It's time to leave Iraq ...

[Almighty Colin]

There are just more and more statements from the admin lately that sound like the Vietnam era administration. PD was right. It's just going to go on and on.

Here's the latest ...

"Our resolve is unshakable, and we will defeat them," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

Heh. Yeah, right. Saddam is out of power. Let's hang him, declare victory, and leave.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 7 2004, 05:05 AM
There are just more and more statements from the admin lately that sound like the Vietnam era administration. PD was right. It's just going to go on and on.

Here's the latest ...

"Our resolve is unshakable, and we will defeat them," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

Heh. Yeah, right. Saddam is out of power. Let's hang him, declare victory, and leave.
Colin, I think what we do there now is cleaning a field a little more before we leave.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Apr 7 2004, 05:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Apr 7 2004, 05:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Apr 7 2004, 05:05 AM
There are just more and more statements from the admin lately that sound like the Vietnam era administration. PD was right. It's just going to go on and on.

Here's the latest ...

"Our resolve is unshakable, and we will defeat them," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

Heh. Yeah, right. Saddam is out of power. Let's hang him, declare victory, and leave.
Colin, I think what we do there now is cleaning a field a little more before we leave.[/b][/quote]
I hope you're right. I think the odds are we'll be out of there soon enough.

It doesn't seem that things haven't gotten quiter there after Saddam was captured.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 7 2004, 05:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 7 2004, 05:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Apr 7 2004, 05:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Apr 7 2004, 05:05 AM
There are just more and more statements from the admin lately that sound like the Vietnam era administration. PD was right. It's just going to go on and on.

Here's the latest ...

"Our resolve is unshakable, and we will defeat them," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

Heh. Yeah, right. Saddam is out of power. Let's hang him, declare victory, and leave.
Colin, I think what we do there now is cleaning a field a little more before we leave.
I hope you're right. I think the odds are we'll be out of there soon enough.

It doesn't seem that things haven't gotten quiter there after Saddam was captured.[/b][/quote]
Colin, they did...
when he was around, every day we heard about our losses,
it changed.

applying Risk/Reward evaluation to Iraq,
seems to me secure Iraq versa rogue Iraq does worth extra effort

[Rolo]

Evolution says we stay - the world need democracy. This is prehaps the first arab country with a real chance of democracy, and we can not give up now, because some desert mullahs think they got Allah on their side.

Most of the world countries are not democratic - they are runned by dictators, juntas, and religious fanatics. These countries are scared that they are next, however if the US pulls out now, then they know that they are more powerful, than any democratic movement.

Bush might have lied to himself, the US people, and to the rest of the world, saying it was because of terror and Saddam Iraq was invaded, but the cards have been dealt now, and we got a chance of starting a democracy.

What should have been done a long time ago was getting the EU involved in Iraq, and make it a project of the democratic countries in the world, and not just a US project..

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Apr 7 2004, 05:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Apr 7 2004, 05:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Apr 7 2004, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Apr 7 2004, 05:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Apr 7 2004, 05:05 AM
There are just more and more statements from the admin lately that sound like the Vietnam era administration. PD was right. It's just going to go on and on.

Here's the latest ...

"Our resolve is unshakable, and we will defeat them," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

Heh. Yeah, right. Saddam is out of power. Let's hang him, declare victory, and leave.
Colin, I think what we do there now is cleaning a field a little more before we leave.
I hope you're right. I think the odds are we'll be out of there soon enough.

It doesn't seem that things haven't gotten quiter there after Saddam was captured.
Colin, they did...
when he was around, every day we heard about our losses,
it changed.

applying Risk/Reward evaluation to Iraq,
seems to me secure Iraq versa rogue Iraq does worth extra effort[/b][/quote]
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

The 52 coalitions deaths in March was on the high side. April is a relative bloodbath with 39 deaths in 6 days. "Insurgency" is roughly the same today as it was a year ago.

Hey, it's no Vietnam. 700 KIA in a year? I know. Pretty good as far as such things go. Really.

[Almighty Colin]

Once we're all democracies, then what?

The EU had their chance to get involved in Iraq. The UK showed up for the fight.



Last edited by Colin at Apr 7 2004, 06:35 AM

[Meat]

30 years of brainwashing by Saddam and the other extremists is going to take a lot of coalition deaths to unwash unfortunately

Coalition should get outta there before anyone else is killed...

Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc could put soldiers in that will have a better chance of restoring order to this fucked up cuntry.

Democracy is not worth fighting for in Middle east, its not worth having soldiers die for, they dont want it, let them be how they want to be and start saving lives on both sides, the world also needs to find a better fuel alternitive for oil...

[Rolo]

Democracy is the only goverment form, which is able to deal with the problems of the future... Democracy also moves a society forward, and give freedom to the people, and not just a select few... Democracy might be the only way to secure real world peace, and avoid 3rd world war.

Is democracy too good for people who live in the middle east?
Is democracy too good for people who live in the west?

I´m sure none of us, would go back to a dictatorship once we have tasted the freedom Democracy gives.... why should we let people in the middle east be left with Dictators and Mullahs, when we can set them free?

It has and will cost lifes, but that is due to the wrong strategy - not the goal.

[Winetalk.com]

Meat, we are NOT installing Democracy for Iraq's sake, we do it for us....

[Winetalk.com]

Rolo,
I think you have way of idealistic view, mine is more pragmatic
;-)))

[sarettah]

I don't think it is time to get out of Iraq. We went in and started this shit, we gotta stay and finish it.

However, I do think that this war is just getting started. We are now in an urban war going block to block through the cities. We will end up going house to house in order to clean up the mess. This thing will go on for quite a while yet and there is no way that I see power being handed over in 2 months.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Apr 7 2004, 04:37 AM
Rolo,
I think you have way of idealistic view, mine is more pragmatic
;-)))
Sorry, I got carried away. Truth is that I want them to be free, so I can sell porn to them - gotta get a piece of that oil money somehow :awinky:



Last edited by Rolo at Apr 7 2004, 05:41 AM

[Evil Chris]

Originally posted by Meat@Apr 7 2004, 07:40 AM
30 years of brainwashing by Saddam and the other extremists is going to take a lot of coalition deaths to unwash unfortunately

Coalition should get outta there before anyone else is killed...

Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc could put soldiers in that will have a better chance of restoring order to this fucked up cuntry.

Democracy is not worth fighting for in Middle east, its not worth having soldiers die for, they dont want it, let them be how they want to be and start saving lives on both sides, the world also needs to find a better fuel alternitive for oil...
Meat, you need to go on Larry King Live with that.
Nice post.

[Mike AI]

You know I have been followin the recent events closely, and it is something that has been troubling me. I would love to say fuck them, and just leave Iraq. Those animals are not worth one drop of American blood.

However, in reality this would cause more problems for the US down the long run.

The ba'athists in the sunni triangle are lashing out because they know they will have no power. Fallujah was never cleaned out during the war, so it has to be now.

The troubling part in the South is this guy Sadr, who is getting his orders from Iran. They have purposely bided their time, and have started this "war" to try and force the US out. We cannot like him win, he would turn Iraq into another Iran, something we do not need. This man murdered another cleric who was friendly to the US, and had mroe influence.

It may sound like Vietnam, but we must send in more troops ( we should have had more in, I beleive Bush is playing games for re-election) and when things like this flair up we need to put our boots down so hard on these people necks their heads pop off.

Unfortunately not everyone in the world thinks like us, in this region people see thoughfulness as weakness. They see our attempts to negotiate, or come to a compromise as weakness. Maybe it is time to run Iraq like Saddam did.

We should be clear to the world that there can be not bigger friend, nor no bigger enemy then the US. If we cut and run, the ghosts of Vietnman, Mogadishu will come back to life and the US will have NO respect at all. It will only encourage our enemies.

The military, and our intelligence services should have had been prepaired for this. We should be finding people like Sadr before they start carrying out their plans.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Meat@Apr 7 2004, 06:40 AM
30 years of brainwashing by Saddam and the other extremists is going to take a lot of coalition deaths to unwash unfortunately

Coalition should get outta there before anyone else is killed...

Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc could put soldiers in that will have a better chance of restoring order to this fucked up cuntry.

Democracy is not worth fighting for in Middle east, its not worth having soldiers die for, they dont want it, let them be how they want to be and start saving lives on both sides, the world also needs to find a better fuel alternitive for oil...


Meat you had a good point. If these kinds of things continue, the US should threaten ( and follow through) with something extreme. Breaking up Iraq into multible countries could be possible. It is not like there are any traditional nations, the lines were randomly drawn not too long ago.

Give the north to the Kurds who seem to be the only ones who are responsible and not causing problems. Break up the central to a few states, and keep the south and the oil fields for our needs and base.

At times I wish we were not so highly advanced and would do what the Romans did when they had problems with enemies.

[TheEnforcer]

Holy shit I agree with that entire post Mike!! :P :huh:

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Apr 7 2004, 09:16 AM
Holy shit I agree with that entire post Mike!! :P :huh:
I just fell out of my chair.....

