Can it be possible for Iraq to run out of humans?

[Pete the Greek]

Leaving aside your arguments with the omniscient one, it's unlikely that Iraq will ever be "de-populated", given that there's a fairly fluid Kurdish population in the north and Shia population to the south who aren't averse to ignoring the niceties of national boundaries.

Also, purely pedantically, as long as there's a US base on Iraqi soil it won't be depopulated, and we can at least guess that there'll always be a base on Iraqi soil while the oil still flows, and while Iraq will provide a strategic stepping stone into other ME states.

Ok.

But how many people would it take to run a skeleton staff at the iraqi oil fields/refineries?

500? a thou?
That's still a minute population for a country.
Throw in US forces, and you could boost it quite a bit I suppose.
But I reckon Baghdad could potentially be depopulated if it carries on like this.

Although that theory would have to rest on whether or not the ultimately victorious faction turns on itself and splits up into groups that fight eachother and so on, until everyone is dead and writhing on the floor.

 

[nino_savatte]

So your theory is that the US is encouraging the violence in Iraq as opposed to letting the country stabilise because it is easier to steal oil this way.

Just to add to what VP has said, I have no need for a theory when the evidence fills my television screen each day. Furthermore, how can a country "stabilise" once it's political, economic and social infrastructure has been smashed? It wasn't in the original US plans for Iraq to fragment but that's what happened and the war planners never thought that far ahead and preferred to place their faith in empty signs.

 

[Pete the Greek]

No, I'm not an expert. I got my knowledge of the military the proper way, unlike bedwetters such as yourself who content themselves with reading Andy McCrapp and buying big knives.

You think I'd teach an ignorant muppet like you? You're so soapy you wouldn't even meet the low intellectual bar officers have to.

I don't "do" Indymedia, too earnest for me.
Whatever

Touched a nerve, did I?

you arrogant cunt.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sure but the point that was being raised above was that the US was happy with the violent situation. That it benefited them. How can this be the case.
(and I'm talking about the situation as it stands, not reasons for invading in the first place ,Dwyer)

Think of it as a series of conjuror's tricks. The violence provides the cover for the sleights of hand via which the US has brought about certain outcomes conducive to their continued business involvement in Iraq, from the PSAs that Bernie posted a thread about, to the leasing agreements for long-term US army bases in Iraq.
Like most conjuror's tricks, a minority of people will work out what is going on and make a noise about it (hence the small amount of reportage on such matters in the media), but the trick's success relies on the majority either not noticing or not caring that they're being tricked. While international media attention is mostly fixed on series' of incidents of bombing, of gun battles between factions, and on individual loss of life, then the US administration can get on with making deals with it's puppet in Iraq without too heavy an degree of scrutiny given to the small print.

IMO, of course.

 

[nino_savatte]

Sure but the point that was being raised above was that the US was happy with the violent situation. That it benefited them. How can this be the case.
(and I'm talking about the situation as it stands, not reasons for invading in the first place ,Dwyer)

"Happy"? No, they aren't happy but because of their terminal short-sightedness, historical ignorance and rampant greed they sort of overlooked the possibility of inter-ethnic violence.

 

[thefishdead]

Just to add to what VP has said, I have no need for a theory when the evidence fills my television screen each day. Furthermore, how can a country "stabilise" once it's political, economic and social infrastructure has been smashed? It wasn't in the original US plans for Iraq to fragment but that's what happened and the war planners never thought that far ahead and preferred to place their faith in empty signs.

What evidence the issue was not whether or not Iraq was in chaos the issue was if the US wants it that way.

 

[nino_savatte]

What evidence the issue was not whether or not Iraq was in chaos the issue was if the US wants it that way.

I'm not sure what you're saying here because your syntax is all over the shop.

 

[Pete the Greek]

This thead is not actually about the political merits of invasion or the moral standing of the US.

I am not making a political point per se, more of a query over whether or not the country could feasibly run out of people at the current rate of death/exodus.

