Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on November 16, 2006, 11:04:08 PM
-
Paraphrased from an article in the Associated Press printed in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Nov. 18, 2006:
General John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, warned the Senate Armed Services Committee against setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, rejecting the arguments of Democrats who are pressing President Bush to start pulling out.
Abizaid also urged quick action to strengthen Iraq's government, predicting that vicious sectarian violence in Baghdad would surge out of control within four to six months unless such action was taken.
"Our troop posture needs to stay where it is" and the use of military adviser teams embedded with Iraqi army and police forces needs to be expanded.
While Democrats are pressing to begin removing American troops in the next few months, and even some Republicans have been openly critical of the war, Abizaid said it was too soon to give up on the Iraqis or to announce a timetable for starting a U.S. troop withdrawal.
"Hope is not a strategy," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. She said she saw no evidence that the Iraqi government was ready to make hard decisions, including disarming or neutralizing sectarian militias.
Asked what would happen in regards to sectarian violence if the U.S. began a troop withdrawal in four to six months, Abizaid said, "I believe it would increase." It would also undermine U.S. efforts to increase Iraqis'
confidence that their own government is capable of assuring their security, he suggested.
When pressed by Sen. Jack Reed about how much time the U.S. and Iraqi governments have to reduce the violence in Baghdad before it spirals out of control, Abizaid said, "Four to six months."
Sen. John McCain, challenged Abaizaid's analysis, stating; "I'm of course disappointed that basically you're advocating the status quo here today, which I think the American people in the last election said that is not an acceptable condition."
Abizaid countered that he was not arguing for the status quo. What was needed now, he stated, was to place more U.S. troops inside the Iraqi army and police units to train and advise them. Having visited Iraq as recently as this week, he remained optimistic that the Iraqis were capable of overcoming sharp internal differences and creating conditions for stability.
"It's certainly not as bad as the situation appeared back in August." He noted that he saw growing confidence by the Iraqis in their government, although sect-on-sect violence was still at unacceptably high levels.
Abizaid also stated that adding large numbers of U.S. troops in Iraq was not an option over the long run.
"We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect," Abizaid said. "But when you look at the overall American force pool that's available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps."
Sen. Carl Leven, the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said the administration must tell Iraq that U.S. troops will begin leaving in the next half-year.
"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months."
_____________________________ ________
-
How long do you think it will be before the helicopter evacuation of the embasy and city starts?
The election not withstanding, the reality of the situation on the ground is likely to be different than what some who voted think ought to happen. It will certainly not agree with some of the "new" electorate clammoring for a difinitive date to evacuate. I know, their minds are made up so don't confuse them with facts......
My own estimate is that the funding for Iraq will be cut no later than next November and will likely be this summer. No real basis to be able to back that up, it's just my "gut feeling" on it.
-
"You can lead a Horse to water, but you can't make it drink."
Seems like we're beating a dead horse here.
"Drink you Bastage, isn't this what you wanted?"
Mac
-
So in the end the US intervention will leave Iraq into civil war, Al-Qaeda terrorist traning ground and most likely in the end a country with a moslem extremist government applying the Sharia law. :lol
Job WELL done! :aok :rofl
You just turned Iraqi domestic trouble into a global problem.
-
Is US politics always more about finding faults with the other team than to promote your own policies?
From what I have heard here and in the media over the last couple of elections it sounds like finding dirt and faults on the others have a high priority. Maybe its only the way it seems from the outside, or is it like that? This goes both for Dems and Repubes.
-
Anyone notice the 180 between the General and the intelligence and everyone else. I think that general is full of crapola, he's playing Bush's game. Then after all he said about how we don't need troops he says sending 20k more in would get things undercontrol.
Watch both settings,... the difference in what is said is so far apart it's sickening. If he is Rummy's information source I can see why we're in the spot we're in. The guy is a dancer.
-
When the US finally pulls out of Iraq, and it falls into civil war, is that a case for the UN or must Iran invade the country? I have to wonder. I have no details on Iraq's governmental structure, and don't trust the news media to be accurate.
Certainly, the first 'plan' (if there actually was one) didn't work. Given Iraq's past and the fact that religion is intertwined into the goverment decisions I wonder if making three 'states' , one for each flavor of Islam in Iraq and giving each an equal voice would work? I suppose this is the result when different groups who are equally content to blow themselves and each other up have conflict. Can't we all just get along?
I guess the Koran doesn't help much there. Pity, really. Where's Muhammad when you really need him? Maybe some of his descendents should be running the show and settle all this mess?
The original concept was a good one, and the US (with Britian and other allies) had the opportunity to help insure stability and peace in that region. Whoops. I have always been one to support our troops and national goals, but (politics aside) there comes a time to recognize when a bigger stick isn't going to make this work. I never got the impression this Iraq invasion/governement change was very well thought out.
Regards,
Malta
-
May aswell leave now or stay forever. When the troops leave it will be a mess until they can find some sort of stabilty from within. That stability will have to come as a natural process and they cant be told how to do it by a culture they dont know or respect.
You can only export "freedom and democracy" to nation that already has it or has had it in their very recent history.
I have always been an extremly strong supporter of the attack on Afghanistan because it was a legitemate target after 9-11. After thinking about it for a few years now im starting to think that even going there was a mistake simply because we wont win there.... ever. Has nothing to do with the losses the coalition suffers but the simple fact that Bin L. has not been found and nobody has ever successfully taken Afghanistan. Technology and cool gadgets of war means sheit there too and we should do what the russians did, only sooner than they did.
-
Originally posted by stantond
When the US finally pulls out of Iraq, and it falls into civil war, is that a case for the UN or must Iran invade the country? I have to wonder. I have no details on Iraq's governmental structure, and don't trust the news media to be accurate.
Certainly, the first 'plan' (if there actually was one) didn't work. Given Iraq's past and the fact that religion is intertwined into the goverment decisions I wonder if making three 'states' , one for each flavor of Islam in Iraq and giving each an equal voice would work? I suppose this is the result when different groups who are equally content to blow themselves and each other up have conflict. Can't we all just get along?
I guess the Koran doesn't help much there. Pity, really. Where's Muhammad when you really need him? Maybe some of his descendents should be running the show and settle all this mess?
The original concept was a good one, and the US (with Britian and other allies) had the opportunity to help insure stability and peace in that region. Whoops. I have always been one to support our troops and national goals, but (politics aside) there comes a time to recognize when a bigger stick isn't going to make this work. I never got the impression this Iraq invasion/governement change was very well thought out.
Regards,
Malta
Sad part is people keep saying let the Iraqis figure it out and we pull out. There's a MAAAAAJOR flaw in that concept. Iraqis didn't start the mess, WE did. How when things get tough in our own "plans" we turn and blame them. Pulling troops out now would be a real stupid move. But then I don't know what's worse,.. Reps = Stand and lose or Dems = Cut and Run.
If there EVER was a REAL plan it would have contained 300k troops and how we would get out. The "plan" was completely non-funtional from the first minute. And this crap that we can't spare 20k more in troops out of over a million is nonsense. I think his milage is about to vary.