[Mike AI]

Debka's view:

http://debka.com/article.php?aid=822

Shiite Radicals Join with Sunni Insurgents in Ramadi

DEBKAfile Special Analysis

April 7, 2004, 2:53 AM (GMT+02:00)

The third day of Moqtada Sadr’s radical Shiite uprising saw US-led coalition forces under attack by both Sunnis and Shiites and the first extremely dangerous sign of a merger between the two fronts. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that US-led forces, instead of beginning to get a grip on the armed Shiite militia uprising in Baghdad and four cities, appeared to be letting command slip out their hands. There was little indication of US forces executing the arrest warrant out against the Shiite radical cleric since October. He lost no time in slipping underground, possibly in the Shiite holy city of Najef, with the estimated 3,000-strong hard core of his Medhi Army militia.

The failure to move fast enough to nab Sadr may be as costly as was the escape from capture of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in November 2001and of Saddam Hussein in March 2003. Al-Sadr matches neither in stature. He also represents no more than a splinter faction of the Shiite community. Yet if he proves able lead an effective underground resistance to the coalition for a critical period, he could attract a disproportionately large number of Shiite followers to his flag. It might be enough for him to keep going for another five days to a week without being caught or stopped, for the Americans to find themselves in the midst of a full-blown war.

The firebrand cleric and his Mehdi Army militia went into action in three rapid phases:

Stage One: Early Tuesday, April 6, he melted out of his headquarters in the Kufa mosque near Najef and went to ground.

Stage Two: Simultaneously, his militia moved in on the police stations and government buildings of one town after another in southern Iraq.

Stage Three: Tuesday afternoon, shortly after US Marines entered Fallujah to collar the men responsible for the brutal murder of four US contractors last week, fresh Shiite militiamen were drawn from the Sunni Triangle towns of Baquba, Balad, Samarra and Al Muqdaryah to launch a ferocious assault on the US Marine compound in Ar Ramadi, 40 km east of Fallujah. At least 12 US Marines were killed and 20 injured in this assault.

This development represents an ominous turning-point in the Iraqi conflict for four reasons:

1. It was almost certainly coordinated with the Sunni Baathists, imported Arabs and al Qaeda combatants battling US Marines in Fallujah in order to draw off American military pressure in Fallujah and threaten the Marines from the rear.

2. Instead of al Qaeda striking Shiites to inflame civil war - as predicted by some US strategists – Shiites apparently turned up in Ramadi to fight the Americans in cahoots with Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda combatants. This show of solidarity makes the Sunni Triangle of central Iraq, including Baghdad, a doubly hazardous and unruly region

3. US intelligence evaluatons of Moqtada Sadr’s military strength have proved wide of the mark. Tuesday morning, it was still estimated as 10,000 with a hard core of 3,000 fighting men. DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources believe this figure represents only the Mehdi Army’s numbers in Baghdad, Najef and Karbala. It does not take into account the Sunni Triangle Shiite force that was secretly trained and prepared over the past year by thousands of Iranian Republican Guards infiltrators in conjunction with the Iranian protégé, Lebanese Hizballah terror-master Imad Mughniyeh. This force numbers an estimated 5,000 combatants, who are better equipped, organized and trained than Mehdi Army militiamen.

4. The Sadrist revolt looks therefore like having taken hold in three major regions of Iraq: The Sunni Triangle, Baghdad and the South.

As for the other fronts:

Baghdad. By Tuesday night, US forces had not regained control of the sprawling Shiite districts of the capital, except for some police stations, and the sounds of fighting were rising in intensity.

The South. Sadr’s militia captured Diwaniya 30 km east of Najef after beating back repeated Spanish attempts backed by US helicopters to recover control.This is the first Iraqi town to fall to Sadr’s forces, a situation that is totally unacceptable to the US command. If complete Iraqi towns continue falling into Shiite or Sunni insurgent hands, the US and coalition forces will quickly lose control of the country.

In Karbala, al Amara and Nassiriyeh, the Mehdi Army captured buildings in the town centers. In Karbala, US and Polish forces failed to repulse the Shiite attackers; likewise the Italian troops in Nasseriyah. In Al Amarah near the Iranian border north of Basra, British contingents using helicopter gunships, tanks and artillery failed to break the Shiite Sadrists’ grip on the town center.

At the end of Day Three of the radical Shiite uprising, therefore, the score was not in the coalition’s favor.

[RawAlex]

How long before the helicopters are evacuating people from the tops of buildings?

Mike, if you split Iraq up, you create major instability because now you have three small countries not strong enough to protect themselves from their neighbors. Pressures from Syria, Turkey, and Iran would certainly lead to new wars in the region, and the results could be worse that the current disease. Can you imaging the battles over the oil field regions? Can you imagine what that would do to the price of oil?

Go look at Bosnia to see how well splitting countries up works.

Alex

[JR]

its only now that i understand the logic of invaders and occupiers of the past. nazis, Romans, Soviets... whoever.

there is a reason they slaughtered everyone who might resist. there is a reason for secret police forces, kidnapping, tortures, executions of those who might resist... if you don't do all that, if you do not make people afraid for thier lives, you will have nothing but resistence.

invading and occupying a country that does not want you there is a lose/lose proposition. you cannot organize/manage or change people who hate you with democracy or by installing democratic institutions.

you can only control them through force. and history has always proven that even that can only last so long.

i am beginning to think that changing Iraq would require another Saddam Hussein... not a new public library or strip mall.

[PornoDoggy]

I do not believe the Administration has a fucking clue about what the hell they are doing in Iraq. I am beginning to think they actually believe the simple minded pablum spit up by Bush yesterday ... "we love freedom, they hate freedom." I think these morons actually believed the horseshit they spread about Iraqis greeting us with parades when we liberated them, and are dumbstruck by the situation we are now in.

"Hey, it's no Vietnam. 700 KIA in a year? I know. Pretty good as far as such things go."

Colin ... you know more about math than I even want to, so take a look at the numbers again. 700 a year at inadequate troop levels of 133,000 in the beginnings of an insurrection. Triple the troop levels as the insurrection gains momentum. How long until it reaches a critical mass when things are no longer "pretty good"?

[Meni]

Donny's cousin was in Iraq a year
did 3 1/2 years service, had free time, just left
out of the military
what does he think
can't trust his President
he risked his ass over there
And now wants bush OUT
considering all Mike does is crow about iraq and terrorism
and the boys fighting in Iraq don't want Bush
oh boy sounds like you are fucked

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Apr 7 2004, 09:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Apr 7 2004, 09:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TheEnforcer@Apr 7 2004, 09:16 AM
Holy shit I agree with that entire post Mike!! :P :huh:
I just fell out of my chair.....[/b][/quote]
:P

Hope you didn't hurt yourself!!

[Meat]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Apr 7 2004, 04:36 AM
Meat, we are NOT installing Democracy for Iraq's sake, we do it for us....
For us for them who cares, the loss of life is not worth it for democracys sake and there are not enough barrels of oil in middle east to make it worth the loss of one soldier let alone hundreds of sodilers lives:(

To do something extreme would be to round up all the bad asses in the world, take them from the jails murderers rapists terrorists etc, send them all to iraq and then nuke the whole goddamn country.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 7 2004, 09:10 AM
It may sound like Vietnam, but we must send in more troops ( we should have had more in, I beleive Bush is playing games for re-election) and when things like this flair up we need to put our boots down so hard on these people necks their heads pop off.

Mike
Does this mean you're joining the military to go fight for Iraqi Democracy and lower oil prices?

[Meat]

I wonder how many billions of dollars have been wasted by the west fighting wars in the middle east?

not just Iraq, but all of them, kuwait, iran etc?

If a small portion of those billions was put into developing a better fuel alternitive years ago when the shah of iran got kyboshed then we wouldnt be reliant on any of the oil in middle east anymore, the rich shieks wouldnt have so much money to sponsor terrorism anymore, the world would be a better place.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 7 2004, 09:10 AM
You know I have been followin the recent events closely, and it is something that has been troubling me. I would love to say fuck them, and just leave Iraq. Those animals are not worth one drop of American blood.

However, in reality this would cause more problems for the US down the long run.

The ba'athists in the sunni triangle are lashing out because they know they will have no power. Fallujah was never cleaned out during the war, so it has to be now.

The troubling part in the South is this guy Sadr, who is getting his orders from Iran. They have purposely bided their time, and have started this "war" to try and force the US out. We cannot like him win, he would turn Iraq into another Iran, something we do not need. This man murdered another cleric who was friendly to the US, and had mroe influence.

It may sound like Vietnam, but we must send in more troops ( we should have had more in, I beleive Bush is playing games for re-election) and when things like this flair up we need to put our boots down so hard on these people necks their heads pop off.

Unfortunately not everyone in the world thinks like us, in this region people see thoughfulness as weakness. They see our attempts to negotiate, or come to a compromise as weakness. Maybe it is time to run Iraq like Saddam did.

We should be clear to the world that there can be not bigger friend, nor no bigger enemy then the US. If we cut and run, the ghosts of Vietnman, Mogadishu will come back to life and the US will have NO respect at all. It will only encourage our enemies.

The military, and our intelligence services should have had been prepaired for this. We should be finding people like Sadr before they start carrying out their plans.
You crack me up, Mikey ... you really do. I have to admit, though, that it would be a lot fucking funnier if it was your ass in Falujah right now, instead of my girlfriend's son.