Could we return to the relevant topic please, people?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Touched a nerve, did I?

No, you're not nearly irritating enough to "touch a nerve".

you arrogant cunt.

Whatever, Pete.
If you insist on saying stupid things, I'll have to insist on being an "arrogant cunt" and putting you in your place, which is "in the wrong".

 

[nino_savatte]

This thead is not actually about the political merits of invasion or the moral standing of the US.

I am not making a political point per se, more of a query over whether or not the country could feasibly run out of people at the current rate of death/exodus.

Could we return to the relevant topic please, people?

I see, not content with the replies you've received, you now want to impose your own rules on this thread. It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it.

 

[Pete the Greek]

No, you're not nearly irritating enough to "touch a nerve".


Whatever, Pete.
If you insist on saying stupid things, I'll have to insist on being an "arrogant cunt" and putting you in your place, which is "in the wrong".

please see above post about remaining on topic.
if you want to willy wave your knowledge on the Iraq conflict around, do so on another more relevant thread.



Some people and their ever expanding egos, I dunno.

 

[Pete the Greek]

I see, not content with the replies you've received, you now want to impose your own rules on this thread. It seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it.

No, I made a thread about one topic, and the discussion has been hijacked by predictable bores (not yourself included) who have decided to use it as yet another anti-american rant.

It's not about the morals and motives for invasion FFS!!

see the OP and stick to it. It's my motherfucking thread after all.

Sheesh, some fucking people. Get a life.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ok.

But how many people would it take to run a skeleton staff at the iraqi oil fields/refineries?

500? a thou?
That's still a minute population for a country.
Throw in US forces, and you could boost it quite a bit I suppose.
But I reckon Baghdad could potentially be depopulated if it carries on like this.

I'm not so sure that Baghdad would actually ever be depopulated.
You have to bear in mind what is actually in Baghdad, and the (religious and cultural) relevance those sites have to the Sunni and Shia. It's certainly the case that Baghdad has drawn non-Baghdadis (even if you don't include the wannabe-martyrs from everywhere) to itself during the war because of the cultural and religious relevance it has to the various factions.

Although that theory would have to rest on whether or not the ultimately victorious faction turns on itself and splits up into groups that fight eachother and so on, until everyone is dead and writhing on the floor.

Exactly. There's too many variables to try and make anything more than a "best guess" at individual scenarios.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

more of a query over whether or not the country could feasibly run out of people at the current rate of death/exodus.

It was a serious question?

You thick cunt.

 

[Pete the Greek]

I'm not so sure that Baghdad would actually ever be depopulated.
You have to bear in mind what is actually in Baghdad, and the (religious and cultural) relevance those sites have to the Sunni and Shia. It's certainly the case that Baghdad has drawn non-Baghdadis (even if you don't include the wannabe-martyrs from everywhere) to itself during the war because of the cultural and religious relevance it has to the various factions.


Exactly. There's too many variables to try and make anything more than a "best guess" at individual scenarios.

Good post.

 

[thefishdead]

I'm not sure what you're saying here because your syntax is all over the shop.

Look, read the bloody thread aberlan(im sure thats spelt wrong sorry) posted that he believed the US wanted Iraq to remain in chaos to make it easy to control. Pete asked why would this benefit the US. Then several posters took this to mean why, the war in genera,l benefited the US and roundly slag ed him off.
What I want to know is do you or anyone out there believe the US is happy with the chaos in Iraq.

 

[Pete the Greek]

It was a serious question?

You thick cunt.

Shit post - from a predictable trolling cunt.

 

[ViolentPanda]

please see above post about remaining on topic.
if you want to willy wave your knowledge on the Iraq conflict around, do so on another more relevant thread.



Some people and their ever expanding egos, I dunno.

Priceless!!

 

[Pete the Greek]

Priceless!!

Priceless, though I'll sell you the copyright for a thousand quid.

deal or no deal?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Shit post - from a predictable trolling cunt.

OI!!

Do you mind staying on-topic, mush?

