The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.

[rabbidrabbit]

As long as the authors of these threads never have to serve, then sure, it's worth it- for them.

I served.  I probably would not have made the same choice to go in but am glad we stuck with it.  For the sake of those who did serve and pay a price far beyond what you will ever likely understand, doing so will hopefully make it worth it.   

Out of curiosity, what makes you think you have greater authority than the worst of what you accuse others of?  Did you ever put yourself on the line?  Step up to the plate?  What example have you ever made that makes you credible in looking down your nose at others?

[redman555]

i say we nuke em and end it faster 


-BigBOBCH

[Ripsnort]

I served.  I probably would not have made the same choice to go in but am glad we stuck with it.  For the sake of those who did serve and pay a price far beyond what you will ever likely understand, doing so will hopefully make it worth it.   

Out of curiosity, what makes you think you have greater authority than the worst of what you accuse others of?  Did you ever put yourself on the line?  Step up to the plate?  What example have you ever made that makes you credible in looking down your nose at others?

Excellent questions and <S> thank you for your service.  Awaing Carrel's high horse reply with you.

[Hangtime]

Fat lot of good it did them eh? They still failed, symmetrically, asymmetrically, completely failed. They LOST. Where the hell is Harry Reid in announcing that?

Screw Harry. All his gutless puppet buddies, too.

As to 'they failed'... really? We got a 300 billion a year monkey on our backs. The western economies are faltering. You really didn't think thier objective is a surrender ceremony in a tent pitched at ground zero in manhattan, did yah?

AFAIK, The terrorist objective is destruction of the American way of life. Sure looks looks to me like they're getting the upper hand in that regard.

In my humble opinion, a win for us would be Osama's corpse and the complete dismemberment of the societal system that supported, funded and cheered 'em on. Their relevance and funding comes from opium poppies and oil.

Our system, being corrupt, hasn't the balls or the desire to cut off either.

Unless we get on the program and get that done, they will achieve their objective. We'll be owned outright by foreign interests... if we're not already.

[Bodhi]

Hmmm.  I don't think I would have the slightest problem with our gubmint taking assault rifles, machine guns, RPG's and the like out of US citizens' hands if those in possession are unable to prove ownership or show proper licenses. 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Says nothing in there about registering your firearms, licensing, or having to show proof of ownership.

[Yeager]

In my humble opinion, a win for us would be Osama's corpse and the complete dismemberment of the societal system that supported, funded and cheered 'em on.

whole heartedly agreed.  Perhaps President Obama will be able to deal the cards.

[Carrel]

 
Out of curiosity, what makes you think you have greater authority than the worst of what you accuse others of?  Did you ever put yourself on the line?  Step up to the plate?  What example have you ever made that makes you credible in looking down your nose at others?

1) Authority??? I have an opinion, nothing more.

2) Yes

3) Yes

4) You may call it 'looking down my nose at others" but I don't see it that way- and if some of those "others" had shared my experiences they might not be quite so gung ho, from the authors of pro war threads to the authors of the Iraq war.  



But let's not get derailed- in my opinion we should have never gone there in the first place, so the fact we can invade and conquer Iraq (which I don't believe we can) doesn't make our initial actions of 2003 any more legitimate- this recent spouting off by the Republicans that "we are winning the war" is being spewed a few months before the election in an effort to help McCain's election bid. It's the same line of crap that was spewed in the 1968 election- "Victory is just around the corner. Let's vote Republican and stay the course."

It's bull, and I don't buy it.

[Hangtime]

But let's not get derailed- in my opinion we should have never gone there in the first place, so the fact we can invade and conquer Iraq (which I don't believe we can) doesn't make our initial actions of 2003 any more legitimate- this recent spouting off by the Republicans that "we are winning the war" is being spewed a few months before the election in an effort to help McCain's election bid. It's the same line of crap that was spewed in the 1968 election- "Victory is just around the corner. Let's vote Republican and stay the course."

It's bull, and I don't buy it.

enh? Last time I checked, we invaded and won in a matter of weeks. Took us another few months to find saddam.

What we SHOULD have done was packed up & left right then; (yes, left it a bombed out mess as a shining example of consequences for two-bit dictatorships spitting in our eyes) returned to Afghanistan in force & massed the troops on the afgan/paki border and explained the facts of life to Islamabad... "we're goin in to Pastun-land, and we're stayin till we get Osama. When we get him, we're gone.. so help, or have your government and national infrastructure returned to the stone age too."

.. but that's besides the point. Iraq was defeated; government and military replaced. We won, they lost. We're debating an occupation. Occupations are not 'won'... they're successful, or untenable. If turn over internal security to Iraq forces and keep enough troops, air, armor and artillery in place to insure national sovereignty for the new government then the occupation will be 'successful'. If we keep kicking in doors and playing target patrolling streets and getting our troops killed doing that mission then the occupation may become 'untenable'.