-
so ripley... You are saying that muslim fundamentalist extremeists were not a problem for the world until we made it so?
That maybe we should solve the problem like your country and just sit on our butts waiting for the UN or to just get over run?
I would rather get these guys all in one spot and show em they will get beat. you would rather pray they don't come and get you for a while yet.
good job.
lazs
-
But the question is: Can the US fix the mess it made if given enough time, or will the inevetable result be the same only much later and with more casualties if there is further attempt at fixing it?
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
Sad part is people keep saying let the Iraqis figure it out and we pull out. There's a MAAAAAJOR flaw in that concept. Iraqis didn't start the mess, WE did. How when things get tough in our own "plans" we turn and blame them. Pulling troops out now would be a real stupid move. But then I don't know what's worse,.. Reps = Stand and lose or Dems = Cut and Run.
If there EVER was a REAL plan it would have contained 300k troops and how we would get out. The "plan" was completely non-funtional from the first minute. And this crap that we can't spare 20k more in troops out of over a million is nonsense. I think his milage is about to vary.
Do your country a favor. Stand by the phone and wait for the call.....you know THE call. The one that's going to ask you to run the war because you obviously know what's goin on better than the Generals on the ground. Or the Generals that run the deployment rotations. Or the unit commanders who's units have allready been there 2 or 3 times wich are included in your "we can't spare 20K more in troops" quip.
The best part is you figured old Bush and rummy out, they never ever had any plan what so ever. All the Generals said "sir we need a plan" and athe administration said "no general, there can't be a plan, play it by ear until told otherwise".
-
Would you say ww2 was a bigger operation?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so ripley... You are saying that muslim fundamentalist extremeists were not a problem for the world until we made it so?
That maybe we should solve the problem like your country and just sit on our butts waiting for the UN or to just get over run?
I would rather get these guys all in one spot and show em they will get beat. you would rather pray they don't come and get you for a while yet.
good job.
lazs
There is a 100% chanse that you will never get them all in one spot and beat them so that tactic is useless. A muslim fundamentalist is not a country or spot or even any sort of axis....., its individuals spread all over with severe mental problems and sick ideas. They cant be rounded up and bombed with smart weapons.
-
nelson.. Are you saying there was no mess with the sadman? Is your memory so short?
He was a rein of terror for his own people... genocide.... attacking his neighbors (kuwait) and he had been doing his best to get nukes... He would have gotten em too I bet without intervention...
He had the fourth largest army in the world and showed that he was not afraid to use it to take away his neighbors countries.
What do you think the sadman would have done if left alone or to the care of say... norway? or the UN?
I believe that probly 10,000 of the worlds most hardcore muslim extremeist terrorists have been killed in iraq... I believe that even if iraq is split into chunks it will be better for the world.
Someone had to do something sometime soon in the region... you were unwilling and... unable to. Thank you for your concern but....
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nelson.. Are you saying there was no mess with the sadman? Is your memory so short?
He was a rein of terror for his own people... genocide.... attacking his neighbors (kuwait) and he had been doing his best to get nukes... He would have gotten em too I bet without intervention...
He had the fourth largest army in the world and showed that he was not afraid to use it to take away his neighbors countries.
What do you think the sadman would have done if left alone or to the care of say... norway? or the UN?
I believe that probly 10,000 of the worlds most hardcore muslim extremeist terrorists have been killed in iraq... I believe that even if iraq is split into chunks it will be better for the world.
Someone had to do something sometime soon in the region... you were unwilling and... unable to. Thank you for your concern but....
lazs
No need to take focus away from the issue. lazs Everyone on the planet except a few sunnies agrees tha Saddam was a tryrant that need to go.
-
soooo.... what did everyone on the planet do about it?
Maybe if all you guys had gotten behind the effort it would have been over in a year or so and the terrorists would see that the world was united against their crap...
Nope... you had to piss and moan and do your petty little UN against the US crap. drag your feet and make it as hard as you could on the one country (or so) that was doing the heavy lifting... you are still doing it..
The terrorists see the world turning against the US and no real critisism of them.. they are encouraged if not downright laughing.
Well... at least you will get an aljazira station in a language you can understand now.
Don't worry about it tho.... maybe they will let you convert.
Who knows what would have happened if the "world" hadn't folded like a cheap card table under a fat lady because they were afraid their muslims (that are not even assimilated into society) would riot or throw bombs.
I am pretty much disgusted with the "world" and it's way of dealing with a very real problem.
you have no solution but you take every opportunity to criticize the US?
your opinion is irrelevant.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...
your opinion is irrelevant.
lazs
So why are you arguing? I think that Nielsen's opinion on this topic is much more based upon facts and education than yours, which is essentially the offspring of fear, emotion and propaganda.
I hear what you say about hotrods and guns. That about sums it.
-
You speak like a politician Lazs.. Every reply is a question and you seldom or never contribute anything youself. You try desperatly to insult people rather than contribute only to fail at that too. :p
Why anyone should really bother repeating themselves to you is beyond me, but ive done it so many times myself so i guess you are good bate :D
-
so, what is you guys solution... we did something... you did nothing.
Do you believe that the way you are acting is helping or hurting the terrorists?
Do you not believe that a world united against such behavior is better and would have had better results?
You still can help but you won't. You say something has to be done and then.... you do nothing but rag on the guys who do the job.
If the terrorists threaten you somewhere you fold and appease.
I don't like the war. That is not the issue. I believe it had to happen eventually. I believe that you have no solution other than folding.
Even if you all came to a decision and a solution with your pathetic UN... it would damn sure include us doing the heavy lifting.
I have refrained all this time from saying this but I am about sick of your pathetic whining and obstructing and excuses.
lazs
-
lol.... im not sure about who is whining and complaining the most lazs.
Either way, I wont loose my temper, call people names or insinuate that they are pathetic even if i may feel that way.
Learn some self control lazs and more people may open their eyes to some of the good points you have at times.
-
I don't care if you listen to me or not. I pretty much block out the rhetoric from those with no solution anyway.
You never do say what you would do....
You criticize but you have no solution... that is what I base you being irrelevant on not....something personal.
So lay it out for us... what is norways solution to the whole mess?
lazs
-
It has been answerd in a ton of other threads but ok.
Dont go in the first place and more and more folks are beginning to realise that... finally.
As to the threat of Saddam (pre Gulf war2): Let the oppressed Iraqi people deal with it when their cup is full. It would be bloody but so is the current situation and when the current situation is over and the Iraqi people takes over then it will be as bloody as if they did it in the first place.
Change has to come from within.
That should be clear enough.
-
This seemed like a good answer (from the Denver Post this morning):
"In June, Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed by coalition forces in a raid which looked suspiciously as if it had been set up by his own uneasy allies among the Sunni and former Baathist extremists.
Last month, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered coalition forces to take down checkpoints they set up in Tharwa (formerly Sadr City) and criticized coalition attempts to arrest a *****e militia leader. (The *****e are the majority religious sect, persecuted under Saddam Hussein.)
