5 ms·

"Nobody can really believe the US wants to CONQUER Iraq in the sense that they want to stay there indefinitely for control." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embas

"Nobody can really believe the US wants to CONQUER Iraq in the sense that they want to stay there indefinitely for control." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States_in_Baghdad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States_in... "A new embassy, which has been described as the largest and most expensive embassy in the world at 0.44 square kilometers—the size of Vatican City[1]—was opened in January 2009 ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population Iraq is the 39th most populous country in the world, behind, for example, China, India, Russia, Japan and Mexico. Why do we need such a large operation, and personnel, for the 39th largest country in the world? We didn't build to this size with the idea that embassy personnel would shrink in the foreseeable future. I believe the US did and does indeed want to conquer Iraq, because it gives us a presence and force projection that, unlike an aircraft carrier, can stay on station indefinitely. Otherwise why invade a country that (differing opinions acknowledged) posed no threat to the US? I imagine we're still anxiously searching for the real weapons of mass destruction.

sliverstorm 17y ago
Forget about egos for a minute and consider; 9 years in and still at a stalemate, moving at a snail's pace? If the US wanted to conquer Iraq, it seems like it would have been over already. Don't get upset and emotional over me saying this; Nobody's blustering and beating their chest here. That's just my honest opinion.
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  "If the US wanted to conquer Iraq, it seems like it would have been over already." No it wouldn't. (As you say don't get emotional about this). Except genocide, which wouldn't be acceptable in this century, what exactly would the US do differently without having an even more aggressive insurgency? The US has conquered Iraq, in the sense of defeating and disarming its armies, executing its leader and occupying territory. The problem it has is in getting sections of the conquered populace to go a long with its designs for them. "9 years in and still at a stalemate, moving at a snail's pace" is in spite of everything the US Army could do. So again I ask you what exactly would the US do differently than what it did if it were (in your opinion) a "real" conquest? I would say that troops of another nation occupying your country for many years, and planning to stay (albeit on a reduced scale) for many more and maintaining a monopoly on heavy weaponry (tanks, planes, artillery etc) while building up a local collaborating militia is the definition of "occupation" or "conquest". This is exactly what the Soviets did in Afghanistan, for e.g. (Iran is doing what the US did then by providing arms, motivation and ideological support to people who fight the invasion, but on a comparitively reduced scale. Nothing like the Saudi/Pakistani/US tieup that formed to help the Afghans fight the Russians). If the Americans aren't ocupying Iraq, the Soviets didn't occupy Afghanistan either and that just doesn't seem to be a sensible conclusion. Do you have a different definition of "conquest" or "occupation"? To the rest of the world, what the US does/did in Iraq and Afghanistan does look like occupation. As a (by and large) supporter of the United States (I'd rather see the US win than some kind of deranged Islamic theocracy, the poor Iraqis don't have any good choices) I suggest the problem is not that the US didn't occupy Iraq, it is just that the US is way in over its head wrt the *post invasion" bit of the operation. The invasion went smoothly. The post invasion occupation is where the US struggles. It is very hard if not impossible for a democracy with a free media to fight a war for very dubious ends and maintain support "back home" over 8 years with steadily mounting casualties and huge expenditure of treasure during a recession. Coming back to your post, how (in your opinion) would a "conquest" look different? How would the insurgency go away if the US adopted different tactics? Except for massive scale concentration camps/genocide/scorched earth tactics which wouldn't be acceptable in the US or Europe or anywhere else really these days, how would it not face any less of an Islamic insurgency and/or do better? (There seem to be hyper patriot US readers here who downvote anything that suggests the US invasion of Iraq is an occupation and the Iraqis may be somewhat justified in fighting back. Just think of what you would do if the USA were invaded. Co operate with the invaders? Or fight back any way you could? Interesting how some people in the US think the US troops and mercenaries like BlackWater are anything but an occupying army in Iraq.)
  - sliverstorm 17y ago
    > Do you have a different definition of "conquest" or "occupation"? To the rest of the world, what the US does/did in Iraq and Afghanistan does look like occupation. Yes, and perhaps that's why we disagree. Conquest and occupation in my mind are not the same. We are certainly occupying Iraq. 'Conquest' in my mind usually only involves simply seizing a country, which we don't seem to have done; easy examples would be Japan's attacks on China and Germany's sweep of Poland in WWII (and in Japan's case, somewhat before WWII as well), or Genghis Khan, or the Romans. Looking up the word, it seems it means much closer to simply 'winning', but I usually use it in the sense of invading, taking and controlling. The US has largely avoided the 'taking' part, at least that I'm aware of, so it doesn't seem like conquest in my head. We are also occupying, but certainly not starting farms and such, actually moving in to live there. I may be way off in some of this, but that's how I saw it. I won't attempt to refute your points; they are mostly good, and through your lens they make sense. > the US is way in over its head wrt the *post invasion" bit of the operation. The invasion went smoothly. The post invasion occupation is where the US struggles. I absolutely agree with you there. We don't seem to have worked the second step out yet.