It may sound like Vietnam, but we must send in more troops ( we should have had more in, I beleive Bush is playing games for re-election)

Uhhh ... yes, it sounds like Vietnam. Even the part about Bush playing games for re-election sounds like Vietnam. More troops = more American and Iraqi casualties. More American casualties will lead to increasing calls to abandon Iraq to the chaos we have created there. More Iraqi casualties will lead to greater strength for the resistance. A lying cocksucker of a president trying to downplay the clusterfuck we are in ("I'm not changing the plan on turning over soverignty because Carl Rove told me it wouldn't be politically acceptable, even though there is no one to turn power over to") in order to secure re-election just adds more to the Vietnam comparison.

Unfortunately not everyone in the world thinks like us,

You make a good point. They don't understand how we think, and we don't understand how they think. Thinking that "put[ting] our boots down so hard on these people necks their heads pop off" is some sort of tactical possibility demostrates that we don't understand how they think.

Mikey, you seem to be quite proud of the fact that you regard this as an old-fashioned imperialistic war that we have engaged in for the purposes of securing oil and maintaining bases for future operations. The absolute folly of your whole theory is that we - the United States - simply cannot operate that way. The 2nd level of the veneer we put on this paper-mache pink elephant - the first, of course, being WMD - is "liberating" the Iraqi people. That very fact denies us the right to operate in a manner appropriate for your stated aims. JR was right - if that is our purpose, then we need to act like Hitler or Stalin (although I'm sure you feel more comfortable using the sanitized Romans). Considering, however, that the American people would never stand for it - you got a bit of a problem, Mikey.

The military, and our intelligence services should have had been prepaired for this.

Gee ... you don't think maybe the political masters who ordered the military and intelligence folks into action might have gotten some warnings about things like this, and ignored them, do you?



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 7 2004, 01:26 PM

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Apr 7 2004, 12:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Apr 7 2004, 12:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Apr 7 2004, 09:10 AM
You know I have been followin the recent events closely, and it is something that has been troubling me. I would love to say fuck them, and just leave Iraq. Those animals are not worth one drop of American blood.

However, in reality this would cause more problems for the US down the long run.

The ba'athists in the sunni triangle are lashing out because they know they will have no power. Fallujah was never cleaned out during the war, so it has to be now.

The troubling part in the South is this guy Sadr, who is getting his orders from Iran. They have purposely bided their time, and have started this "war" to try and force the US out. We cannot like him win, he would turn Iraq into another Iran, something we do not need. This man murdered another cleric who was friendly to the US, and had mroe influence.

It may sound like Vietnam, but we must send in more troops ( we should have had more in, I beleive Bush is playing games for re-election) and when things like this flair up we need to put our boots down so hard on these people necks their heads pop off.

Unfortunately not everyone in the world thinks like us, in this region people see thoughfulness as weakness. They see our attempts to negotiate, or come to a compromise as weakness. Maybe it is time to run Iraq like Saddam did.

We should be clear to the world that there can be not bigger friend, nor no bigger enemy then the US. If we cut and run, the ghosts of Vietnman, Mogadishu will come back to life and the US will have NO respect at all. It will only encourage our enemies.

The military, and our intelligence services should have had been prepaired for this. We should be finding people like Sadr before they start carrying out their plans.
You crack me up, Mikey ... you really do. I have to admit, though, that it would be a lot fucking funnier if it was your ass in Falujah right now, instead of my girlfriend's son.

It may sound like Vietnam, but we must send in more troops ( we should have had more in, I beleive Bush is playing games for re-election)

Uhhh ... yes, it sounds like Vietnam. Even the part about Bush playing games for re-election sounds like Vietnam. More troops = more American and Iraqi casualties. More American casualties will lead to increasing calls to abandon Iraq to the chaos we have created there. More Iraqi casualties will lead to greater strength for the resistance. A lying cocksucker of a president trying to downplay the clusterfuck we are in ("I'm not changing the plan on turning over soverignty because Carl Rove told me it wouldn't be politically acceptable, even though there is no one to turn power over to") in order to secure re-election just adds more to the Vietnam comparison.

Unfortunately not everyone in the world thinks like us,

You make a good point. They don't understand how we think, and we don't understand how they think. Thinking that "put[ting] our boots down so hard on these people necks their heads pop off" is some sort of tactical possibility demostrates that we don't understand how they think.

Mikey, you seem to be quite proud of the fact that you regard this as an old-fashioned imperialistic war that we have engaged in for the purposes of securing oil and maintaining bases for future operations. The absolute folly of your whole theory is that we - the United States - simply cannot operate that way. The 2nd level of the veneer we put on this paper-mache pink elephant - the first, of course, being WMD - is "liberating" the Iraqi people. That very fact denies us the right to operate in a manner appropriate for your stated aims. JR was right - if that is our purpose, then we need to act like Hitler or Stalin (although I'm sure you feel more comfortable using the sanitized Romans). Considering, however, that the American people would never stand for it - you got a bit of a problem, Mikey.

The military, and our intelligence services should have had been prepaired for this.

Gee ... you don't think maybe the political masters who ordered the military and intelligence folks into action might have gotten some warnings about things like this, and ignored them, do you?[/b][/quote]
PD:

Several times now you have referenced your "girlfriend's son" as being a soldier of some sort deployed in the Middle East. If the lad signed up to do military service, who are you to complain that he's now fighting a war? I cannot imagine why anyone would join the armed forces if they did not want to be available for kicking the crap out of people globally. There's always the Peace Corps for people who have a sense of duty but would prefer not to put their lives at risk (as much).

Does he not want to be there or something? If so, why did he sign up?

[Naughty]

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 7 2004, 02:05 AM
There are just more and more statements from the admin lately that sound like the Vietnam era administration. PD was right. It's just going to go on and on.

Here's the latest ...

"Our resolve is unshakable, and we will defeat them," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

Heh. Yeah, right. Saddam is out of power. Let's hang him, declare victory, and leave.
Wow Colin, I'd never thought you'd say this.

I thought you were a firm believer of the war (which is actually almost a year over now), and still were so.

They should have never gotten in there anyway. A sniper does wonders.

[Winetalk.com]

yeah, PD, tell us why do people join the voluntary ARMED forces?

do you need multiple choice answers or you can pull it on your own?

I did that to Meni and I'll do it to you,
bug the shit out of you 'till I get the answer

[Buff]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Apr 7 2004, 12:43 PM
yeah, PD, tell us why do people join the voluntary ARMED forces?

do you need multiple choice answers or you can pull it on your own?

I did that to Meni and I'll do it to you,
bug the shit out of you 'till I get the answer
I know why I joined:

1) I wanted training in certain specific skill sets
2) I wanted to get the chance to destroy bad guys
3) I wanted to test myself
4) I wanted to come back and talk shit and hold it over everyone else's head what a bad ass I am and what pussies they are. ;)

[JR]

Originally posted by Naughty@Apr 7 2004, 10:41 AM

Wow Colin, I'd never thought you'd say this.

I thought you were a firm believer of the war (which is actually almost a year over now), and still were so.

They should have never gotten in there anyway. A sniper does wonders.
i think that based on the info BEFORE the fact, it was quite reasonable to support the war. i think that it is increasingly difficult to support it after the fact.

[JR]

Originally posted by Buff@Apr 7 2004, 10:39 AM

PD:

Several times now you have referenced your "girlfriend's son" as being a soldier of some sort deployed in the Middle East. If the lad signed up to do military service, who are you to complain that he's now fighting a war? I cannot imagine why anyone would join the armed forces if they did not want to be available for kicking the crap out of people globally. There's always the Peace Corps for people who have a sense of duty but would prefer not to put their lives at risk (as much).

Does he not want to be there or something? If so, why did he sign up?
there is a difference between people who signed up to learn, gain skills, pay for college *and* do so knowing they possibly will have to defend their country and the notion that *because* they joined up, it makes it quite alright to send them to a meat grinder.

its a two way street. the Army does not exactly run ads saying "hey, how would you like to get ambushed, shot and killed, decapitated and hung from a street post to be seen on global news networks while you are fighting in a war started under questionable pretenses with little to no world support"

in fact, the army paints quite a different picture of what it is like to join up.

this whole Iraq issue has changed my perspectives on a lot of things and i said a lot of things before this started that i sincerely wish i had not.



Last edited by JR at Apr 7 2004, 10:58 AM

[[Labret]]

Oh if I only had enough spare time to dig up old threads of the patriots claiming it would be over in a week and the Iraqis would welcome us and thrown off the chains of oppression.

Idiots. May your loved ones die on xmas day.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by [Labret]@Apr 7 2004, 02:19 PM
Oh if I only had enough spare time to dig up old threads of the patriots claiming it would be over in a week and the Iraqis would welcome us and thrown off the chains of oppression.

Idiots. May your loved ones die on xmas day.
The war was over in a few weeks. This is a secondary war. There are a lot of interests being fought over.

I could careless about chains of oppression, I care about oil and long term stability. ( long term means more then a year)

[Rolo]

The highlights of the Iraq survey are as follows:

• Overall, 70% of Iraqis say that their life these days is good, compared with 29% who say their life is bad.

• Compared with just before the war in 2003, 57% of Iraqis now say their life is better overall, compared with 19% who say it is worse and 23% who say it is about the same.