The first event tells me the minority Sunnis (who used to be on top in Saddam's government) were finally fed up with the presence of foreign fighters who wanted to set up an Iranian-style theocracy.
The Sunnis cleared the decks to face the *****e directly - either by a deal or, if the *****e chose, by violence. The *****e responded with militia attacks.
The second event tells me that the Iraqi government is asserting the sovereignty that we officially gave them in June 2004. Whether the decision to take down the checkpoints was wise, al-Maliki wants it known that he is in charge.
Together, the two events tell me that it's time to step to one side and let both sides slug it out.
While I was on active duty in Iraq on the coalition forces staff, I wrote a paper in support of an idea that many others in and out of the military had floated: Pull coalition forces out of the cities and put them on bases in the desert. My reasoning was:
1. The Iraqis largely don't care about the desert;
2. We would be paying them rent for the desert (as we do in other places around the world where we have bases on foreign soil);
3. It would effectively protect Iraq's western and southwestern borders;
4. We would be largely out of sight to most of the population;
5. There would be few surprise attacks on us in the desert since we would see people coming for miles; and
6. That area of the world would get the message: The U.S. is not going away.
So why stay at all? Because complete abandonment would not only lead to implosion but - even worse - the destruction of Iraq as its neighbors tear it apart.
I know Iraqis. They are a brave and proud people. Of all fates, surely they do not deserve this.
Of course, if we step "outside the ring" by moving out of the populated areas and into the desert, one of two things could happen: Both sides could realize we are no longer there to offer whatever restraint we could, and the prospect of fighting to the death may sober them up, make them sit down and talk it out. Or they may choose to fight to the death.
A bloody solution? Unless we are willing to fill the country with thousands more of our troops and impose a "king's peace," yes. Unless we are prepared to maintain a Roman-style occupation, yes."
This is the right idea, I think.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so ripley... You are saying that muslim fundamentalist extremeists were not a problem for the world until we made it so?
That maybe we should solve the problem like your country and just sit on our butts waiting for the UN or to just get over run?
I would rather get these guys all in one spot and show em they will get beat. you would rather pray they don't come and get you for a while yet.
good job.
lazs
No Lazs I'm saying that Saddam kept Iraq in an iron stronghold that kept its problems domestic. Now Iraq has plenty of terrorist groups rampant and each day the fights continue they breed new trainees for Al-Qaeda. Guess who they'll be targeting? First your troops in Iraq. When they take the bus home, the terrorist will take the next on the same line.
The only way you could 'fix' the now global problem of nobody controlling Iraq is implement another Saddam to replace Saddam or well.. nuke the place from orbit.
-
interesting... so him attacking kuwait was a local problem? I say that paying attention to him (defeating him) slowed the possibility of another nut bag in the region having nukes.
If iraq goes back to being a divided country that is better for the world.
If I really felt that leaving extremist muslims alone would work as an overall solution to the problem then I would agree with you but.... In order for me to feel that way I would have to see mass muslim demonstrations against the extremist muslim violence... I know that muslims know how to demonstrate...
Nope... I think that nothing had changed in centuries of muslims meeting other religions. We are gonna have to face the unbending extremists at some point.
I symphathize with you guys solution... what was it again? oh yeah... do nothing? or wait... maybe you agree with sanctions? so long as it doesn't anger any of your muslims maybe?
lazs
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
The only way you could 'fix' the now global problem of nobody controlling Iraq is implement another Saddam to replace Saddam or well.. nuke the place from orbit.
There is another option, but according to the presidential mouthpiece, Tony Snow, it's a non-starter. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301419.html)
-
I think you are right sandman... any idea that involves states rights and a less powerfull central government is abhorent to U.S. politicans...
Wouldn't want to set a bad example for our states eh?
I mean... you show that states with divergent needs and beliefs (sorta like our red/blue states) can't be realisticaly expected to have the same controls over every aspect of their lives and where will it all end?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
interesting... so him attacking kuwait was a local problem? I say that paying attention to him (defeating him) slowed the possibility of another nut bag in the region having nukes.
If iraq goes back to being a divided country that is better for the world.
If I really felt that leaving extremist muslims alone would work as an overall solution to the problem then I would agree with you but.... In order for me to feel that way I would have to see mass muslim demonstrations against the extremist muslim violence... I know that muslims know how to demonstrate...
Nope... I think that nothing had changed in centuries of muslims meeting other religions. We are gonna have to face the unbending extremists at some point.
I symphathize with you guys solution... what was it again? oh yeah... do nothing? or wait... maybe you agree with sanctions? so long as it doesn't anger any of your muslims maybe?
lazs
So you're still sticking to the BS you were fed about Iraq being a threat to your country? ROFL! Absolutely no evidence was found to back that up after the attack. It was just a huge mistake.
Iraq was toothless after Gulf1 which was the time when their WMD was destroyed by Bush senior. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy. But now instead of Saddam you have Osama and his buddies ruling the ground there. Fair tradeoff? :rofl
Just face it, Gulf2 was a mistake of gigantic proportions and Bush Jr. will be remembered through history for this mistake.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I symphathize with you guys solution... what was it again? oh yeah... do nothing? or wait... maybe you agree with sanctions? so long as it doesn't anger any of your muslims maybe?
lazs
Why do you think American soldiers should die for the Iraqis? Why should you pay for their freedom both in lives and tax dollars? Of all the people on this bbs I would think you would be the most against this war. But just like with your job your stance on the war seems a bit hypocritical.
-
So, given that attitude, one might conclude that the fate of the oppressed within a foreign country was of no concern whatsoever to the average European or many Americans.
This goes far toward explaining why the United Nations has proven unable to take action in such obvious areas of violence and racial bloodshed as one finds in Darfur. That great international police force, which was created with such great hopes and fanfare, has degenerated into a neighborhood watch program. The only action it ever seems to take when faced with an example of naked oppression is to wring its hands and say "Why doesn't someone do something?"
I have heard some on these bbs state that the Iraqis don't deserve our help unless they are willing to do some of the fighting themselves. What an immensely callous and arrogant statement to make about the fate of an oppressed population.
It's certainly easy to pontificate about someone else taking up arms and putting their lives on the line against a murderous dictatorship while we sit comfortably in our recliners thousands of miles away. In point of fact, many of Saddam's fellow Iraqis and Kurds took up arms and fought against his rule, but without outside help their efforts were doomed. Hundreds-of-thousands of them are buried in the deserts of Iraq.
In such a case, the invasion of Iraqi was FULLY JUSTIFIED, whether or not weapons of mass destruction were ever found or not. The great tragedy of the Iraq war has not been the infliction of immense numbers of casualties on the U.S. forces, which are, in fact, the least of any war we have ever fought, but the undermining of the war effort by lingering and poisonous political hatreds at home...as well as a national population that no longer has the stomach for sustained conflict.