sliverstorm 17y ago

Forget about egos for a minute and consider; 9 years in and still at a stalemate, moving at a snail's pace? If the US wanted to conquer Iraq, it seems like it would have been over already. Don't get upset and emotional over me saying this; Nobody's blustering and beating their chest here. That's just my honest opinion.

plinkplonk 17y ago
"If the US wanted to conquer Iraq, it seems like it would have been over already." No it wouldn't. (As you say don't get emotional about this). Except genocide, which wouldn't be acceptable in this century, what exactly would the US do differently without having an even more aggressive insurgency? The US has conquered Iraq, in the sense of defeating and disarming its armies, executing its leader and occupying territory. The problem it has is in getting sections of the conquered populace to go a long with its designs for them. "9 years in and still at a stalemate, moving at a snail's pace" is in spite of everything the US Army could do. So again I ask you what exactly would the US do differently than what it did if it were (in your opinion) a "real" conquest? I would say that troops of another nation occupying your country for many years, and planning to stay (albeit on a reduced scale) for many more and maintaining a monopoly on heavy weaponry (tanks, planes, artillery etc) while building up a local collaborating militia is the definition of "occupation" or "conquest". This is exactly what the Soviets did in Afghanistan, for e.g. (Iran is doing what the US did then by providing arms, motivation and ideological support to people who fight the invasion, but on a comparitively reduced scale. Nothing like the Saudi/Pakistani/US tieup that formed to help the Afghans fight the Russians). If the Americans aren't ocupying Iraq, the Soviets didn't occupy Afghanistan either and that just doesn't seem to be a sensible conclusion. Do you have a different definition of "conquest" or "occupation"? To the rest of the world, what the US does/did in Iraq and Afghanistan does look like occupation. As a (by and large) supporter of the United States (I'd rather see the US win than some kind of deranged Islamic theocracy, the poor Iraqis don't have any good choices) I suggest the problem is not that the US didn't occupy Iraq, it is just that the US is way in over its head wrt the *post invasion" bit of the operation. The invasion went smoothly. The post invasion occupation is where the US struggles. It is very hard if not impossible for a democracy with a free media to fight a war for very dubious ends and maintain support "back home" over 8 years with steadily mounting casualties and huge expenditure of treasure during a recession. Coming back to your post, how (in your opinion) would a "conquest" look different? How would the insurgency go away if the US adopted different tactics? Except for massive scale concentration camps/genocide/scorched earth tactics which wouldn't be acceptable in the US or Europe or anywhere else really these days, how would it not face any less of an Islamic insurgency and/or do better? (There seem to be hyper patriot US readers here who downvote anything that suggests the US invasion of Iraq is an occupation and the Iraqis may be somewhat justified in fighting back. Just think of what you would do if the USA were invaded. Co operate with the invaders? Or fight back any way you could? Interesting how some people in the US think the US troops and mercenaries like BlackWater are anything but an occupying army in Iraq.)
- sliverstorm 17y ago
  > Do you have a different definition of "conquest" or "occupation"? To the rest of the world, what the US does/did in Iraq and Afghanistan does look like occupation. Yes, and perhaps that's why we disagree. Conquest and occupation in my mind are not the same. We are certainly occupying Iraq. 'Conquest' in my mind usually only involves simply seizing a country, which we don't seem to have done; easy examples would be Japan's attacks on China and Germany's sweep of Poland in WWII (and in Japan's case, somewhat before WWII as well), or Genghis Khan, or the Romans. Looking up the word, it seems it means much closer to simply 'winning', but I usually use it in the sense of invading, taking and controlling. The US has largely avoided the 'taking' part, at least that I'm aware of, so it doesn't seem like conquest in my head. We are also occupying, but certainly not starting farms and such, actually moving in to live there. I may be way off in some of this, but that's how I saw it. I won't attempt to refute your points; they are mostly good, and through your lens they make sense. > the US is way in over its head wrt the *post invasion" bit of the operation. The invasion went smoothly. The post invasion occupation is where the US struggles. I absolutely agree with you there. We don't seem to have worked the second step out yet.