Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on November 12, 2003, 05:06:00 PM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20031112/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cia_dc
-
NO, this is hardley a quagmire. WW1 was a quagmire, Korea was a quagmire. I'm not saying this is easy sailing but look at our losses so far. Every Life is preciouse and our casualties have been cept to a minimum. No quagmire here
-
Two senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the document is classified, described the report's findings in broad terms but did not detail any recommendations.
Call me crazy, but I'm suspicious of anything like this until I get something a little more defined. Take it with a grain of salt, especially with the limited area of the country that these attacks are occuring in.
NO, this is hardley a quagmire.
Agree, but we need to get a handle on the stuff going on in the 'Sunni Triangle'.
-
Quagmire - a difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.
Casualties is only one part of it. Cost, moral, political fallout, public dissaproval and a whole host of other effects all contribute in turning a situation like this to being refered to as a quagmire.
As for casualties being kept to a minimum, true a very tough environment to be in. But I'm sure the casualties and wounded at this time are alot higher then the Bush Admin ever anticipated.
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
I find it hard to believe that they projected as little as 400 casualties. I figured we'd lose 5000 guys just taking Bagdhad.
-
I have said it before and will say it again.
The dammed ragheads aint worht ONE American life:mad:
-
I think that it's the fact most casualties have occured after the infamous Bush anouncement of major conflict being over. Plus I doubt that they ever would of thought of 5000 casualties in just taking Baghdad.
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I find it hard to believe that they projected as little as 400 casualties. I figured we'd lose 5000 guys just taking Bagdhad.
-
I think this whole quagmire word is only braught up to discredit bush.....yup its bush's fault. The "end to major conflict" speech was just that. It was announcing the end to the major fighting and a transition into occupation then demobilization. ummmm correct me if im wrong here but those seem like the steps you would take in this situation. Everyone wants to make bush look bad no matter what the cost.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Everyone wants to make bush look bad no matter what the cost.
396 dead and a $87 Billion bill... yeah... Dubya should come out smelling like a rose.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
396 dead and a $87 Billion bill... yeah... Dubya should come out smelling like a rose.
So what would you have done instead?
Heard lots of criticism, not just from you either so don't take it personally, but NO options. What would you have done to solve the situation in iraq?
Finally I read a comment from a MOH recipient here in AZ. in this mornings newspaper. He said we can fight terrorists here or fight them in some other country but we WILL have to fight them somewhere and sooner or later because they will fight us.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
So what would you have done instead?
Heard lots of criticism, not just from you either so don't take it personally, but NO options. What would you have done to solve the situation in iraq?
Iraq? I thought it was OBl we were after? I didn't know he was in Iraq.
I would have gone after OBl til I got him, not let him hang around for the next election. If I were prez Pakistan would be moving alot faster to flush him out, or I would.
I would make no distinction between the terrorists and the people who harbor them.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
396 dead and a $87 Billion bill... yeah... Dubya should come out smelling like a rose.
It's been said before but bears repeating; where would you rather we fight al-qaeda, there or here?
-
*IF* we can establish a budding democracy, and thats a
gigantic *IF*, then the potentiol for a long lasting peace between arab muslims and western christian nations is greatly enhanced.
It is precisely this reason why the militants of islam are blowing themselves up with such dedicated fervor. They know their cause could be terribly defeated by their own arab brothers desperate for the lasting peace and prosperity that is so obviously attainable if a free Iraq is established. They sense the misgivings of many of the people in the west unwilling to fight and critical of the administration and no doubt see it as the best evidence of their suicidal efforts. Imagine if the USnavy admirals in the pacific battles late in WW2 were liberals.............militant Japan would have survived.....I imagine the discussion would have gone something like this: "We cant fight against these kamakazis, they are undefeatable, we cannot afford these casualties, we must retire from this fight. It is a war we cannot win.