The f e c k less foreign policy that results from such conditions and attitudes will become readily apparent to any foreign power with hostile intent toward the U.S., and will ultimately manifest itself in more examples of aggression and defiance of international laws concerning oppression and human rights.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
So, given that attitude, one might conclude that the fate of the oppressed within a foreign country was of no concern whatsoever to the average European or many Americans.
Sadly it is only something that they can fix themselves. If the goal really was to help the poor Iraqi people then why let even worse stuff happen in other regions of the world without almost nothing beeing done.. and thats not only americas fault, but the rest of the western world. Iraq was very far down on the list when it comes to governments badness against its own people.
-
what ripley, and many euros by extension are saying is that if their neighbor is beating his wife and children and killing his pets it's really none of their concern so long as no blood is spattered upon their windows.
the opinions expressed by some of you euros really lead me to conclude that you people are a sad lot at times. how can such a large block of the world's educated population be so wrong so consistently century after century, issue after issue? I can only scratch my head and wonder.
saddam hussein al tikrity needed to go. with this last round of elections the American public has stated it has no stomach for this fight. that doesn't mean the fight was unreasonable to begin with it means the American public has become as effeminate as our euro cousins are and nothing more.
the most sensible thing to do in iraq is to break it into three parts. kurdistan, sunni and shia. that will never happen though, turkey will never allow it and the turks have been strong American allies for decades. additionally the iraqis themselves oppose this. they seem to prefer the centuries old cycles of the violence their bloody religion promulgates as opposed to any semblance of normalcy and domestic tranquility. what they are accomplishing is proving to the world that mohammadism and a democratic republic cannot co-exist.
but still there is hope. soon many more will emigrate to england and france making it the euro's problem, which is where the current problem actually began. the middle east is a series of incongrous people mashed together by the european powers at the closing of the first world war. what we Americans are doing there now is simply cleaning up after our indolent and irresponsible euro allies, as usual.
-
Nice try Storch :rofl
-
Originally posted by storch
what ripley, and many euros by extension are saying is that if their neighbor is beating his wife and children and killing his pets it's really none of their concern so long as no blood is spattered upon their windows.
Not true! We like to point and laugh while the neighbor beats his wife and children and kills his pets! :aok
-
Dont forget shooting dogs is favorite sport of glorious Yurope. Only thing more fun is marry sister. :lol
-
Originally posted by FT_Animal
Anyone notice the 180 between the General and the intelligence and everyone else. I think that general is full of crapola, he's playing Bush's game. Then after all he said about how we don't need troops he says sending 20k more in would get things undercontrol.
Watch both settings,... the difference in what is said is so far apart it's sickening. If he is Rummy's information source I can see why we're in the spot we're in. The guy is a dancer.
The Dems and many moderates want us out NOW, McCain started his presidential run by saying we needed 20,000 MORE guys, and General Abizaid, the leader of forces there, wants neither option-- hmm...kinda sounds like.."Stay the Course":lol
The point which the generals are making is that WE can't be the ones who defeat the insurgency, the Iraqis have to do it, and another division or 2 (Really, we don't HAVE too many more guys to send there ANYWAY-- in the 90's, HOW much of or Army was decommisioned? If we couldn't put a million guys on the ground, I don't see what a few thousand more could do, except make more targets) will distract the Iraqis from the goal at hand. They (US military leadership) envision a more advisory style for US forces like Afghanistan, with our forces sprinkled in with theirs. Sad thing is, the Iraqis aren't standing up, from all I've read
(edit: Powell said something to Bush before the war: "You break it, you bought it"--meaning whatever happens thereafter is OUR responsibility, and for that reason alone, we shouldn't leave)
-
In point of fact, many of Saddam's fellow Iraqis and Kurds took up arms and fought against his rule, but without outside help their efforts were doomed. Hundreds-of-thousands of them are buried in the deserts of Iraq.
You mean like the time when US led coalition gave these minorities incentive for uprisal after Gulf1 but then didn't back them up and let Saddam slaughter them under the watchful eye of coalition controllers? Oh right, must be something like that I guess. :rolleyes:
Just face it, once Kuwait oil reserves were secured, nobody gave a rats bellybutton about Kurds.
-
"while we sit comfortably in our recliners thousands of miles away".. yea, then I have to leave home and walk around outside in my neighborhood where in the past 4 months gangs have shot over a dozen people... Its the freakn wild west around here.
How many US citizens on US soil have been MURDERED or been otherwise victimized at the hands of Iraqi citizens, military or otherwise?
How much $$ were Iraqi citizens sucking out our economy while disrespecting our laws?
None and $0.00?
So here's heres a concept, protect MY fishbelly white US born tax payn'ass here in Los Angeles before going 1/2 way around the would to pick a fight with Iran's traditional enemy... then I can sit comfortably at home AND walk to corner for beer without taking my huete.
Trying to justify the epic pooch pork we have engineered is like polishing a turrd; our leaders failed to tell us accurate information, the idiots in congress compounded that FAILURE by not insuring we had all the facts before putting US troops in harms way.
Now our troops are paying the price for our "leaders", so called, screw-up and that needs to change.
Saddam knew how to keep his people in check, obviously we dont.. the touchy freely American way doesn't fly in that neighborhood, our "moral high ground" is seen as weak, they're willing to go to extremes while we follow the rules.
Maybe if we got out of the way with our "ethics" the Iraqi .gov would take the gloves off and start leaving bullet riddled bodies of insurgents laying around.
-
viking... I am against any war. I would have been against WWII but once we are in it I want to win. I think that at some point we would have to fight either iraq or iran... someone would have to in any case. Iraq attacked their neighbors... they were looking for nukes... they may or may not have had a program for more when we attacked... How would we know? they kicked out the inspectors didn't they?
I am saying that they or some other oil rich mid east country was gonna be a pain in the butt eventualy... I think that they are all pretty much interchangeable... we fight the terrorists fundamentalists no matter what country or despot we are taking on... iraq as good as any... better than most. Fight on our terms not theirs.
The rest of the world is hiding their head in the sand or being hypocrites... they know fundamentalists are gonna be a problem but they are too selfish or scared or anti American to do anything... call me a hypocrite? You couldn't prove I was a hypocrite with my job and you aren't doing a veyr good job here.
Sure.. you don't like to be called weak and inefectual and hypocritical but it is fine for you to second guess and criticize the few countries that are doing the work?
Hell... looks to me like one muslim riot and you guys would all convert. would be hard to give up the drinking but you could do it....
You have no solution... you sit on your hands or some UN committee and whine about the US because it is easy to do.
lazs
-
Good post Marine!
-
marine... I have no problem with that.. I think that we should protect our own citizens or at least give us the ability to. your liberal blue area constantly votes to increase the problem and disarm you.
The solution to the probhlem you talk about would cost allmost nothing... simply make it a mandatory 1 year jail sentance for hiring an illegal and start arresting and convicting employers..
put a couple dozen in prison and the flow of illegals will allmost stop....no work no draw. those who continue to come for the crime will stick out like a sore thumb but...