• 71% of Iraqis expect their lives to be better in a year from now, compared with 6% who expect life to be worse and 9% who say life will remain about the same.

• Half of Iraqis (49%) believe the invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition was right, compared with 39% who thought it was wrong.

• Opinion was evenly split on whether the invasion humiliated Iraq (41%) or liberated it (42%). Almost one in five respondents (17%) refused to comment.

• Asked about conditions where they lived, 69% said the availability of jobs was bad and 64% said the same about the electricity supply. 72% said conditions in local schools were good but respondents were evenly split on the whether the local security situation, supply of clean water and availability of medical care was good or bad.

• In terms of the top three priorities in Iraq over the next 12 months, regaining public security rated by far the highest (85%), followed by holding elections for a national government (30%), ensuring the majority of Iraqis can make a decent living (30%) and reviving the economy (28%).

• Among those who had heard of them, Iraq's religious leaders scored the highest level of confidence (70%). But they were closely followed by the police (68%) and then by the new Iraqi army (56%). At the other end of the scale, only 25% expressed confidence in the US/UK occupation forces and 28% in both Iraq's political parties and the Coalition Provisional Authority.

• When asked about what Iraq needs at this time, whilst 86% answered "an Iraqi democracy", 81% also mentioned "a single strong Iraqi leader".

• In terms of the future structure of Iraq, 79% wanted "one unified Iraq with central government in Baghdad", compared with 14% who wanted regional governments with a federal government in Baghdad. Only 4% favoured dividing Iraq into separate independent states.

• When asked what political actions by other people would be acceptable, whilst the overwhelming majority of respondents thought any violence was unacceptable, some 17% said attacks on coalition forces would be acceptable, 14% said the same about attacks on the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and 10% thought attacks on foreigners working alongside the CPA would be acceptable.

• In terms of the continuing presence of the coalition forces in Iraq, 39% of respondents supported their presence, compared with 51% who were opposed to it.

• As for what would be most effective in improving security in Iraq, 96% said that creating jobs would be most effective, 93% said training and hiring more Iraqi local police and 87% said transferring all political authority to an Iraqi government.

• Whilst 15% said the coalition forces should leave Iraq immediately, 36% said they should remain until an Iraqi government was in place and a further 18% said "until security is restored".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressrele...raq_polls.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/03_march/16/iraq_polls.shtml)

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff@Apr 7 2004, 01:39 PM
PD:

Several times now you have referenced your "girlfriend's son" as being a soldier of some sort deployed in the Middle East. If the lad signed up to do military service, who are you to complain that he's now fighting a war? I cannot imagine why anyone would join the armed forces if they did not want to be available for kicking the crap out of people globally. There's always the Peace Corps for people who have a sense of duty but would prefer not to put their lives at risk (as much).

Does he not want to be there or something? If so, why did he sign up?
My girlfriend's son is a Captain in the U.S. Marine Corps. He will be a Marine until they kill him or force them to retire after 30 years. I have not heard one single complaint from him about what he's being asked to do.

So this talk of the Peace Corps is bullshit. If you are too fucking stupid to figure out that there is a certain amount of anguish when it's YOURS that has his ass on the line, regardless of how well you understand the concepts of duty, honor, and sacrifice - then I pray to god you get a vasectomy before you ever have children. That will both spare you this possible source of anguish in the future, and eliminate the possibility that the "stupid" gene you have in overabundence will get passed on to future generations.

Now ... armed with the knowledge that you are in possession of an overabundance of stupid, I can understand how you might not grasp the idea that someone might object to a war as unwinable, irrelevant to and even counterproductive to the national interest of the United States, and therefore not worth the potential sacrifice of someone close to me. That kind of thing can add to the natural anguish.

I know you understand at least part of the idea that something might not be worth the sacrifice. The last time you tried to construe my personal objections to the folly of this war as evidence that her son was a pussy, I asked you why you weren't still in and over there - and your response was that "we" - the people of the United States - were not worth fighting for.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 7 2004, 02:24 PM
The war was over in a few weeks. This is a secondary war. There are a lot of interests being fought over.
Oh, fuck. You just made William Jefferson Clinton's attempt to separate oral sex from having sex seem downright plausible.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Apr 7 2004, 01:43 PM
yeah, PD, tell us why do people join the voluntary ARMED forces?

do you need multiple choice answers or you can pull it on your own?

I did that to Meni and I'll do it to you,
bug the shit out of you 'till I get the answer
The question is totally irrelevant. I have no idea why he joined the Marine Corps, and neither does his mother. The reasons people join the military are as many and varied as they are for why anyone selects any profession.

As I told Buffoon, HE is not objecting to his service in any way, shape or form.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 7 2004, 03:15 PM

[Mike AI]

PD take the time and read this peice http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200404...06-032203-3282r (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040406-032203-3282r)

That is the real lesson for the U.S. commitment to Iraq. Whatever one thought about the advisability of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the United States is there with 100,000 troops and a solid commitment to endow Iraq with a democratic system of government. While failure is not an option for Bush, it clearly is for Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who called Iraq the president's Vietnam. It is, of course, no such animal. But it could become so if Congressional resolve dissolves.

Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."

Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of its democracy. Through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Kennedy should remember that Vietnam was the war of his brother who saw the conflict in the larger framework of the Cold War and Nikita Khrushchev's threats against West Berlin. It would behoove Kennedy to see Iraq in the larger context of the struggle to bring democracy, not only to Iraq, but the entire Middle East.

[Buff]

Originally posted by JR+Apr 7 2004, 12:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Apr 7 2004, 12:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Apr 7 2004, 10:39 AM

PD:

Several times now you have referenced your "girlfriend's son" as being a soldier of some sort deployed in the Middle East. If the lad signed up to do military service, who are you to complain that he's now fighting a war? I cannot imagine why anyone would join the armed forces if they did not want to be available for kicking the crap out of people globally. There's always the Peace Corps for people who have a sense of duty but would prefer not to put their lives at risk (as much).

Does he not want to be there or something? If so, why did he sign up?
there is a difference between people who signed up to learn, gain skills, pay for college *and* do so knowing they possibly will have to defend their country and the notion that *because* they joined up, it makes it quite alright to send them to a meat grinder.

its a two way street. the Army does not exactly run ads saying "hey, how would you like to get ambushed, shot and killed, decapitated and hung from a street post to be seen on global news networks while you are fighting in a war started under questionable pretenses with little to no world support"

in fact, the army paints quite a different picture of what it is like to join up.

this whole Iraq issue has changed my perspectives on a lot of things and i said a lot of things before this started that i sincerely wish i had not.[/b][/quote]
Anyone who is too stupid to know what the Army does deserves whatever he/she gets when the Army does it.

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Apr 7 2004, 01:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Apr 7 2004, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Apr 7 2004, 01:39 PM
PD:

Several times now you have referenced your "girlfriend's son" as being a soldier of some sort deployed in the Middle East. If the lad signed up to do military service, who are you to complain that he's now fighting a war? I cannot imagine why anyone would join the armed forces if they did not want to be available for kicking the crap out of people globally. There's always the Peace Corps for people who have a sense of duty but would prefer not to put their lives at risk (as much).

Does he not want to be there or something? If so, why did he sign up?
My girlfriend's son is a Captain in the U.S. Marine Corps. He will be a Marine until they kill him or force them to retire after 30 years. I have not heard one single complaint from him about what he's being asked to do.

So this talk of the Peace Corps is bullshit. If you are too fucking stupid to figure out that there is a certain amount of anguish when it's YOURS that has his ass on the line, regardless of how well you understand the concepts of duty, honor, and sacrifice - then I pray to god you get a vasectomy before you ever have children. That will both spare you this possible source of anguish in the future, and eliminate the possibility that the "stupid" gene you have in overabundence will get passed on to future generations.

Now ... armed with the knowledge that you are in possession of an overabundance of stupid, I can understand how you might not grasp the idea that someone might object to a war as unwinable, irrelevant to and even counterproductive to the national interest of the United States, and therefore not worth the potential sacrifice of someone close to me. That kind of thing can add to the natural anguish.

I know you understand at least part of the idea that something might not be worth the sacrifice. The last time you tried to construe my personal objections to the folly of this war as evidence that her son was a pussy, I asked you why you weren't still in and over there - and your response was that "we" - the people of the United States - were not worth fighting for.[/b][/quote]
I he is not objecting to fighting, then why are you trying to humiliate him?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff@Apr 7 2004, 03:39 PM
I he is not objecting to fighting, then why are you trying to humiliate him?
Kindly explain to this public school graduate how I am trying to humiliate him?

[Buff]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Apr 7 2004, 02:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Apr 7 2004, 02:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Apr 7 2004, 03:39 PM
I he is not objecting to fighting, then why are you trying to humiliate him?
Kindly explain to this public school graduate how I am trying to humiliate him?[/b][/quote]
He is over there fighting with honor and dignity and courage like a man, and you sit back here and whine about the fact that he is serving over there. You're like an overprotective mother embarrassing her child.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Buff+Apr 7 2004, 04:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Apr 7 2004, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -PornoDoggy@Apr 7 2004, 02:54 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Apr 7 2004, 03:39 PM
I he is not objecting to fighting, then why are you trying to humiliate him?
Kindly explain to this public school graduate how I am trying to humiliate him?
He is over there fighting with honor and dignity and courage like a man, and you sit back here and whine about the fact that he is serving over there. You're like an overprotective mother embarrassing her child.[/b][/quote]
Well, we're just going to have to disagree on this one, Buff.