Basically what I see coming down the pike in the next 30 years, give or take a decade, is a world war between muslims and christians. This administration is seen by me as doing either one of two things regarding this matter. Either they are taking the boldest step forward since the end of WW2 to create and preserve world peace and stability, or they are leading the world towards its inevitable conclusion. Either way I honestly didnt forsee this developement regarding Iraq after 9/11. I am truly humbled by this effort and extremely uncomfortable with the consequences.
Braver men and women than I are doing their duty, serving the nation. All I can do is support them and believe in the cause fighting to create a stable and prosperous Iraq which is in and of itself a direct assault on terrorism. If you cannot see that then I believe it is because you do not want to see it. Just my opinion, of course.
-
Sandman,
You'll likely find this article interesting.
http://www.policyreview.org/aug03/kagan.html
leonid
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Iraq? I thought it was OBl we were after? I didn't know he was in Iraq.
I would have gone after OBl til I got him, not let him hang around for the next election. If I were prez Pakistan would be moving alot faster to flush him out, or I would.
I would make no distinction between the terrorists and the people who harbor them.
That's a little narrowminded, do you think OBL is the ONLY terrorist out there should we only go after terrorists AFTER they attack us.
I agree with you on pakistan but I think in my own narrowminded opinion we would be going into Iraq sooner or later.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It's been said before but bears repeating; where would you rather we fight al-qaeda, there or here?
Are you implying that the invasion of Iraq was an elaborate plan to entice Al-qaeda into that country to fight?
Your right that does bear repeating. Say it like a mantra. Just to set the tone.
Heres a hint. Invade any country and "terrorists" will fight you.
Amazing how that works.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Are you implying that the invasion of Iraq was an elaborate plan to entice Al-qaeda into that country to fight?
Your right that does bear repeating. Say it like a mantra. Just to set the tone.
Heres a hint. Invade any country and "terrorists" will fight you.
Amazing how that works.
Naaay Shad up:D
-
Pongo :D
Its not about WMD. Its not about OBL. Its not even about fighting Terrorism, Its about Giving Democracy to those Dang Savages.
Iraq will be the showcase of how Democracy works.
Once the Middle East sees the error of their ways and can look at the Free and Shining Democratic Republic of Iraqpuppets installed courtesy of the USA All will rush to sign on with the Democratic Bandwagon.
-
No....
300,000 Iraqis May Be in Mass Graves
By BASSEM MROUE and NIKO PRICE
Associated Press Writers
November 8, 2003, 5:55 PM EST
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Saddam Hussein's government is believed to have buried as many as 300,000 opponents in 263 mass graves that dot the Iraqi landscape, the top human rights official in the U.S.-led civilian administration said Saturday.
Sandy Hodgkinson said the administration has been sending forensic teams to investigate those grave sites reported to U.S. officials. So far, the existence of about 40 graves has been confirmed.
"We have found mass graves with women and children with bullet holes in their heads," she said.
President Bush has referred to Iraqi mass graves frequently in recent months, saying they provide evidence that the war to drive Saddam from power was justified.
But some human rights activists have criticized the U.S.-led administration in Iraq for moving too slowly to protect grave sites and begin excavations, and have expressed skepticism that it will ever fully identify who is buried in the mass graves.
"There is just no way -- technologically, financially -- that they're going to deal with mass graves on this magnitude," said Susannah Sirkin of Physicians for Human Rights in Boston.
The U.S.-led administration held a workshop Saturday to train dozens of Iraqis to find and protect the mass grave sites. Hodgkinson said the workers would be crucial in protecting the sites from desperate relatives trying to dig for evidence of their missing loved ones.
In the weeks after the U.S.-led war drove Saddam from power, relatives damaged some grave sites, using bulldozers that mangled bodies and scattering papers and clothing that could have been used to identify remains.
The largest mass grave discovered so far, a site near the southern town of Mahaweel believed to hold at least 3,115 bodies, was damaged by relatives searching for remains. But officials say most of the mass graves haven't been disturbed.
Mass graves "tell the story of missing loved ones such as where, when and how they were killed," Hodgkinson said. "Truth and proper burial is the first step toward reconciliation."