Big cities, because of the liberal metrosexuals who live in em, will allways be crapholes of crime and dirt. You vote to make it so. if not you then at least ten times you in your neighbors... If you don't like the government of the locals then move. That is what I do. Why would you live somewhere that fostered the things you claim to be against?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
How long do you think it will be before the helicopter evacuation of the embasy and city starts?
The election not withstanding, the reality of the situation on the ground is likely to be different than what some who voted think ought to happen. It will certainly not agree with some of the "new" electorate clammoring for a difinitive date to evacuate. I know, their minds are made up so don't confuse them with facts......
My own estimate is that the funding for Iraq will be cut no later than next November and will likely be this summer. No real basis to be able to back that up, it's just my "gut feeling" on it.
Confuse who with Facts??
Rumsfield??...the person who couldn't admit the actual situation in Iraq??
Are you of the opinion that the handling of the occupation to this point has been succesful?
What is your plan for success, Mav? More troops, less troops, pull-out, indefinite stay, at what cost in Billions do we say the investment didn't work or is working? At some point, there has to be recognition of an ACHIEVABLE goal, because if there isn't you have meandering (the current situation).
What do you think, now, is a realistic, ACHIEVABLE goal for the US in Iraq. Not for the Iraqi's, because deep down, none of us give two ****s for them, but for the US.
You do realize we had Saddam's arse contained after the first gulf war, and that was better than what we have now.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
viking... I am against any war. I would have been against WWII but once we are in it I want to win
Naw, you weren't against this war. You were all for it back in 2003. If you think I'm calling you a liar … I guess you're right.
And here's a golden oldie from you:
Originally posted by lazs2 in March 2003
dowding.. one minor correction... iraq will not be a terrorist state once sadman and his ilk are removed.
lazs
lol I don't see how you could have been more wrong!
Originally posted by lazs2
Sure.. you don't like to be called weak and inefectual and hypocritical but it is fine for you to second guess and criticize the few countries that are doing the work?
Yup.
Originally posted by lazs2
You couldn't prove I was a hypocrite with my job and you aren't doing a veyr good job here.
What's to prove? The hypocrisy is glaringly obvious. Lazs the outspoken anti-government … government employee. :aok
Originally posted by lazs2
Hell... looks to me like one muslim riot and you guys would all convert. would be hard to give up the drinking but you could do it....
Lol no Muslim riots here Lazs. And I'll never give up drinking! :D
Originally posted by lazs2
You have no solution... you sit on your hands or some UN committee and whine about the US because it is easy to do.
I have a better one … I'll sit in my sofa while the US pull out of Iraq after sacrificing so much blood and money on that futile endeavor, and I'll watch you squirm. I might even throw in an 'I told you so' or two. :)
-
And in on a related topic I have a bottle of J. Walker black label standing next to my monitor. Its been a few months since i have had the time to enjoy a drink so its about time.
Have a nice weekend. :aok
-
So Marine, what do you want the government to do with the military, besides it's actual purpose of projecting our power and will around the world?
Patrol the streets and make arrests? Once you allow the government to start doing THAT, there's no limit to the number of "domestic" uses they'ld be able to find for the military.
No thank you. Vote for people who will allow you to protect your own ass....because according to the courts, the government has no obligation to protect you as an individual, only an obligation to provide a collective security. If you call them in an emergency and they don't take your plea for help seriously, you can't sue them.
If you don't like the neighborhood get out of it. No one is twisting your arm and making you live in an urban area.
Personally, you might be able to hog-tie me and drag me to a metropolitan area...but I'd gnaw through the ropes if necessary to get out. Why should I run the risk of being brainwashed into being a lemming?
Saddam "kept his people in check" by murdering dissenters. Yep, there was certainly no reason to take him out.
Our "ethics" might be an impediment to the implementation of order in Iraq, but I see no acceptable alternative for us. The Iraqi government is attempting to operate within these ethical guidelines, but is finding it difficult to do given the morally repugnant methods being employed by the murderous Baathist insurgency. Implementing a new way of dealing with the age-old sectarian strife of that region is certainly worth our time, money, and blood.
Some things ARE worth fighting for.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Some things ARE worth fighting for.
Indeed...
It seems we draw the line at defferent places tho.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Indeed...
It seems we draw the line at defferent places tho.
so you think norway should send a invading/occupying army to dufar to save the people there? I vote yes.
-
If Iraq is a legitemate target for the purpose of "getting rid of that nasty Saddam" then Darfur would sertainly be.
-
nilsen, the US is busy right now , why doesn't norway save darfur? And do something about north korea and iran wile your at it.
-
Im afraid our armynavyairforce is busy in Afghanistanistan-stan, Lebanon-istan and up north with the russian-istanian fishermen atm but we will get right on it when we have the time and cruisade like spirit needed.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Confuse who with Facts??
Rumsfield??...the person who couldn't admit the actual situation in Iraq??
Are you of the opinion that the handling of the occupation to this point has been succesful?
What is your plan for success, Mav? More troops, less troops, pull-out, indefinite stay, at what cost in Billions do we say the investment didn't work or is working? At some point, there has to be recognition of an ACHIEVABLE goal, because if there isn't you have meandering (the current situation).
What do you think, now, is a realistic, ACHIEVABLE goal for the US in Iraq. Not for the Iraqi's, because deep down, none of us give two ****s for them, but for the US.
You do realize we had Saddam's arse contained after the first gulf war, and that was better than what we have now.
First off there isn't any chance of swaying your opinion in any case on any of these points so I'm not going to spend much time doing so. I'll just try to respond to the "reasonable" parts of your post. :p
My point is this, election "mandate" or whatever the incoming power party will call it does not have to match reality on the streets of Iraq. If they don't hear what they like they should at least listen to it and then perhaps revise their "lectoral mandate" opinions rather than full speed ahead with the "mandate". Reality should always trump preconceived opinions wehn they clash.
As to the strategy, hell there are far better military minds than mine that have been unable to crack the non conventional warfare nut. The options are fairly straight forward, either fight the insurgent war with a conventional force by meeting force on force when possible or failing that simply react the best you can in a wear one side down to the end format. BTW that is the insurgent strategy of choice in any combat with the US at this time since Viet Nam proved it's efficacy. The real battle never was on the ground there, it was always in the media and public relations area in the US. The same holds true today (IMO).
Another "strategy" with a conventional force is to simply raze everything. Not too good for nation building ya know. It also has a tendency to make us less than welcome in other places.
A third option is to use unconventional force against another unconventional force. It's a bit difficult to set up but may have better specific targetting oportunities. This is where you can blend the conventional force "hammer" with the unconventional trigger. Somewhat similar to what is going on in Afghanistan. Please note that again according to the media there is no victory in sight there either.
The other strategy and the one that seems to have been selected in Iraq was to fight option one while setting up the "home team" to take it over later on. It really didn't work in Viet Nam and I'm not sure (IMO no one else knows either) it will work oin Iraq. "Nation building" with it's encumbant infrastructure has to happen first before the "organic" forces are ready to take over. In the case of a "civil war" situation it's got major problems.
Given the situation we have in that region where they have been fighting among themselves for centuries it's hard to think a unified "popular" govt. will be able to handle the region / country.