I expect him to do what he's ordered to do. I'm proud of him for doing what he's ordered to do - and I'm proud of every last soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who are over there doing that. My feelings about this are not going to change substainally when he does get sent home from this clusterfuck.

I would gladly force him to come home - probably over his objections - and let him be replaced with someone else who was in favor of this boondoggle.

My arguement is not with him, his men, or even most of his Chain of Command. It's the foolhardy policies of the cocksuckers at the top of that chain that I disagree with.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Apr 7 2004, 03:28 PM
PD take the time and read this peice http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200404...06-032203-3282r (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040406-032203-3282r)
I read the article, Mike. Didn't think much of it, actually. It's based on the traditional right-wing misconception that the war in Vietnam was "winnable", and followed by a well-honed right wing trick of blaming the defeat on a lack of political will which was sapped by back-stabbers at home.

It's not (until you get to Anne Coulter country, at least) as onerous as the German right's post WWI blaming the "Jews" for their defeat - but it's close.

Serge ... just out of curiousity - do you know who like-minded Russians blame for the defeat in Afghanistan? Besides the CIA, is it Menshoviks , Trotskites, reactionary elements, and sabateurs?

I do not believe that the war in Vietnam was ever "winnable." What Ted Kennedy realizes today - something which seems to escape the author - is that when his brother "...saw the conflict in the larger framework of the Cold War and Nikita Khrushchev's threats against West Berlin..." he was just flat-ouy wrong. The assumption of hegemony between all Arabs, er, Communists, combined with the refusal to recognize the nationalism that underpinned the entire conflict made him wrong.

If Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark had stayed home; if millions of Americans had stayed off the streets - Lyndon Johnson still would have found himself faced with the endless cycle of escalation. If we'd listened to the hawks back then at the very least we would have gotten ourselves into a land war with China; and the possibility of a nuclear war was very, very real.

And if we'd "won" in Vietnam - then the news today could have included the death of Marines at Hue or Siagon or Hanoi in addition to those in Falujah.

Besides, Mike - you've admitted that you are an imperialist who thinks we should be in Iraq for oil and strategic purposes. If it is of neither interest nor importance to you, what possible value could an article that includes language such as "[i]t would behoove Kennedy to see Iraq in the larger context of the struggle to bring democracy, not only to Iraq, but the entire Middle East..." have?



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Apr 7 2004, 05:35 PM

[Mike AI]

PD I do not think they guy who wrote the article is a Conservative.

I do not agree with all of his points, however I do beleive the left is undermining the war effort in Iraq. The Vietnamese general makes the point very well.

I know you have a hard time beleiving this, but our enemies know they cannot defeat us in battle, so they target the home front. Then the weak-kneed amoung us start refering to Vietnman. What is worst is that politics gets invovled, leading democrats to say outlandish things about the President and the war....

For the record, I do beleive Vietnam was winnable, even with the poor condition of our military, and poor leadership. We lost on the home front. We lost because of people like John Kerry who lied about abuses he saw in Vietnam. The left anti-war movment undermined this country. They are the true enemies, and the only people who can lead to the defeat of this country.

[PornoDoggy]

In Iraq, you are an unabashed imperialist - you believe we are there in order to secure oil and bases. Now, off the top of my head, Britian, Portugal, Belguim and France all found their imperialistic endeavors crushed in the last century. Were all of those powers also stabbed in the back by the leftists back home, Mikey?

I suspect that what you know about Vietnam is comprable to what I know about nuclear physics - which is to say, absolutely nothing. How, precisely, would you have won the war? Would you have gone nuclear? Would you have risked a war with China? Would you have weakened our strength in Europe where there really was a Soviet Union that could be tempted to take advantage of that weakness?

I am idly curious to know what the fuck you are talking about when you say the "poor condition of our military" during Vietnam. Are you going to do a Rumsfeld, and blame the folks who fought, too? The brass did the monkey dance their political masters ordered them too ... the grunts just went and died, but took one hell of a lot of the enemy with them.

Continue to recite the catechism of the right, Mike ... it was the Jews that did it, or the liberals, or the niggers, or whatever your brand of facist is blaming today.

You'd have made a great German, Mike - if you'd lived about 75 years ago.

[LadyMischief]

Originally posted by JR@Apr 7 2004, 07:46 AM
its only now that i understand the logic of invaders and occupiers of the past. nazis, Romans, Soviets... whoever.

there is a reason they slaughtered everyone who might resist. there is a reason for secret police forces, kidnapping, tortures, executions of those who might resist... if you don't do all that, if you do not make people afraid for thier lives, you will have nothing but resistence.

invading and occupying a country that does not want you there is a lose/lose proposition. you cannot organize/manage or change people who hate you with democracy or by installing democratic institutions.

you can only control them through force. and history has always proven that even that can only last so long.

i am beginning to think that changing Iraq would require another Saddam Hussein... not a new public library or strip mall.
Machiavelli was on to something :)

[LadyMischief]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 7 2004, 11:53 AM
[QUOTE=Buff,Apr 7 2004, 01:39 PM]PD:
I know you understand at least part of the idea that something might not be worth the sacrifice. The last time you tried to construe my personal objections to the folly of this war as evidence that her son was a pussy, I asked you why you weren't still in and over there - and your response was that "we" - the people of the United States - were not worth fighting for.
Yes, I remember that. It's very easy to make sacrifices when we are not the ones paying the price. Soldiers know they may have to fight and possibly die for their countries one day. I don't recall ANYWHERE where it's written that they or their families have to LIKE it, especially when it's potentially needless loss.

[LadyMischief]

Originally posted by Buff+Apr 7 2004, 01:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Apr 7 2004, 01:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -PornoDoggy@Apr 7 2004, 02:54 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Apr 7 2004, 03:39 PM
I he is not objecting to fighting, then why are you trying to humiliate him?
Kindly explain to this public school graduate how I am trying to humiliate him?
He is over there fighting with honor and dignity and courage like a man, and you sit back here and whine about the fact that he is serving over there. You're like an overprotective mother embarrassing her child.[/b][/quote]
Please do not breed.. I like you, Buff, but parenthood involves more than instilling foolish pride. NO parent's child's life is worth nothing.... And tell me this.... you said before you weren't in the service anymore because you don't think Americans are worth fighting for.... But you would send a child like a lamb to the slaughter over HONOR? And you expect OTHERS to just suck it up when THEIR children may die for a cause they can't bring themselves to believe in? Unless you're willing to put your OWN 'courageous" ass on the line again, you have NO room to beak off without smacking strongly of hypocrisy and bullshit.



Last edited by LadyMischief at Apr 7 2004, 05:31 PM

[Vick]

Ok PD I can see your point but what is the answer?

What would you do if you had to be in command? Not in command militarily but politically?

Maybe you'll say we shouldn't have went there are all, too late for that. We are there now

Me, I'm a hawk.

Personally I believe the US fighting forces are holding back way too much. We should really do shock and awe like the campaign started out trying to do. A war from the air raining down destruction until there is little to no resistance left.

If we're going to be there we should do it and not halfway do it and in the process spare American Soldiers lives

Furthermore as I've stated we should totally control the country of Iraq, take their oil, set up a puppet government that we dictate

You as well as I remember the oil crisis of the 70's, the resulting spiraling inflation, double digit mortgage interest rates, high unemployment rates and so on

Do you want to do that again?



I don't give a Flying Fruitcake Fuck about anyone in Iraq,
I do care about America and Americans and most importantly my standard of living (which in turn effects my son's way of life)

Colin in answer to your statement starting this thread
I disagree
It's time to step up the war, end the nonsense

[PornoDoggy]

Personally I believe the US fighting forces are holding back way too much. We should really do shock and awe like the campaign started out trying to do. A war from the air raining down destruction until there is little to no resistance left.

Well, now, there's a problem with that - it is inconsistent with the latest rationalization for why we are there. The problem with disguishing a war with imperialistic objectives as a liberation effort is that you just can't do that. I don't think that a lot of the support the President has now

The first think I would do if I was in charge politcally right now is send anyone who even nodded in agreement with this sort of bravado off to some insignificant post in Figi. While, after recent events, it has a certain emotional appeal, tactically it has never proven to work - whether it was the saturation bombing tactics of WWII or the ten year long Rolling Thunder campaigns of Vietnam - not to mention that the technique did not work for the British, the French, the Dutch, the Belguins, nor the Portugese.

In addition to alienating the rest of the Iraqi population - which you may not care about, but have to admit we need - it would be the absolute best recruting campaign imaginable for the likes of alQaida. It could topple our new buddy in Pakistan, destroy what we've accomplished in Afghanistan, and further strengthen the bad guys in a number of the the other bumfuckistans that we need right now.

Short term? I'd get SERIOUS about the need to treat post-Saddam Iraq like post-Hitler Germany. At the risk of seeming to emulate Ribbentrop and Molotov, I'd get the foreign ministers of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council together, carve the sucker up into zones, and REALLY occupy Iraq. Oh, the concessions that would be necessary to make that happen would probably cost the Haliburtons some money - but it would be well worth it.

