War In Iraq/Terrorists

[t3sqr]

Hey Gonja, you said;

What the U.S. has done is invaded a sovereign nation, and proceded to occupy it for the past 3 years. All the Iraqis want us to do is leave.

I want you to think back to 1998-1999 when UN weapon inspectors were in Iraq, trying to locate the WMD's that Saddam claimed in 1995 that he had. The inspectors were held up at the front gate while the Iraqi military was moving this stuff out the back. In newly unclassified documents taken from Saddam's intel group see: http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

Finally the UN pulled the inspectors out because they knew nothing was going to be found. The UN then proceeded to place referendums to the tune of 15 plus orders and deadlines on Saddam to over information on WMD. The article above also states the Osama and the rest of the radical kooks were working together or at least discussed working together. When would you say enough is enough? Remember we had just had 9/11 here ans were shown how easy it was to attack us on our own soil... at home! How may time does it take to get punched in the face be fore you punch back???

As far as the Iran situation... a whole new animal. Why is it that France, Germany and most of the rest of the European nations did not support us in Iraq and NOW are clamering for US to good old USA to do something about Iran? It is because they are now threated from attack. Iran has just tested- sucessfully- a medium range missle capable of hitting Paris, London, Berlin, Amsterdam, etc... A missle that can carry muiltple nuke warheads. Iran is builting those nukes. And oh yea... they don't like them any more than they like us!! I guess we should wait until they kill a few thousand people in Europe before WE do anything...RIGHT? Right.

While it may cost billions of dollars to wage war to the tax paying population. Only a small percentage of those billions go to the soldiers. The rest go to various companys like halliburton or lockeed martin. While the manufacturing jobs are disapearing all over the country(thanks mr. Bush), and big companys like Ford and GM are hemorrhaging cash, while halliburtons stock is at an all time high, those fucks are getting paid.

Yes, large corporations like Halliburton and Lockeed Martin get high dollar contracts, but remember that are the one building the hardware that the military uses to protect our troops. A large portion of the cost comes from feeding, clothing, transporting 150,000+ active men and women 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I say active, as in the troops in the field of operations. The "Cost of the War" also includes 2 to 3 times the number of service personnel at other locations that are supporting the "active" troops. You also have to remember that GM, Ford and Dodge all went into 2002 with the low/no interest financing plans to get people to buy new cars and trucks. This was done to keep and create new jobs building cars to keep the economy running after 9/11. They put a large number of people to work for a few years. Now the demand for new cars and truck are down and they are starting to lay off all of those extra workers. The dollar figures that you see are last years numbers when they had a lot of workers. You wont see this years numbers until next year. That is the way the accounting works.

"The Long War"

In this day and age, the 30 sec. sound bite is all anybody remembers. Anything that lasts a year or two is LONG.

 

[stu2906]

In this day and age, the 30 sec. sound bite is all anybody remembers. Anything that lasts a year or two is LONG.

The French resistance during WW2 were a paramilitary organisation fighting for the liberation their sovereign nation. That was a war. The french had no legal right to protest or throw out the Germans undr their imposed laws. This resistance lasted for 6 years until the liberation of europe. The enemy was clear the German soldiers. That was a long war.

The current operations being fought against the terrorists in Iraq are part of a campaign against extremist insurgents. The war part has ended. It is to my mind a policing and anti-terrorist operation akin the 30 years of trouble in Ulster. All sides had the right to vote but were intent on killing each other due to percieved differences. The people that are being killed and hurt most are the innocent.

There is a saying that goes "One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is that the terrorist has recourse to legal and political action through fair representation wheras the freedom fighter is subjugated to unfair laws and has no right to vote or be part of a democratic process.

Had enough people (of the 75% who voted) stood against the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi land then they had a chance to vote them out. They did not. Until the legally elected government chooses to ask troops to withdraw we have a duty of care to stay and protect them to the best of our abilities, to spend out defence budgets and ask our soldiers to lay down their lives.

 

[mindido]

I know lots of motherfuckers who are "College Educated", who are not as articulate with the english language as you would demand of them.

Gonja,

First, I don't "demand" that anyone use the English language correctly (especially in a forum such as this). But I can, and do, make assumptions from everyones writing abilities. I know I'm not alone in this.

That doesn't mean that they are unfit to be captains in the army.

No, not necessarily. I have worked with two Captains from the US military over the years on two different projects relating to photogrammetry. From that experience, I think I have a fairly good idea of a Captains communications capabilities and educational background. Both of these guys were highly competant and excellent communicators. They have to be, because inadequate communications can get people killed.