What I do know is that a fixed, anounced timetable is just setting the date for the loss of the entire conflict. All the oposition has to do is simply hold back and wait until we leave, knowing there won't be any interest on the part of the US public to go back, before they move in and finsh the job.
Will Iraq as a country survive? Possibly but it will likely be another sectarian regime. Will it self divide? I don't think so as there aren't enough evenly matched factions to be able to stake out and hold a specific territory similar to a warloard scenario.
What is my idea of how the whole thing could have been handled? I favor a method that is against our laws. It would, IMO have worked the best but it wouldn't be possible for our govt. to do it legally, by our laws. That would have been a coup with our help setting up an interim govt. with someone who would be willing to step down oince an open election was held. Likely? Who the hell knows. Cheap compared to what we have now? You bet it would be in both money and more importantly, lives. Even during GW2's major combat we could have had our "puppet" ready to take over as long as it would be an Iraqi who had some military and political connection. Kind of hard given saddumbs handling of the country. His opposition had a tendency to discorporate.
Of course "my" method would have made us much like an earlier euro power setting up a quisling to run the country in the mean time. It kind of grates on the country's ideals much less laws. While it would have certain advantages I have to say even I couldn't and wouldn't endorse it.
Given the situation we have now there are limited options. I won't go into the justification or reasons for being there save it was purely in our country's self interest. We did not, and do not want a unified arab world as long as we and the rest of the globe are dependant on oil.
Our options are:
Simply bring everyone back right now as fast as secure transport can be arrainged.
Ramp up the force and pressure on the insurgents accepting the cost both in lives and $.
Maintain the force level and bring up the Iraqi forces to speed (assuming we have a way to screen out insurgent sympathizers better than we ahve been. Impossible task that it is.)
What I do know is that option 1 is a guaranteed loser with an unstable Iraq and a possible opening for Iran or another "interested" country to take it over.
Options 2 and 3 are both unpleasant, but in the future of the US, I believe better options than #1. This is based on an understanding of the US remaining a global power, active in the commerce and politics of the world with respect to the country's self interests rather than a pure isolationist state and withdrawing. Frankly given the need to maintain our current technological levels I don't see any isolationist policy being successful for any industrialized country much less the US.
This was far more time than I had intended to put into it but given our previous squad relationship I felt it was proper to respond assuming you really wanted to have a discussion. (Rather unusual on this BBS anyhow)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
If Iraq is a legitemate target for the purpose of "getting rid of that nasty Saddam" then Darfur would sertainly be.
and is except that in darfur they are only committing genocide against black christians. then there is the disturbing reality that there is no crude.
-
Mav,
I did want to have a discussion, and I thank you for your response.
You hit the nail on the head in the middle of your post.
Given the situation we have in that region where they have been fighting among themselves for centuries it's hard to think a unified "popular" govt. will be able to handle the region / country.
That is the realization that we should be basing our go forward strategy on. Whiich means, it doesn't matter what option we employ, the end result will be the same.
That is what I think most people miss when they try to figure out how to "win" the situation in Iraq. Which was the point of my very reasonable, in it's entirety, post :p
Mine is not a defeatist nor cut and run attitude....it is pragmatic. The best solution was in place before we invaded....a Secular Government that created stability within Iraq, and we had it contained, and at far less a cost in lives and money.
I can't argue with your preferred method, and I would have been in favor of that as well.
The US will remain a world power irresptective of the options employed in Iraq. We will see that prestige erode if we continue or duplicate the folly with which we went into Iraq.
I think assuming erosion of US power projection based on pulling out of Iraq is a sort of false or bruised national ego thing. There maybe a temporary setback, as with Vietnam, but in the long run, it matters more what we do in the long run.
-
these threads get old don't they?
why bother?
the yellow bellied american has spoken ... the terrorists have won in Iraq and the lives we lost there will be for zero ...
-
viking... nice cherry picking... you would think that with all the posts I make you could come up with some quotes that were better...
Nope... WWI and WWII for instance... if all you eurobarbarians would have just stuck with killing each other... we could have stayed out but you guys couldn't do that.
Call me a liar if you want but I don't want any war unless there is no other option. Your options was to... well... send letters through the UN. To us, the UN is as inefectual as your weak country. We can count on you for... well.. nothing.. In a real war it doesn't matter tho because we can just ignore you in any case.
And yes... I believe that you will never give up drinking. That part you are probly truthful about. It is a matter of national pride in your country I think.
As for me being against government... I am against big government and I want limited government and a small central government. Any services that are provided should be enterprise funds and open to public bidding. Like vouchers for schools should be.
My job is a needed local (not central government job) that is an enterprise fund (fees are paid for my service and used only for the service) and is bid on... you are welcome to bid against me... I win so far. some day I won't. No big deal... I have been a private contractor for 15 years... only done this for 13... I have been offered positions by many private firms and other cities.. nature of the beast... not a lot of competition..
So... I am calling you a liar. You claim to know what I have said yet you lie about it. I can only think that you are either stupid, a liar or both.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
these threads get old don't they?
why bother?
the yellow bellied american has spoken ... the terrorists have won in Iraq and the lives we lost there will be for zero ...
There are plenty of openings for private security contractors in Iraq to help protect and build democracy....why aren't you there??
-
Originally posted by Stringer
There are plenty of openings for private security contractors in Iraq to help protect and build democracy....why aren't you there??
cause i'd miss your tid bits of wisdom here ...
-
You squirm good Lazs. I'm going to enjoy this! :D
-
Originally posted by Eagler
cause i'd miss your tid bits of wisdom here ...
I'd say I'd miss yours, but unfortunately you leave none to miss.....
-
viking, that doesn't sound like squirming to me. he pretty much nailed you and all you can do is :D
-
Originally posted by storch
viking, that doesn't sound like squirming to me. he pretty much nailed you and all you can do is :D
Hmm.. with this kind of quotes:
Originally posted by lazs2 in March 2003
dowding.. one minor correction... iraq will not be a terrorist state once sadman and his ilk are removed.
lazs
you are left with nothing but an age old saying: caught with his pants down.
-
not so fast, saddam may be removed but his "ilk" are still fighting. But not for long, as soon as the democrats "redeploy" the US troops out of Iraq the fighting will be over and we will have peace in our time. Murtha told me so.
-
no reply from me necessary, good point john9001
-
It would have been a good post unless it was flawed.
Al-Qaeda was not active in Iraq under Saddams rule. Now IT has the rule.
And each new day of violence will breed more dead fathers and fundamentalist sons and daughters to fight for the cause. Saddams Iraq was an absess full of puss. Now the absess is broken, but instead of curing it went gangrenous because outside elements got in.
If day 1 predictions are accurate, Iraq will end up as being a fundamentalist government which will actively repursue WMD but only this time fully also support Osama and his cause. Bad stuff, seriously bad stuff.