When we occupied Germany a former Nazi couldn't fart without it being within earshot of the Allied occupation forces. In Vietnam in the 60s & 70s, like in Iraq today, the enemy can operate with impunity unless we happen to be in their face - and if we are they can simply wait ten minutes. "Occupation-lite" does not work. It failed in Vietnam for us twice (the first time it was American dollars and French lives); it failed for the other powers listed above; and it failed for the Soviets in Afghanistan. The smoke and mirrors fantasy that we can turn power back over to the Iraqis in June has got to end.

[Vick]

That's a pretty good call PD

and I think to some degree you and I agree on (part of) the end objective -
stabilization of the region
But we look at different means to do it

My thought is it's best in the hands of the US and if I understand correctly you'd prefer a multinational force.

Not certain we need the Iraqis - if we occupy the country and dictate the terms it's our game. Where is the difference between treating post-Saddam Iraq like post-Hitler Germany and American occupation?

Because it's done by one country with their best interests solely in mind
(Isn't that why the France opposed the war, their own interests)

The other side of the coin with regards to Pakistan, Afghanistan and the other bumfuckistans
If they see a real shock and awe campaign and know what the US is capable of and will do don't you think that will help um ... keep them in line
Basically we better be buddies and play ball or we could be next

Does fear go a long way with extremest or are they so far gone they don't give a flying fig about their own lives?

My major concern is American interests (read oil)

As far as why we're are there or our stated reasons (latest rationalization if you will) no longer matters from my perspective
We're there .........

Let me mull this over the second glass of scotch :stout: <_<

and yes my ideas and opinions may be brash, crude and even ignorant but they are honest, no candy coated liberation bullshit here

[JR]

Originally posted by Vick@Apr 7 2004, 08:14 PM
Where is the difference between treating post-Saddam Iraq like post-Hitler Germany and American occupation?

the support of the overwhelming majority of the people. one united people (not 3-4 major islamic groups with 1000's of years of killing each other). the lack of a religion that demands you die killing the enemy. a society based on a religion that demands that non believers be killed and that their presence on thier land is the ultimate sin. the desire of the German people to rebuild and rejoin the european and world community, exhaustion of years of war and devistation and lives lost, the horror of a nation realizing what crimes the Nazis perpetrated etc etc etc.

the two cannot possibly compare in any way. the list of differences is impossibly long.

you cannot instill democracy in a place that does not want it. you cannot control a murderous mob by democracy. you can only do it the way Saddam did, Stalin did, Hitler did and other similar powers.

i think the whole issue of invading Iraq was a horrible mistake and i fear that the near future (1-2 years of struggle and loss of life) will prove that to be an undeniable fact.



Last edited by JR at Apr 7 2004, 09:17 PM

[PornoDoggy]

My thought is it's best in the hands of the US and if I understand correctly you'd prefer a multinational force.

My preference for an international force are based on practicalities and realism, before I come close to anything idealogical. I do not believe that America has the manpower to do the job alone if we are to do it properly. We can do a sham job - that's what Bush seems intent on doing, with the turnover of power in June. That will NOT, however, do anything to ensure the long term stability of the region, nor will finding ourselves a puppet leader- a Shah of Iraq, perhaps?

The other side of the coin with regards to Pakistan, Afghanistan and the other bumfuckistans
If they see a real shock and awe campaign and know what the US is capable of and will do don't you think that will help um ... keep them in line
Basically we better be buddies and play ball or we could be next

Gee ... more tonnage dropped on "that pissant country" Vietnam during Nixon's part of that war than was dropped on either Japan or Germany during WWII, and it really scared them into submission, didn't it? The Russians awed the Afghanis, the French awed the Algerians, the Belgins awed the Congolese and others, the Portugese awed the Angolans ... terror will begat nothing more and nothing less than terror in return. Show me an example where it worked, and I'll consider it.

Does fear go a long way with extremest or are they so far gone they don't give a flying fig about their own lives?
Your extremist is their patriot. Fear of arguably the greatest power in the world did not seem to deter a ragtag bunch of colonists in 1776 at Lexington and Concord, did it? B52s didn't deter the gooks from humping field pieces 1000 miles down jungle trails, did it? Fear of one of the two greatest powers in the world didn't stop the Mujahadeen from taking on the Russians (who were hardly as encumbered as a democracy might be in the tactics they employed), did it? Fear of absolutely overwhelming odds did not deter the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto from rising up, did it? I say again - show me an example where your theory has worked, and I'll listen.

You are standing there pointing at a bright yellow Yugo painted with Sunkist labels all over it, attempting to convince me that maybe this one really IS a Cadillac - and I ain't buying it.

Not certain we need the Iraqis - if we occupy the country and dictate the terms it's our game. Where is the difference between treating post-Saddam Iraq like post-Hitler Germany and American occupation?

We didn't finish the war with the Germans and immediately begin a gurilla war, did we? The only place we encountered ongoing reisistance after the surrender in either theater of war was in the 454 square miles of Okinawa, and we probably had damn close to the same number of troops there that we now have in the 171,599 square miles of Iraq - and it took us 3 (?) years to finally crush the resistance.

I point out to you again - we are not occupying Iraq like we occupied Germany. We have not defeated the Iraqis in the way we defeated the Germans.

In one of the few things Mike's said all day that I agree with, he pointed out that "they don't think like us." The Iraqis are not Germans - they are not Westerners. They are a disparte group of tribes and clans who want noting more than to (with apologies to Ray Stevens) hop on their camel named Clyde and go kill some of the other guys in the name of Allah. Sunni and Shiite have scores to settle with each other, unless of course there are infidels to kill; both want to exterminate the Kurds who really want nothing more than to be left alone and blow up Turks, Shiite, Sunni, Syrians, Iranians - anyone will do.

If you are following Mike AI off into the past - the glorious days of imperialism - you aren't just attempting to reinvent the wheel. You are trying to revitalize that early version of the wheel that had four eqally flat edges. It will not work, and an attempt to make it work will, far from ensuring your son's future lifestyle, almost guarantee him a harder battle agaist "evildoers" than he is going to encounter anyway.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Naughty@Apr 7 2004, 01:41 PM

Wow Colin, I'd never thought you'd say this.

I thought you were a firm believer of the war (which is actually almost a year over now), and still were so.


I was. Am still. Actually, when I wrote "It's time to leave Iraq", I basically meant "let's hurry up, hang Saddam in Baghdad Central Square, declare victory, hoist the American flag and bring the boys home".

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Apr 7 2004, 09:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Apr 7 2004, 09:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TheEnforcer@Apr 7 2004, 09:16 AM
Holy shit I agree with that entire post Mike!! :P :huh:
I just fell out of my chair.....[/b][/quote]
You're not the only one.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 7 2004, 12:15 PM
How long until it reaches a critical mass when things are no longer "pretty good"?
No Idea. But I thinkwe should hurry up, tidy up, and leave. I know it can't be done today but soon it would be good. Get that whole transfer of power thing going on.

The natives are restless.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 7 2004, 10:38 AM
How long before the helicopters are evacuating people from the tops of buildings?
Aren't they already?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 7 2004, 05:34 PM
Didn't think much of it, actually. It's based on the traditional right-wing misconception that the war in Vietnam was "winnable", and followed by a well-honed right wing trick of blaming the defeat on a lack of political will which was sapped by back-stabbers at home.
This is an easy war to win. Just come home. The sooner the better. Saddam is out of power. The war goal is complete. Easy to declare victory.

[Rolo]

US army did great on the battlefield in Iraq, where there were real targets. However after "the war" Bush made a major mistake (IMHO) not getting the whole of EU to help with rebuilding Iraq and install Democracy. Why was this important? Well - there are MILLIONS of refugees from Iraq in Europe - they all hate Saddam, they all have families in Iraq, and they all understand western culture to some degree.

EU would benefit greatly from a democratic Iraq, because it could send home refugees, which would save money and make the right wing movement in Europe less powerful. EU would probably have spend billions in Iraq - not only by rebuilding infrastructure, but also by giving direct economic help to refugees returning home. This money would create jobs, and stability. And with refugees returning home to Iraq, then real links to the rest of the world would be established - and not like today when some Mullah is the only person with "connections".

Now today most Iraqis still think that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, however like all people then their "basic" needs (food, housing, security, jobs, electricity etc.) come before any "idealistic" ideas (religion, politics, democracy, freedom etc.). The western democratic world should have massively supported these basic needs, then Iragis would have time to take care of the more idealistic needs. Instead Mullahs are giving these basic needs to people, and western politicians are throwing away valuable
time talking about, if there were any WMD or Terror connection in Iraq, when they should talk about how to solve basic problems in Iraq.

We got Mullahs one side backed by one of the poorest nations in the world (Iran), and we got the riches part of the world (the west) who should have been massively investing in Iraq, but instead they are using their time talking about unimportant things.

I understand why some of you think the Mullahs are winning, when we are not even talking about the real issue... the future of Iraq.

Should we leave them to the faith of Mullahs, or should we give them Democracry (and yes, people in Iraq want democracy - not a Taliban ruled goverment).