So when someone makes a claim that doesn't fit with what I know, I have no problem with calling them on it. If, for no other reason, than to honor those two peoples memories. A Private I could have believed, but a Captain? No way.

You do know they have loosened the restrictions quite a bit in the past few years, right?

Yes, I do know that requirements for enlisted personnel have been relaxed (I don't think they even need a high school diploma anymore) but I doubt that prerequisites for officers have changed all that much. But, if they HAVE relaxed qualifications for officers that much, heaven help us and, most importantly, heaven help our troops.

To a lot of the Middle Eastern population, those insugents are patriots fighting for thier county, just like you are. I know the military has a way of brainwashing soldiers into believing that they are doing the right thing, you are just following orders. What the U.S. has done is invaded a sovereign nation, and proceded to occupy it for the past 3 years. All the Iraqis want us to do is leave. That's it. Pack up our shit get on the planes, ships, whatever, and get the fuck out. You have deposed their tyranical leader, so why are we still there?

I have no problem with that statement.

So what do you think the over/under is before we invade Iran?
3 months?
6 months?
A year?

Hard to say. Iran would be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq and, from what some of the military types have been saying on the tube recently, an "invasion" may not really be much of an option. Opening up a third front (which would probably lead to a fourth front, Syria, and maybe more) could really put a strain on our military. We may be the elephant in the room, but even an elephant can be driven away if there are enough bees stinging him.

More than likely, either we or the Israeli's will stage a three or four day bombing campaign that would set the Iranians back a few years (maybe). An invasion seems, at the moment, unlikely.

There is no bigger business(maybe pharmacuticals) in America than the business of War.

Gonja, do you remember what Eisenhower said about the dangers of the military/industrial complex in his last speech as President in 1960? If not, go back and listen to it (I provided a link to it a while back, if it doesn't work anymore let me know and I'll re-upload it).

I heard that some old fuck they call Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has started to call the war on terror "The Long War".

Rumsfeld is probably correct. Unless western nations and people begin to understand Islamic culture, our grand children will still be dealing with this "war" on terror. Just as a beginning, I'd highly recommend you pick up and read a book by Leon Uris called, "The Haj". I just finished it and found it to be quite enlightening. It should be required reading for any diplomat that will be working in the region.

 

[Iceberg]

OK. I've had it with those who say coalition troops should leave Afghanistan and Iraq. Should we all decide to leave, the powderkeg that is the Middle East will explode and lead to complete and total annihilation of millions of people within a short period.

Sure, war is deadly and a few thousand coalition troops have been killed since the beginning. However, that's a fact of life given the situation. Military planners are trying to minimise the loss of life within their ranks, as well as of civilians.

If we are to leave these two nations for some isolationistic policies, the terrorist groups will most definitely become revitalised and grow greatly in numbers, leading to more potential 9-11 situations, possibly worse.

What should be done is all civilised nations should be in this together, planning everything as one and not letting one nation dominate the proceedings. We all have the desire to destroy extremism. Now let's all get it done!

 

[Preferred User]

Richard Cohen in today's Washington Post has a more even handed view of Bush's war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on the "Bush Lied" thing, he thinks a better way to look at our problem is that Bush wanted a quick little war of a few months in Iraq. Maybe show the world that you don't tug on Superman's cape. Cohen says Hellen Thomas was right, Bush wanted war, just not the war he got.

If you're interested, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032902057.html

And before you tell me things are fine and the liberal media is the problem, conservatives like George Will, David Brooks, Senators Richard Lugar (R) & Chuck Hagel (R) both of the Foreign Relations Committee, along with mid-east cheerleader Thomas Friedman have all either thrown in the towel or come close. More significant, the silence from Bush I is deafening.

 

[mindido]

First off, Preferred,

Very interesting quote from the article:

"Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got."

So true. Good article.

And now for Ice,

OK. I've had it with those who say coalition troops should leave Afghanistan and Iraq. Should we all decide to leave, the powderkeg that is the Middle East will explode and lead to complete and total annihilation of millions of people within a short period.

Ice,

I've read, and reread, your post quite a few times in order to try and understand it well enough that I can make a reasonalbe response to it. Let me try.

If you've never read it, I highly recommend you read a book written about 2600 years ago called "The Art of War" by Sun Tsu, a Chinese general. It's available online so here are a few links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tsu
http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
http://www.newstrolls.com/news/dev/kilner/sun_tsu/gilesbare/Outer.html

One of the first thing he talks about is to "know your enemy". So, who is our enemy?