[Gunthr]

Hmmm.  I don't think I would have the slightest problem with our gubmint taking assault rifles, machine guns, RPG's and the like out of US citizens' hands if those in possession are unable to prove ownership or show proper licenses.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Says nothing in there about registering your firearms, licensing, or having to show proof of ownership.

I know, Bodhi. my post was in the context of the other conversation about our troops helping the Iraqi government get military equipment off the streets.  I will strongly support our right to bear arms to the end of my days.  

But I obey and observe our federal firearms laws and regulations, which do require registering, licensing etc for certain weapons.  thats just the way it is.  I wish it wasn't that way, but it is, and has been all my life.

so if I happen to read about police confiscating a full auto machine gun from someone without a proper license, it doesn't bother me.  gubmint confiscating rpg's, grenades or stingers, etc don't bother me either.  

[Rich46yo]

Nope.. I don't expect a complete pull-out. Since the Iraqi Air Force has 2 helicopters, a couple of Cessna's and a C-130, I very much doubt the Iraqi Military to aquire the means to defend it's nations sovereignty from any serious attempt by a hostile neighbor state to defend Iraq effectively for a decade or two, at least.

I'd expect American Troops, in a trip-wire role similar to the role we play in Korea and providing full Air Support, Artillery and Armor to assist the Iraqi military in the role of National Defense. That does not mean US Troops kicking down doors and playing street cop in Iraqi cities. 

Yeah I already know your thoughts on the issue. The problem is we were left with two choices, either play cop or Iraq descending ino total anarchy.

Just leaving Iraq would have been the utmost in stupidity. No doubt a political entity far worse then saddam would have emerged.

[Rolex]

Those are your choices of what you guess might have maybe happened... perhaps.

Let's not stray too far from the reality that if the US had not invaded Iraq, Iraq would still have no weapons of mass destruction, still not be aligned or assisting Al-Qaeda and still not be a threat to any country, including the US.

And let's find out how much you really know about the region and history.

1. Why did Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait?
2. Who was the first to revive the word jihad after hundreds of years of non-use?
3. How did the word 'Al Qaeda' even come into being?

[FrodeMk3]

Those are your choices of what you guess might have maybe happened... perhaps.

Let's not stray too far from the reality that if the US had not invaded Iraq, Iraq would still have no weapons of mass destruction, still not be aligned or assisting Al-Qaeda and still not be a threat to any country, including the US.

And let's find out how much you really know about the region and history.

1. Why did Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait?
2. Who was the first to revive the word jihad after hundreds of years of non-use?
3. How did the word 'Al Qaeda' even come into being?

Hmmm...I'll take a stab at No. 1. This is from Wiki:

Causes of the conflict
Kuwait was a close ally of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war and functioned as the country’s major port once Basra was shut down by the fighting.[6] However, after the war ended, the friendly relations between the two neighboring Arab countries turned sour due to several economic and diplomatic reasons which finally culminated in an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.


[edit] Dispute over the financial debt
Kuwait had heavily funded the 8 year long Iraqi war against Iran. By the time the war ended, Iraq was not in a financial position to repay the $14 billion which it had borrowed from Kuwait to finance its war.[7] Iraq argued that the war had prevented the rise of Iranian influence in the Arab World. However, Kuwait's reluctance to pardon the debt created strains in the relationship between the two Arab countries. During late 1989, several official meetings were held between the Kuwaiti and Iraqi leaders but they were unable to break the deadlock between the two.


[edit] Economic warfare and slant drilling
Iraq tried repaying its debts by raising the prices of oil through OPEC's oil production cuts. However, Kuwait, a member of the OPEC, prevented a global increase in petroleum prices by increasing its own petroleum production, thus lowering the price and preventing recovery of the war-crippled Iraqi economy.[8] This was seen by many in Iraq as an act of aggression, further distancing the countries. The collapse in oil prices had a catastrophic impact on the Iraqi economy. According to former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, "every US$1 drop in the price of a barrel of oil caused a US$1 billion drop in Iraq's annual revenues triggering an acute financial crisis in Baghdad."[9] It was estimated that Iraq lost US$14 billion a year due to Kuwait's oil price strategy.[10]

The Iraqi Government described it as a form of 'economic warfare', which it claimed was aggravated by Kuwait's alleged slant-drilling across the border into Iraq's Rumaila field. The dispute over Rumaila field started in 1960 when an Arab League declaration marked the Iraq-Kuwait border 2 miles north of the southern-most tip of the Rumaila field.[11] During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqi oil drilling operations in Rumaila declined while Kuwait's operations increased. In 1989, Iraq accused Kuwait of using "advanced drilling techniques" to exploit oil from its share of the Rumaila field. Iraq estimated that US$2.4 billion worth of Iraqi oil was stolen by Kuwait and demanded compensation.[12][13] Kuwait dismissed the accusations as a false Iraqi ploy to justify military action against it.[14] Several Americans firms working in the Rumaila field also dismissed Iraq's slant-drilling claims as a "smokescreen to disguise Iraq's more ambitious intentions".[15]


[edit] Kuwait's lucrative economy
After the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi economy was struggling to recover. Iraq's civil and military debt was higher than its state budget. Most of its ports were destroyed, oil fields mined, and traditional oil customers lost. On the other hand, with its vast oil reserves, Kuwait was regarded as one of the world's wealthiest and most economically stable countries. Despite having a total land area 1/10th of Iraq, Kuwait's coastline was twice as long as Iraq's and its ports were some of the busiest in the Persian Gulf region. The Iraqi government clearly realized that by seizing Kuwait, it would be able to solve most its financial problems and consolidate its regional authority. Due to its relatively small size, Kuwait was seen by Baghdad as an easy target as well as a historically integral part of Iraq separated by British imperialism.