Iraqi Human Rights Minister Abdul-Basit Turki said that in addition to families' need to find the bodies of missing relatives, excavating mass graves is important in building criminal cases against members of the former regime.
International tribunals handle prosecutions for atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, where tens of thousands of missing are believed buried in mass graves, and Rwanda, in which many of the 500,000 victims of a 100-day killing spree in 1994 were buried in communal pits.
But for Iraq, the United States has insisted any trials be conducted by a new Iraqi legal system that is still being developed.
Neither Iraq nor the United States are signatories to the International Criminal Court and it would take a vote of the U.N. Security Council to create a special tribunal for Iraq, which is considered unlikely.
Many human rights groups agree that Iraqis should lead the legal process, but say international participation is crucial for it to be legitimate and impartial. Some have been hesitant to participate in excavations before the legal system is in place.
"Mass graves really can corroborate witness testimony and documents which show what happened in a crime," Hodgkinson said, although she cautioned: "a mass grave by itself won't tell you who did it."
Hodgkinson said the majority of people buried in the mass graves are believed to be Kurds killed by Saddam in the 1980s after rebelling against the government and Shiites killed after an uprising following the 1991 Gulf War.
Hodgkinson said the investigation process would be similar to that used in Bosnia after its 1992-95 war. But she cautioned that if Bosnia is any indication, the process in Iraq will be long and complicated.
In Bosnia, she said, it has taken nine years to unearth 8,000 of the 30,000 bodies believed buried in mass graves.
Human rights activists say U.S. authorities in Iraq have been much slower to address the problem than were authorities in Bosnia. In Bosnia, said Sam Zia-Zarifi of Human Rights Watch, "within the first year there were 25 teams in and a (U.N.) tribunal in place."
In Iraq, some international teams that were hoping to begin their work before winter have delayed their arrival because of violence, including the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad.
At a donor conference last month, more than $100 million was requested for uncovering mass graves. The donations, which are expected to come in the form of equipment and personnel, would be used over five years, Hodgkinson said.
* __
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Are you implying that the invasion of Iraq was an elaborate plan to entice Al-qaeda into that country to fight?
Your right that does bear repeating. Say it like a mantra. Just to set the tone.
Heres a hint. Invade any country and "terrorists" will fight you.
Amazing how that works.
I know you live a bit of a sheltered life Pongo but the US has been attacked by middle easterners on many occasions over many years. Taking the fight to them is long overdue.
-
seems to me that a lot of other despots are behaving much better lately. Allways good to slap one in the head once in a while... as a side benifiet.... they don't murder their own people in such large numbers when they are in exile or on good behavior.... world misery level goes way down.
plus... 30 broke terrorists *****ing about the great satan around the worn out sofa at abduls house is lots less scarry than all of em having government bought condos next door to you.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
That's a little narrowminded, do you think OBL is the ONLY terrorist out there should we only go after terrorists AFTER they attack us.
He is the one who planned the attack on TWC. It's like having someone rob a bank, then instead of arresting him, we arrest a local booky.
But I guess it is narrowminded to stay focused on the big fish.
Yes, I think OBL should be priority #1, because he is public enemy #1. So call me narrowminded.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
He is the one who planned the attack on TWC. It's like having someone rob a bank, then instead of arresting him, we arrest a local booky.
But I guess it is narrowminded to stay focused on the big fish.
Yes, I think OBL should be priority #1, because he is public enemy #1. So call me narrowminded.
What makes you think he isn't priority #1? I think it's possible that we may even know where he is. It would be prudent to watch him, gather intel on all his associates, and get as many as possible when the hammer comes down. If it happens just before the next presidential election you'll know I'm right. ;)
-
We were watching him in Afghanistan too. Time to cut off the head of the snake.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
We were watching him in Afghanistan too. Time to cut off the head of the snake.
And look what happened to the Taliban.
-
They moved next door where the nukes are.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
They moved next door where the nukes are.
Like I said, lotsa rope makes many nooses.