In order to know this we first have to separate Afganistan from Iraq. In Afganistan, our enemy are Al Quaeda and the Taliban. There are no doubts amongst anyone, that I'm aware of, that Al Quaeda is our primary enemy. IF Al Quaeda had not been sheltered by the Taliban, more than likely, the Taliban would still be in power in Afganistan. So the Taliban are more of an annoyance and its really their own fault (by sheltering and supporting Al Quaeda) they lost power. Any disagreement with that?

OK, lets look at Iraq. What influence did Al Quaeda have in Iraq? From all the evidence thats come out in the last few years its clear that they had either very little or none. Why? This is really fairly simple when you boil all the evidence down. Saddam was a secularist (despite what he's trying to say today) whereas Al Quaeda are religious fanatics. Those two philosophies do not get along, at all, especially in the Arab world.

So, what does this tell us so far? To me it means that we should be doing everything we can to go after Al Quaeda, no holds barred (for the most part). And I think thats exactly where the world was right after 9/11. So what happened? How did we (the US and Britain) lose world support? The answer is pretty darn clear; Iraq. Everything that Bush and the Neocons were saying before Iraq has turned out to be false. EVERYTHING! There is almost no disagreement about that any longer.

OK, so now what do we do? Lets deal with Iraq first. First, we "won" the "war" there within a month of going in. Now, we are dealing with an insurgency. OK, whats the difference? Although there are now some members of Al Quaeda in Iraq (current estimates that I've seen are that there are probably about 1,000 of them) the bulk of the insurgents are Sunni moslems.

OK, who are these Sunni's? Well, of course, they were the moslem sect that Saddam was a member of, viciously ruled Iraq for the last 35 years and comprise about 20% of Iraq's population (a minority). So why are they fighting? Well, they certainly want to regain power but, more importantly, they don't want to be wiped out by their enemy, the Shi'a (that comprise about 60% of Iraq's population).

So where does this leave us? To me it indicates that Rep. Murtha is correct, we''re in the middle of a civil war (a low level civil war, at the moment, but, none the less, a civil war). So can foreign troops do any good in the middle of a civil war? In general, no. They can only become targets for both sides.

So what do we do in Iraq? I think its pretty clear that the US can't tell the Iraqi's what form of government to have unless we're willing to stay there for decades? Are we willing to do that? If not, then the Iraqi's are going to have to do this themselves. If it were up to me, I'd tell the Iraqi's that we've done the heavy lifting, we've freed them from Saddam, now its time for you to figure out what you want to do. I would then withdraw our troops to the Iraqi borders in hopes of minimizing foreign influence, and let the Iraqi's have at it. Either they come to their senses and learn to work together or lose it and have a bloodbath. What will they do? I don't know. But I do know that it will be their decision.

Sure, war is deadly and a few thousand coalition troops have been killed since the beginning. However, that's a fact of life given the situation. Military planners are trying to minimise the loss of life within their ranks, as well as of civilians.

There is no doubt of that.

If we are to leave these two nations for some isolationistic policies, the terrorist groups will most definitely become revitalised and grow greatly in numbers, leading to more potential 9-11 situations, possibly worse.

Remember what Sun Tsu said, "Know your enemy". We are fighting two different wars here and the enemies are different. Thus, they have to be handled differently.

Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror. It should never have been done. If anything, we're now teaching the terrorists how to fight western nations. We're making the terrorists better (if they survive the experience) and increasing the number of Jihadists in Iraq. After all, its just about every arabs dream to die fighting the "infadels".

What should be done is all civilised nations should be in this together, planning everything as one and not letting one nation dominate the proceedings. We all have the desire to destroy extremism. Now let's all get it done!

Ice, I can't disagree with this one bit. Thats exactly where we should be. But we're not. And we won't be until the situation in Iraq is taken care of. And I don't just mean on the ground in Iraq. Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Neocons that got us into Iraq should be arrested and put on trial for war crimes for their "pre-emptive war" policies.

Once that is done, the world will be a little more trusting of what the US has to say.

 

[Cman]

I'm not really involved in this convo, but this concerns Iraq so I thought I would post my comment here. This thread is likely full of serious converstaion and lots of tension, so I just think you could probably use a hilarity break.

CLICK HERE to see the birthday card / post I made for Iraq. (since its about 3 years since the war started)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled converstaion. No more going off topic! lol

 

[mindido]

Cman,

Nice card! You should insert it and the text in here.

 

[Preferred User]

Very interesting quote from the article:

"Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got."

So true.

Yea, that was my favorite sentence too.

Cman, nice page, and good idea too. First thing I saw on the page was that Iraqi minister of propaganda or whatever he was....the guy who held a press conference and said there were no Americans in Iraq when there was shooting across the street in downtown Bagdhad. That was a guy who had a job description, and by God he was going to do it!