-
Originally posted by storch
viking, that doesn't sound like squirming to me. he pretty much nailed you and all you can do is :D
Oh Lazs just can't stand to be reminded that he gets his paycheck from American taxes. Some libertarian indeed, getting his livelihood from a socialist system. However he isn't the only one I look forward to watching squirm in the near future. You Storch is also a prime target! :)
Back in 2003 when Hortlund said you were lucky to have such a great leader as President Bush:
Originally posted by storch
We aren't lucky. We are blessed beyond measure.
:rofl
Originally posted by storch
I am able to laugh at that and my blood pressure wouldn't rise. I know beyond any measure that President Bush is the best leader in the world today. Given all the whining , howling and knashing of teeth your effeminates produce lately this is really off the chain. The litmus test for me is how the euros react to our leaders. This one is a winner even though for me he is to moderate. I can't wait for a real con to get into the White House. Of course, sadly this will never happen.
God bless America, God bless President Bush. Pray for the euros. They sorely need revival.
four more years.
:rofl
Originally posted by storch
I think the point is missed, we wanted Iraq. we took Iraq. who knows maybe you will be next. who? you! yes you! WMD be damned we need the parking spaces for our next excursion into the region. I'm sure the fossil fuels are a nice perk as well.
Some of you guys are so naive. we are finally on the path of world conquest.
Some world conquest! Can't even occupy a couple of third world nations, getting beaten by cave dwellers! :rofl
Originally posted by storch
We will find, manipulate conditions, control and anhiliate them because we are the greatest power on earth. resistence is futile.
How Borg of you! :rofl :rofl :rofl
Originally posted by storch
I think we are there to secure a steady and abundant source of oil for ourselves and our allies. if we have an added bonus that we deny the french and the germans that opportunity, so much the better. he who controls the oil controls the world. we are after all the last superpower it's nice to flex. it's nice to see the euros squirm. perhaps then we may be able rely less on the saudis for our oil and also replace their heavy investments in our markets thereby placing ourselves in a situation where if they were to take their (saudi) money to the eurot markets we might not be so badly impacted. this is my view but what do I know? I'm mighty glad that we are there also. The invasion had my full support for the above stated reason. As side note kicking saddam in the teeth was good. we need to roll on in the region and N. Africa as well. there are other sources of fossil fuel, ya know.
Who's squirming now Storch? Sure isn't Europeans! :rofl
All this fun from just the first 3 pages of your posts. 60 or so more to go, but I'll pace myself. Got to make this last a bit. :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Who's squirming now Storch? Sure isn't Europeans! :rofl
All this fun from just the first 3 pages of your posts. 60 or so more to go, but I'll pace myself. Got to make this last a bit. :)
what have any of those posts to do with the current US position and iraq? I fail to see your point. the fact remains that we will be in iraq as long as they are a source of crude, just as we have been in the region since the 1930's. The US rules the world purely and simply, be thankful we don't use our considerable military ability as some of you euros would if you had the power. the legislature may be in democratic control currently but it is certainly not out of balance. I think we will be in iraq for many years to come. furthermore I believe we will be expanding our influence even more throughout the region. lastly I'm flattered you took time out of your day to research my opinions. thank you. sadly you won't see me reciprocate in kind I find you very to be predictably euro and of little consequence. you are dismissed now, carry on your research.
-
viking... I don't think you understand a fee over a tax or enterprise funds. In most of America... we pay a fee for things like water and garbage and sewer... it is based on use... a user fee...
Now, I am all for user fees. I have said so many times but they need to be enterprise funds and they need to be open for bid. The money paid by user fees should go only to that service. since I have said this many times... that makes you either a liar (as you claim I am) or... stupid.
As for sadman and his ilk? Yep... we need to fight em. At this point I am thinking that these toolshedders and nutjobs can't really get along with each other so we should just divide their country up into two or three chunks.
Is there anything else you need cleared up?
lazs
-
Originally posted by storch
what have any of those posts to do with the current US position and iraq? I fail to see your point. the fact remains that we will be in iraq as long as they are a source of crude, just as we have been in the region since the 1930's
Naw, you'll flee from Iraq like you fled Vietnam. The way things are going they might even throw you out. Your campaign in Iraq has been one big blunder after another and once again you prove that you don't have the stomach for a prolonged conflict. This war has shown the world just how shortsighted and weak America has become.
Originally posted by storch
The US rules the world purely and simply, be thankful we don't use our considerable military ability as some of you euros would if you had the power
LOL hardly. Each day that passes you make yourselves more irrelevant; your economy relying more and more on foreign loans and investments. America could sink into the ocean right now and the rest of the world would hardly take notice. It would be just like 9/11; we'd look at the news and say "oh, that's too bad" while sipping our morning coffee. I'm one of the few that would actually miss you. :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Naw, you'll flee from Iraq like you fled Vietnam.
you need a refresher course on the vietman war, i would suggest you start with "operation linebacker two" and the "paris peace accords".
-
I don't think so; all I need to remember is that picture of that last Huey lifting of from the US embassy with Vietnamese collaborators hanging on to the skids.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I don't think so; all I need to remember is that picture of that last Huey lifting of from the US embassy with Vietnamese collaborators hanging on to the skids.
that photo was taken two years after the north was forced to sign a peace treaty that they then broke.
-
Interesting. Iraq was forced to sign a peace treaty in 1991 which you then broke. Even President Bush acknowledges the similarities with the Vietnam War.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Interesting. Iraq was forced to sign a peace treaty in 1991 which you then broke. Even President Bush acknowledges the similarities with the Vietnam War.
i don't know how you can be so wrong about so many things, saddam agreed to a cease fire in 1991 and then saddam broke every condition of the cease fire for 12 years, that is why the USA invaded.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i don't know how you can be so wrong about so many things, saddam agreed to a cease fire in 1991 and then saddam broke every condition of the cease fire for 12 years, that is why the USA invaded.
That's not even remotely the reason that your leadership gave when they did, now is it? :D Seems like new reasons pop up as things progress. Storch hit the spot though, oil reserves.
-
Originally posted by john9001
that photo was taken two years after the north was forced to sign a peace treaty that they then broke.
Wait, what?
That was not an embassy. That was 21 Gia Long St., Pittman Apartments in Saigon. That was an Air America chopper loading up CIA folks and press whose offices were in that building.
What peace treaty are you referring to?
i don't know how you can be so wrong about so many things, saddam agreed to a cease fire in 1991 and then saddam broke every condition of the cease fire for 12 years, that is why the USA invaded.
[/b]
My, aren't we delusional. Was the onus on us to invade?
-
<>
thats what peace treaty.
i feel like a history teacher, bueller? bueller? :confused:
-
So you signed a peace treaty with North-Vietnam. But even when the North-Vietnamese didn't honor the treaty you still left your ally, the South-Vietnamese to fend for themselves. In other words: You fled.
When you leave the fledgling Iraqi government to fend for itself (and you will), I expect nothing less than a huge ceremony with lots of smiling politicians and signing of documents. Transferring all legal responsibilities to the Iraqis before you flee with your tails between your legs.