[Vick]

Hmmmm
Very interesting reading and thanks to everyone for sharing their insights and opinions

Rolo - I'm not to keen on throwing money (and other resources) at the problems of the middle east (The western democratic world should have massively supported these basic needs) unless we are getting something material and immediate back in return (gratitude has a damn short shelf life)


PD - Guess I'm tying 2 problems together, I see rising oil prices as a HUGE problem

As for a puppet I mean a long term solution not another Shah

As for military might being a deterrent I'm going to go apples to oranges here and say military might of the USA (and the USSR) kept the world from being annihilated from oh about 1960-1995 or so
MAD - mutually assured destruction


I'll go on record again by saying that I'm not sure we even should have went into Iraq
But now we are there I believe we can't just walk away and should work for an acceptable and favorable (to the US) resolution

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Rolo@Apr 8 2004, 07:13 AM
US army did great on the battlefield in Iraq, where there were real targets. However after "the war" Bush made a major mistake (IMHO) not getting the whole of EU to help with rebuilding Iraq and install Democracy. Why was this important? Well - there are MILLIONS of refugees from Iraq in Europe - they all hate Saddam, they all have families in Iraq, and they all understand western culture to some degree.

EU would benefit greatly from a democratic Iraq, because it could send home refugees, which would save money and make the right wing movement in Europe less powerful. EU would probably have spend billions in Iraq - not only by rebuilding infrastructure, but also by giving direct economic help to refugees returning home. This money would create jobs, and stability. And with refugees returning home to Iraq, then real links to the rest of the world would be established - and not like today when some Mullah is the only person with "connections".

Now today most Iraqis still think that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, however like all people then their "basic" needs (food, housing, security, jobs, electricity etc.) come before any "idealistic" ideas (religion, politics, democracy, freedom etc.). The western democratic world should have massively supported these basic needs, then Iragis would have time to take care of the more idealistic needs. Instead Mullahs are giving these basic needs to people, and western politicians are throwing away valuable
time talking about, if there were any WMD or Terror connection in Iraq, when they should talk about how to solve basic problems in Iraq.

We got Mullahs one side backed by one of the poorest nations in the world (Iran), and we got the riches part of the world (the west) who should have been massively investing in Iraq, but instead they are using their time talking about unimportant things.

I understand why some of you think the Mullahs are winning, when we are not even talking about the real issue... the future of Iraq.

Should we leave them to the faith of Mullahs, or should we give them Democracry (and yes, people in Iraq want democracy - not a Taliban ruled goverment).


Very good post!!

[Meni]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Apr 7 2004, 01:43 PM
yeah, PD, tell us why do people join the voluntary ARMED forces?

do you need multiple choice answers or you can pull it on your own?

I did that to Meni and I'll do it to you,
bug the shit out of you 'till I get the answer
Serge you join to fight for what you believe it
this is a bullshit war idiot
and ask the troops
no doubt 70% think its bullshit and want out
so shove that up your boca ass

[Almighty Colin]

Here's a new one from today.

"We're facing an enemy that's unafraid to fight from behind women and children, from occupied apartment buildings, from protected sites," said a Marine officer in Fallujah.

[Almighty Colin]

Battlefield decisions are now clearly being made for political reasons.

"The U.S. military today halted its offensive against anti-coalition forces inside the city of Fallujah to allow talks that could lead to a cease-fire and to allow humanitarian aid, civilian administrator Paul Bremer said."

That's this morning's news and it is alarming. I won't spell out the comparisons. They are obvious. PD's bells are going off and for good reason. All wars are political but in the "political war" equation, the word war should play a larger role than the word political.

This war was pretty much over after 21 days when armored columns drove right into Baghdad opposed by nothing more than the Iraqi equivalent of the American redneck. Towel headed guys driving Ford pickup trucks with old Iraqi flag bumper stickers armed with militia-styled weapons. Hell, they even believe the South will rise again. I saw it on TV. Where were the tanks? Incinerated with airpower. I saw it on TV.

The war was REALLY over when Saddam was captured. We've achieved our goals. It's amazing that we've captured Saddam. Bush should gloat more.

The path to Democracy has started in Iraq. No more Saddam! I don't agree with putting more troops in Iraq. I don't agree with putting EU troops in Iraq. That's just more targets. The goals of the war were achieved quickly and efficiently with a historically small operation. That part of the war was run as well as any way has ever been run. If you disagree, go ahead and cite counterexamples.

But a war can't be won if you are still fighting it. It's in the rules.

If I were president this is what I would say,

"700 of our bravest died to free you 25 million Iraqis from the savage Saddam. Now, you 25 million get your shit together and run your country. You have 90 days. If you fuck it up, too bad. We're going home!

[HoneyBlond]

Originally posted by Meat@Apr 8 2004, 05:07 AM

To do something extreme would be to round up all the bad asses in the world, take them from the jails murderers rapists terrorists etc, send them all to iraq and then nuke the whole goddamn country.
Now theres a thought :okthumb:

[Carrie]

Originally posted by Evil Chris+Apr 7 2004, 08:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Evil Chris @ Apr 7 2004, 08:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Meat@Apr 7 2004, 07:40 AM
30 years of brainwashing by Saddam and the other extremists is going to take a lot of coalition deaths to unwash unfortunately

Coalition should get outta there before anyone else is killed...

Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc could put soldiers in that will have a better chance of restoring order to this fucked up cuntry.

Democracy is not worth fighting for in Middle east, its not worth having soldiers die for, they dont want it, let them be how they want to be and start saving lives on both sides, the world also needs to find a better fuel alternitive for oil...
Meat, you need to go on Larry King Live with that.
Nice post.[/b][/quote]
I'm not sure Larry is ready for "Ahh, Saddam was a focking cunt, but if those fockers want to focking fight each other, let 'em do it! Stupid cunts, all of 'em..." :P

[spanno]

if a load of muslims invaded the usa to liberate you of George Bush then hung around setting up a muslim government you'd probably get pissed after a while and start shooting at them too

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by spanno@Apr 9 2004, 11:13 AM
if a load of muslims invaded the usa to liberate you of George Bush then hung around setting up a muslim government you'd probably get pissed after a while and start shooting at them too
hmmm...another one I thought left for good not to torture us with his "wisdom"

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 9 2004, 04:59 AM
Battlefield decisions are now clearly being made for political reasons.

"The U.S. military today halted its offensive against anti-coalition forces inside the city of Fallujah to allow talks that could lead to a cease-fire and to allow humanitarian aid, civilian administrator Paul Bremer said."

That's this morning's news and it is alarming. I won't spell out the comparisons. They are obvious. PD's bells are going off and for good reason. All wars are political but in the "political war" equation, the word war should play a larger role than the word political.

This war was pretty much over after 21 days when armored columns drove right into Baghdad opposed by nothing more than the Iraqi equivalent of the American redneck. Towel headed guys driving Ford pickup trucks with old Iraqi flag bumper stickers armed with militia-styled weapons. Hell, they even believe the South will rise again. I saw it on TV. Where were the tanks? Incinerated with airpower. I saw it on TV.

The war was REALLY over when Saddam was captured. We've achieved our goals. It's amazing that we've captured Saddam. Bush should gloat more.

The path to Democracy has started in Iraq. No more Saddam! I don't agree with putting more troops in Iraq. I don't agree with putting EU troops in Iraq. That's just more targets. The goals of the war were achieved quickly and efficiently with a historically small operation. That part of the war was run as well as any way has ever been run. If you disagree, go ahead and cite counterexamples.

But a war can't be won if you are still fighting it. It's in the rules.

If I were president this is what I would say,

"700 of our bravest died to free you 25 million Iraqis from the savage Saddam. Now, you 25 million get your shit together and run your country. You have 90 days. If you fuck it up, too bad. We're going home!
Like the idea of doing a reinactment of Dresden or Tokyo on a couple of Iraqi cities, "You have 90 days. If you fuck it up, too bad. We're going home!" has a certain emotional appeal.

We can't do that. Like what I've referred to as "occupation lite", we've tried it before and it cost us dearly. It's a lot easier to conduct military operations if you've already got boots on the ground, however - so from a logistics point, it makes no sense to bring the boys home if you're going to have to put them right back.

About 20 years ago we contributed to the destruction of much of the infrastructure and virtually all of what passed for civil authority in Afghanistan. Now, there was a war going on and those things happen in war. After the war, we went home. It led to the Taliban, who provided safe haven to alQaida.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2004, 11:33 AM
We can't do that.
Not "IF you fuck it up THEN too bad we're going home" but .. "We're going home, if you fuck it up after that, too bad". There is no more occupation in my 90 day plan. The end.

Maybe we'll go back in 20 years? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes you fight the enemy more than once. That's why wars have numbers. ;-)

[spanno]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Apr 9 2004, 04:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Apr 9 2004, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--spanno@Apr 9 2004, 11:13 AM
if a load of muslims invaded the usa to liberate you of George Bush then hung around setting up a muslim government you'd probably get pissed after a while and start shooting at them too
hmmm...another one I thought left for good not to torture us with his "wisdom"[/b][/quote]
>> hmmm...another one I thought left for good not to torture us with his "wisdom"

I quit my day job so I could come back to oprano and annoy you serge :o)

:rokk:

[JR]

you guys keep using the word "occupation"

i thought the buzzword of the day was "liberation"

[spanno]

I heard Nas's "made you look" is gonna be the new American National Anthem

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JR@Apr 9 2004, 11:41 AM
you guys keep using the word "occupation"

i thought the buzzword of the day was "liberation"
When I want to go, it's called liberation. When I want to come home, it's called occupation.