 

[endymion]

We've given you freedom, now hurry the fuck up and use it! Jerkasses.....

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Frustrated by Iraq's failure to form a government, the chief U.S. and British diplomats told squabbling leaders on Sunday that it is time to pick a governing coalition.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was careful to say the U.S. did not want to interfere in the democratic process, yet harped on Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's failure to organize a unity government. President Bush has made known his opposition to a second term for al-Jaafari, and Shiite politicians are going public with demands that he withdraw as a nominee.

After talks with the prime minister, president and others, Rice said, "You can't continue to leave a political vacuum.""

Wait, who created that vaccuum Condi? Just because Bush's approval is under 40%, there are going to try to blame Iraq for not getting organised fast enough, while still trying to get the guy they want in power.

 

[Preferred User]

We've given you freedom, not hurry the fuck up and use it! Jerkasses.....

Come on Endy. Give Bush a break. The West went from the Roman Empire to stable democracies in about 1,500 to 1,600 years so you can understand Bush's impatience.

 

[mindido]

Endy,

Even though they will NEVER admit it, this is the first attempt by the Bushies to recognize that that they've really screwed up (Condi's recognition last weekend that they've made thousands of mistakes in "tactics") and that they are way above their heads.

They're admission that the end of this "war" will be left to succeeding administrations is more than enough evidence of this.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

The balls on that woman, to admit friendly fire and the killing of innocents because of their enemy mirror image in a time of war should never be be released to the public by a government official. Doesn't she know they're supposed to keep it all quiet so the public will bitch for answers!? Impeach her!! I say we impeach her now! wooooooooooooo

 

[mindido]

Lets see. There have now been four US Generals that have retired and almost immediately blasted GW and called for Rummy's firing. The latest, Marine Lieut. General Greg Newbold, the Pentagon's top operations officer, has written a brief article for Time.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/newbold.iraq.tm/index.html

An interesting paragraph from his article (I was just going to put the one paragraph in, but there are just too many good quotes):

"In 1971, the rock group The Who released the antiwar anthem Won't Get Fooled Again. To most in my generation, the song conveyed a sense of betrayal by the nation's leaders, who had led our country into a costly and unnecessary war in Vietnam. To those of us who were truly counterculture -- who became career members of the military during those rough times -- the song conveyed a very different message. To us, its lyrics evoked a feeling that we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it. Never again, we thought, would our military's senior leaders remain silent as American troops were marched off to an ill-considered engagement. It's 35 years later, and the judgment is in: the Who had it wrong. We have been fooled again."

"My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results."

"The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort."

Oh jeez, can't leave this one out. Its probably the best one:

"So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them. It is time to send a signal to our nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it. It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again."

A military leader saying something like that??? Imagine that.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Aww did'um widdow jenny gen. not get to weave him's widdow legacy. It took the guy a few years to realize this was wrong? Bush lied and the war is wrong? Oh he knew from the start? If the terrorists were mowed down and put in cages he would be waving the red white and blue, you know that. I'll never get why people don't understand that this war would have happened regardless of who was president. Kerry would have kept us "safer" in this very same war. But Kerry would have gotten us more allies, but wait the war was wrong and never should have happened!?!?! Shit i'd hate for politics to over-ride my 8 senses that's right i have more than most. Our troops are fighting in a war people, the very least we can do is support them. :crazy: <---this is me.

 

[Preferred User]

I'll never get why people don't understand that this war would have happened regardless of who was president.

Duke I honestly don't believe that. In fact there is reason to believe that this war wouldn't have happened if Bush Sr. was Pres.

 

[mindido]

Duke I honestly don't believe that. In fact there is reason to believe that this war wouldn't have happened if Bush Sr. was Pres.

Duke,

I'm gonna have to agree with Preferred here. There was a reason (actually many) that we didn't finish the job after the first Gulf War. George H.W. Bush was warned by many of what would happen if he did. And he listened. His son did not.

 

[mindido]

Man, these retired Generals blasting Rumsfeld are popping up everywhere. Its now up to six.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12313869/

or

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/14/iraq.rumsfeld/index.html

And, of course, Bush backs Rummie 100%. Do we need anymore data that this administration is incompetant?

 

[Preferred User]

Do we need anymore data that this administration is incompetant?

Or to put it another way, on this, the anniversary of Lincoln's death, how many times did Lincoln fire his generals before he found one that worked?

 

[KABOOM]

I think this best fits here. Now look at what our government is doing. http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/US_Armed_Forces/

This is bull if it is true. Now they can, according to their own rules, pull an Abu Ghraib(sp?) whenever they want. bullshit.