[FrodeMk3]

And here's a little bit more about it:

Arab nationalism
Though Kuwait's large oil reserves were widely considered to be the main reason behind the Iraqi invasion, the Iraqi government justified its invasion by claiming that Kuwait was a natural part of Iraq carved off due to British imperialism.[16] After signing the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, the United Kingdom split Kuwait and Iraq into two separate emirates. The Iraqi government also argued that the Kuwaiti Emir was a highly unpopular figure among the Kuwaiti populace. By overthrowing the Emir, Iraq claimed that it granted Kuwaitis greater economic and political freedom.[7]

Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman province of Basra, and although its ruling dynasty, the al-Sabah family, had concluded a protectorate agreement in 1899 that assigned responsibility for its foreign affairs to Britain, it did not make any attempt to secede from the Ottoman Empire. For this reason, its borders with Iraq were never clearly defined or mutually agreed. Furthermore, Iraq alleged that the British High Commissioner "drew lines that deliberately constricted Iraq's access to the ocean so that any future Iraqi government would be in no position to threaten Britain's domination of the Gulf".[17]


[edit] Alleged international conspiracy
Saddam Hussein’s decision partly came as a reaction towards the alleged international conspiracy against Iraq which, in his view, was meant to weaken and destabilize the regime. Subtle shifts in the American policy together with the British and American efforts to block the export of dual-use technology to Iraq, a consequence of its nuclear program, were seen by Saddam as part of a concerted effort to build a case against Iraq.[5] In this conspiracy theory, Kuwait was considered an accomplice of the foreign powers. In a memorandum dating from July 1990, the former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz accused Kuwait and the UAE of production beyond their OPEC quotas and claimed that the overproduction was synchronized with the efforts of foreign powers to denigrate Iraq.[18] Tariq argues that the fact that Kuwait refused to negotiate with a dangerous Iraq and risked being invaded by it sustains the theory according to which Kuwait had received tacit support from the U.S. even before the war started.[19] At the same time the Iraqi military intelligence was receiving warnings about Israeli plans to attack Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was convinced of the existence of a conspiracy and even described it to Wafiq al-Samara’i, deputy director of Iraqi military intelligence as follows:

“America is coordinating with Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Kuwait in a conspiracy against us. They are trying to reduce the price of oil to affect our military industries and our scientific research, to force us to reduce the size of our armed forces....You must expect from another direction an Israeli military air strike, or more than one, to destroy some of our important targets as part of this conspiracy”[20]

Following the invasion, Saddam’s unwillingness to accept a negotiated solution to the Kuwait crisis once again sustains the hypothesis that the fear of Iraq's domestic and economic destabilization was the most important factor which contributed to his invasion decision.[5]


[edit] Diplomatic row
Post Iran-Iraq war and dispute over Rumaila oilfield, the diplomatic relations between Iraq and Kuwait deteriorated dramatically triggering several heated exchanges between Iraqi and Kuwaiti diplomats during various regional and Gulf Cooperation Council summits.

According to Federal Bureau of Investigation agent Piro, Kuwaiti emir Al Sabah told the foreign minister of Iraq during a discussion aimed at resolving some of the conflicts between the two countries that "he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him [Saddam Hussein], to invade Kuwait".[21]

To me, Rolex, it looks' like some actual problems aggravated by some vicious rhetoric...

[Hangtime]

1. Why did Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait?
2. Who was the first to revive the word jihad after hundreds of years of non-use?
3. How did the word 'Al Qaeda' even come into being?

1. Resources to continue the fight against Iran; wanted to create an Arab League, with himself in control.

2. dunno. Can't ask Gordon of Khartoum; the fella seems to be without a head for some reason. When Israel popped up, 'Jihad' was called for, again; when the Russians invaded Afghanistan.

3. As I recall, CIA & Charlie Wilson created a base of supply and training for 'Afghan freedom fighters'... the origin of the word? Dunno.

hmmmmmmmmm... gee, Rolex; are you tryin to tell us this is our monkey?

LOL! Same logic applies to WWII and Pearl Harbor. Oh, that's right! Yer an expat american, living in Japan!!

My humble apologies, Rolex-san; you are correct. We should totally exterminate islam, or else they will rise again from the ashes, as Japan did; and buy us.

[Curval]

Pleas stop posting stuff like this...I think the insurgents must read this BBS.

Boom boom boom boom

There goes some more suicide bombers....women again this time.