerely hope the brass doesn't find out about it so I don't have to explain it.

Seriously, I believe most of it is safe though the military often tries to pretend that even safe info must be kept totally secret which I disagree with. The people have a right to know about everything which doesn't directly indanger soldiers on the battlefield or risk national security. I don't believe I've done either. I've simply shared my thoughts and observations from the war zone.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by debeest
Oerdin, I want to bump my question. What do you see as a reasonably likely positive outcome in Iraq?

If Iraq can be turned into something similiar to Turkey then I think we can consider it a success. That means a fairly stable democracy which has a few worts but which by and large shows steady improvement both economically and in social rights. It would be nice if, like Turkey, Iraq became a western ally.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Interestingly, people with university degrees tend to be more liberal- so maybe our overeducation is morte than balacning out the massive male whiteness of the board?"

That isn't correct. The most liberal groups tend to be people who have never been to college, and people who have a post-graduate degree. Moreover people here aren't liberal in the typical American sense, they are far left-wing extremists who are totally outside of the mainstream. Whether it's civ players who are like this or people who like posting on off topic boards about civ games, we don't know.

[NeOmega]

Oerdin, I remember you from before you left, you said you ooposed the war.

You are now in your world, and you must deal with it.

It has nothing to do with how the average Iraqi feels. Wars are not about average people, they are just the ones who get hurt by them.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
That isn't correct. The most liberal groups tend to be people who have never been to college, and people who have a post-graduate degree. Moreover people here aren't liberal in the typical American sense, they are far left-wing extremists who are totally outside of the mainstream. Whether it's civ players who are like this or people who like posting on off topic boards about civ games, we don't know.

Nope. What you call the 'extreme left' is the normal center left in Europe.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But that doesn't change the fact that you've won the war!

Simply because Germany rose up and took over France in 1940 doesn't mean that France did not win WW1.

Methinks there's a difference between 30 years and 3 years.
I mean, whatever. You may have won the war, but you'll have lost. Intransitively, with no object complement.

And the strawmen come out in full force. Wouldn't expect anything less from a commie bastard who'd rather see a Stalinist paradise .

You are a fascist. I am right and you are wrong.