 

[ViolentPanda]

...
What I want to know is do you or anyone out there believe the US is happy with the chaos in Iraq.

I'm still awaiting your reply on my post #34.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

OI!!

Do you mind staying on-topic, mush?

 

[Pete the Greek]

OI!!

Do you mind staying on-topic, mush?

you're actually right there...I got sidetracked and sucked into name calling with nonameprickcuntboynobfeatures.

Sorry.

I can't help it though. His name pops up and I just want to blap him like one of those arcade games where the muppets pop out and you have to smash em over the head with a mallet.

I bet he's equally as ugly and meaningless IRL.

anyway, back to the thread. Baghdad....it'll be a ghost town with bails of hay rolling through the streets within a few years, mark my words.

 

[ViolentPanda]

you're actually right there...I got sidetracked and sucked into name calling with nonameprickcuntboynobfeatures.

Sorry.

I can't help it though. His name pops up and I just want to blap him like one of those arcade games where the muppets pop out and you have to smash em over the head with a mallet.

I bet he's equally as ugly and meaningless IRL.

anyway, back to the thread. Baghdad....it'll be a ghost town with bails of hay rolling through the streets within a few years, mark my words.

Good news for the animal-fodder merchants, then.

Seriously, In my personal opinion it won't become a ghost-town, but there is a possibility of it becoming far less ethnically-diverse due to the ascendancy of one or other faction. If that happens then we'll have been seeing (again imo) "ethnic cleansing" on a scale that'll dwarf the Balkan problems of the 1990s.

 

[thefishdead]

I'm still awaiting your reply on my post #34.

Leaving aside the, why war in the first place ,question.
For the sleight of hand to work the violence is not necessary. If the US installs a puppet government it can sign what ever deal it wants. You think this would be stopped if Iraq was calm. No chance. Even if Iraq was calm it would still likely have foreign oil companies drilling for oil. Don't think its in a position to do it for it self.

 

[Pete the Greek]

Isn't that "sleight of hand"?

 

[thefishdead]

Happy? Tis fixed

 

[ViolentPanda]

Leaving aside the, why war in the first place ,question.
For the sleight of hand to work the violence is not necessary. If the US installs a puppet government it can sign what ever deal it wants. You think this would be stopped if Iraq was calm. No chance. Even if Iraq was calm it would still likely have foreign oil companies drilling for oil. Don't think its in a position to do it for it self.

No, of course the violence isn't necessary, but it does provide a convenient screen for the less palatable aspects of US dominion in Iraq.

What should be borne in mind is that the issue (to the US administration) is as much about how the minutiae of dominion are represented to the outside world (invasion as humanitarian intervention, "staying put" as compassionate assistance etc) as it is about the nitty-gritty of raping another sovereign state's resources. The ongoing violence/chaos/civil disorder allows the US (and UK) to represent themselves as reluctant policers of an unstable state.

 

[thefishdead]

No, of course the violence isn't necessary, but it does provide a convenient screen for the less palatable aspects of US dominion in Iraq.

What should be borne in mind is that the issue (to the US administration) is as much about how the minutiae of dominion are represented to the outside world (invasion as humanitarian intervention, "staying put" as compassionate assistance etc) as it is about the nitty-gritty of raping another sovereign state's resources. The ongoing violence/chaos/civil disorder allows the US (and UK) to represent themselves as reluctant policers of an unstable state.

Your joking right? We're at the point where the perpetrators of the war are likely to be thrown out in anger at the next election, the vast majority of the world is against it and fundys are blown themselves up in revenge for it.
No way this makes the invaders look more noble than if they had a calm country with a democracy elected (if puppet) government and they then moved in there oil companies to 'help' the Iraqis drill.

 

[Pete the Greek]

this is most distressing. I feel raped.

Stop derailing my thread!

right, from now on, no-one is allowed to make a post here unless it includes the words:

depopulation / depopulated
no more humans
empty
vacant
bales of hay
ghost town
everyone is dead.