[RawAlex]

Liberation is just occupation after it has been through the spin cycle. Same thing, people come from outside, get rid of yoru leaders, and try to make your government be like theirs.

US calls it liberation because they are bringing "freedom"... whatever the fuck that is.

Alex

[JR]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 9 2004, 09:01 AM
Liberation is just occupation after it has been through the spin cycle. Same thing, people come from outside, get rid of yoru leaders, and try to make your government be like theirs.

US calls it liberation because they are bringing "freedom"... whatever the fuck that is.

Alex
"freedom" Alex, is when you attack someone and then force them to be just like you.

:o

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 9 2004, 12:01 PM
US calls it liberation because they are bringing "freedom"... whatever the fuck that is.

It's an abstraction. :ph34r:

[Almighty Colin]

The ancient Greeks fought for "freedom". They even had a god of freedom, Eleutherios. When they defeated the Persians about 2500 years ago many formed a cult of Freedom. They built a temple and everything. I think it's still standing. Socrates used to hang out there telling everyone how ignorat he was . For some reason this made everyone that met him feel stupid. Later some people got annoyed with him and killed him.

[Jesse_DD]

What is everyone's thought on how America HELPED democratize Germany, Japan and Italy? In hindsight were those "good" decisions? Did the Allied forces (and specifically America because it was a majority of US funds that were used to help construct those new democracies) have any choice but to do it? What would the World look like had the US not assisted in that endeavor.

It certainly sickens me when I see US soldiers and citizens being killed. But, look back over a year ago when many people were asking (paraphrasing and yes it is a sick question) "How many US soldiers would you be willing to "give up" in order to see Sadam overthrown and a democracy in Iraq?" The numbers were usually well into the thousands. I myself thought that we would lose a number that was similar to the CIA projected number of 10k.

But aren't all these arguments subject to the end result. If Iraq can't be "democratized" because of history, religion, conditioning and tradition then the US going in would have been a disaster whether we lost 1 person or 100,000. If the US is successful then in 20 years this will be a successful campaign no matter how many losses. So, I believe the ends really do justify the means - in hindsight of course.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin+Apr 9 2004, 11:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Apr 9 2004, 11:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2004, 11:33 AM
We can't do that.
Not "IF you fuck it up THEN too bad we're going home" but .. "We're going home, if you fuck it up after that, too bad". There is no more occupation in my 90 day plan. The end.

Maybe we'll go back in 20 years? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes you fight the enemy more than once. That's why wars have numbers. ;-)[/b][/quote]
Even those who are too stupid, too educated, or too sophisticated to believe that leaving Iraq to the chaos and ethno/religous conflict that would ensue if we walked away now would be unethical, surely from a tactical perspective they (except, perhaps, the stupid) can understand that it would not serve the intersts of the United States to do it.

It was 12 years (my mistake), not 20, between the end of the proxy war and the reinvasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan sits between nowhere and noplace (Pakistan and Iran) on top of ... nothing. Poppies and mountains.

Iraq sits between hotspots like Iran, Syria, and Turkey on top of one hell of a lot of a substance that we are far more addicted to than opium. The probability that something far worse than Saddam could operate in the midst of the chaos that would ensue from walking away now is way too great to take the risk.

Do it now, or do it later ... and who knows what the cost in lives will be later. The cost in transport alone would make it worth it to finish it right.

Liberation is just occupation after it has been through the spin cycle. Same thing, people come from outside, get rid of yoru leaders, and try to make your government be like theirs.

US calls it liberation because they are bringing "freedom"... whatever the fuck that is.

Alex
What the hell does that mean?

[Almighty Colin]

Jesse,

One only needs to look to Iraq's Northern border for a model democratic Muslim nation. Iraq has the double edged sword of Islamism and pan-Arabism to contend with. We'll see. My opinion is that sometimes such things turn out for the better and sometimes not. It's too complicated for anyone to confidently predict.

Regression towards the mean though. The odds that Iraq will end up worse without Saddam than with him is pretty low.

Will we be back to Iraq again? No idea. We'll be back in the Middle East again. Somewhere, sometime. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria. Of course we will.

[Almighty Colin]

I didn't say "leave today". I said "hurry up". If we're turning Iraq over to an Iraqi government in 90 days they can police the place too. This is now a police action and the Iraqi police should handle it.

Got Sunnis in your sandbox? Call 9-1-1.

[PornoDoggy]

Regression towards the mean though. The odds that Iraq will end up worse without Saddam than with him is pretty low.

Consider lasik surgery to replace the rose colored glasses. While I don't think its as far removed from reality as Cheney/MacRumsfeld's "parades to greet the liberators", it's in the neighborhood.

How many people would have predicted that the fall of Communism would have resulted in the mess formerly known as Yugoslovia?

You really do seem to be advocating a 1989 Afghanistan policy. I think that's as foolhardy as the jingoistic facade of a policy that's gotten us here.

[Jesse_DD]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2004, 09:48 AM
Regression towards the mean though. The odds that Iraq will end up worse without Saddam than with him is pretty low.

Consider lasik surgery to replace the rose colored glasses. While I don't think its as far removed from reality as Cheney/MacRumsfeld's "parades to greet the liberators", it's in the neighborhood.

How many people would have predicted that the fall of Communism would have resulted in the mess formerly known as Yugoslovia?

You really do seem to be advocating a 1989 Afghanistan policy. I think that's as foolhardy as the jingoistic facade of a policy that's gotten us here.
I find it amazing that only a few months ago a majority (small majority at just over 50%) thought their lives were already better than when Saddam was in power. In this is still with the US there, this is after the US dropped tons of bombs on them and their country is a disaster. I think that says something. The number will obviously fluctuate with the things that are going on the country. If the "Insurgence" get more of a foothold then that number will go down. If the US gains "control" again them that number will probably go up.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2004, 12:48 PM
You really do seem to be advocating a 1989 Afghanistan policy. I think that's as foolhardy as the jingoistic facade of a policy that's gotten us here.

How many people would have predicted that the fall of Communism would have resulted in the mess formerly known as Yugoslovia?
Nearly all policies look bad in hindsight because the world changes. What can I say? I think supporting an enemy of the USSR was a really good idea in 1989.

So what if the Yugo region is STILL a mess. Are you saying you'd rather have the USSR back and events like the Cuban Missile Crisis rather than "the mess formerly known as Yugoslovia"?

I don't know what world you live in. In mine, the land once known as Yugoslavia has been a damned mess for 1000 years - excepting the Pax Ottoman Empire. I'll take who was Gavrilo Princip for $1000, Alex?



Last edited by Colin at Apr 9 2004, 01:08 PM

[RawAlex]

Colin, your correct. The ever changing political and religeous landscape in this area makes finding a successful outcome all but impossible. Like it or not, this is a section of the world that isn't happier with dictators, but they tend to work better when they have someone to tell them what to do.

No matter when the US decides to leave, it is only a matter of time before the next civil war / coup / overthrow / religeous takeover. The only real question will be which way the "victor" will lean.

Freedom cannot be ordered.

Alex

[PornoDoggy]

Yes, Colin, the Balkans have been a clusterfuck for a thousand years. My point is that walking away now without stabilizing Iraq would put whoever did that in the position of Gavrilo Princip with pair of nuclear detonations instead of a pair of pistol shots.

It can be argued that Gavrilo Princip is the founder of both Yugoslovia and Iraq ... since the little conflict he helped spark lead to the creation of both artificial countries.

I cannot guarantee that a post WWII style occupation of Iraq would, even after 10 or 20 years, eliminate the possibilty that Iraq won't follow the path that Yugoslovia did.

I can almost guarantee you that walking away now would ensure it. While I think that the proponents of the war as an imperialist exercise are about as out of touch with reality as the Flat Earth Society, they do have a point - the stability of the region is important because of the oil.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 9 2004, 01:49 PM
Colin, your correct.
Did anyone else just hurt themselves? I hurt my elbow when I fell to the ground in astonishment.

[Almighty Colin]

PD,

Your momma wears army boots. You make good points. I give it 180 days instead of 90. When's the election again?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 9 2004, 02:13 PM
PD,

Your momma wears army boots. You make good points. I give it 180 days instead of 90. When's the election again?
You leave my momma outta this ...

and if you're going to pull out in 180 days you absolutely HAVE to use the term "Peace With Honor."

It's an American tradition.

[PornoDoggy]

btw, Colin ... I wasn't expecting to see the term "Pan-Arabism" show up in the discussion on Oprano. Not as surprising as someone attacking the proponents of the Iraqi excursion as justifable imperialism as neo-colonialists, perhaps, but still unexpected.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2004, 02:46 PM
btw, Colin ... I wasn't expecting to see the term "Pan-Arabism" show up in the discussion on Oprano. Not as surprising as someone attacking the proponents of the Iraqi excursion as justifable imperialism as neo-colonialists, perhaps, but still unexpected.
I like the music.

http://www.arableagueonline.org/arableague...flash4page.html (http://www.arableagueonline.org/arableague/flash4page.html)