-
Originally posted by Viking
So you signed a peace treaty with North-Vietnam. But even when the North-Vietnamese didn't honor the treaty you still left your ally, the South-Vietnamese to fend for themselves. In other words: You fled.
time-line 1973-1975:
#Nixon forces the signing with "linebacker two" the 24 hour unrestricted bombing of the north
# Nixon resigns because of watergate
# the democratic controlled US congress cuts off all aid to the south
#north invades the south, the southern army/air force is in poor condition because of lack of aid, pres Ford refuses to send in american troops/air craft that were waiting off shore, the south falls.
#media claims america defeated.
-------------------------
yes, the some thing will happen to Iraq, incoming democratic speaker of the house Pelosi said "i will do everything in my power to get the US out of IRAQ"
take notes, there will be a pop quiz.
-
well... even if the lefties here force us to stop funding iraq like they did vietnam.... no matter what else happens...
We can take comfort in knowing we will still never be as impotent as a country who was last powerful when dragonsheads were carved on longships and fashionable wear was fur skirts and helmets with animal horns on em.
lazs
-
viking kitty,
the only error committed during vietnam is being repeated in iraq. that error is being committed by the politicos. the only way to win a war is to allow the military to execute the war. the concept is simple. bomb the enemy into submission and then set up shop just like we did in europe sixty plus years ago.
the United States military has never lost a war and few battles.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... even if the lefties here force us to stop funding iraq like they did vietnam.... no matter what else happens...
We can take comfort in knowing we will still never be as impotent as a country who was last powerful when dragonsheads were carved on longships and fashionable wear was fur skirts and helmets with animal horns on em.
lazs
Some would say more balls than brain, though. :D
-
Originally posted by storch
what ripley, and many euros by extension are saying is that if their neighbor is beating his wife and children and killing his pets it's really none of their concern so long as no blood is spattered upon their windows.
So, what are your thoughts on far worse atrocities currently taking place in
Rwanda?
Darfur?
Somalia?
China?
Brazilian interior?
Chiapas State?
what did you do to suggest US companied divest in American business that opened business in South Africa?
Moreover, did you raise your voice in protest in 1988 when Saddam was in cahoots with the US, who gave him satellite imagery so he could use his chemical weapons (that were supplied privately by US companies)
Let me venture a guess: No.
How long have you been farting into the same couch was these issues were being raised?
:aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... even if the lefties here force us to stop funding iraq like they did vietnam.... no matter what else happens...
We can take comfort in knowing we will still never be as impotent as a country who was last powerful when dragonsheads were carved on longships and fashionable wear was fur skirts and helmets with animal horns on em.
lazs
You're probably referring to Vikings, who in actuality, never had animal horns fashioned to their helmets. you probably learned that ultimately from television or the big screen, which is where you seem to find most of your data to support your opinions.
If you're going to make an argument, please try to find factual, accurate data first. I'd be willing to give you some credit for even a sophomoric attempt
-
redbottom... for the sake of satire the image of horn wearing vikings was a good one... everyone (including you) seemed to get it.
In fact... research shows that while not common... It was indeed possible that some vikings wore animal horn ornaments on their headgear..
If you are going to be your normal prissy self you should try to pick bettter battles.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
If you're going to make an argument, please try to find factual, accurate data first. I'd be willing to give you some credit for even a sophomoric attempt
i was trying to avoid saying anything about the way norway rolled over when the germans invaded norway in world war two but you forced me to bring it up, happy now?
at least the french put up a fight against the germans.
and if the evil USA did not invade europe in WW2 norway still might be occupied by germany.
how was that for a "sophomoric attempt"?
-
too bad they couldn't have just criticized the germans to death.
lazs
-
What atrocities are currently taking place in Rwanda?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
What atrocities are currently taking place in Rwanda?
They are sacrificing security for freedom. Or is it sacrificing freedom for security? It's hard to keep slogans straight at times.
:p
-
Originally posted by storch
viking kitty,
the only error committed during vietnam is being repeated in iraq. that error is being committed by the politicos. the only way to win a war is to allow the military to execute the war. the concept is simple. bomb the enemy into submission and then set up shop just like we did in europe sixty plus years ago.
Well you did bomb Iraq into submission and set up shop, so what's stopping you from winning?
Originally posted by storch
the United States military has never lost a war and few battles.
No I guess not. Your military just wasn't able to win for 11 years against rice eating, barely clothed straw-hut dwellers. I can understand why the American public got tired of it.
Originally posted by john9001
i was trying to avoid saying anything about the way norway rolled over when the germans invaded norway in world war two but you forced me to bring it up, happy now?
at least the french put up a fight against the germans.
Seeing how Norway fought the Germans for longer than France I must conclude that your level of education is … as expected. :)
Norway was in fact the nation Germany had to fight the longest to conquer.
-
viking kitty,
the Unites States military did not lose in vietnam the johnson administration lost in vietnam. by the time president nixon was handed that bird's nest there was little that could be done. having just typed that I contend that if the nixon administration had given the pentagon carte blanche authorization to win the conflict we would have been out of there in sixty days with the whole region as a colony.
-
I guess we need to define "win".
In vietnam we controlled 90% of the hamlets in the south.. we never lost any battle in southern territory. That was how it was when we left.
In Iraq.. we control the entire country and no army opposes us. the government of the entire country wants us there to help police terrorists and no uniformed soldiers of any opposition dare to confront us in that country.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess we need to define \"win\".
In Iraq.. we control the entire country and no army opposes us. the government of the entire country wants us there to help police terrorists and no uniformed soldiers of any opposition dare to confront us in that country.
lazs
Guess all is fine there then :)
-
Originally posted by storch
having just typed that I contend that if the nixon administration had given the pentagon carte blanche authorization to win the conflict we would have been out of there in sixty days with the whole region as a colony.
I think the Chinese and Soviets would have had something to say about that, but that's a discussion for a different thread.
Originally posted by lazs2
I guess we need to define "win".
In vietnam we controlled 90% of the hamlets in the south.. we never lost any battle in southern territory. That was how it was when we left.
In Iraq.. we control the entire country and no army opposes us. the government of the entire country wants us there to help police terrorists and no uniformed soldiers of any opposition dare to confront us in that country.
lazs
In Vietnam the Viet-Cong controlled the countryside with the government forces and US barely managing to defend the major population centers. Much like Iraq now.
The VC did not wear uniforms and resorted to ambush tactics and terrorism. Much like the insurgents in Iraq now.
The local Vietnamese population was divided in their support to the warring parties. Much like the Iraqis now.
The VC was supported both with material and fighters from neighboring countries. Much like the insurgency in Iraq now.
North Vietnam was just itching to directly intervene on the side of their likeminded in the South, and they finally did just that. Much like Iran is itching now.
China and Russia supported North Vietnam with weapons, much like they do now with Iran.
-
viking... a good book for you to read is "A better war" I believe that everyone would agree that was involved that by 71 with Abrahms at the helm we controlled not only the population centers but the hamlets and roads. We did this by funding the south militia units.
The south lost because, while we stopped all funding, the commie countries continued to fund the north.. the south fought very bravely with very little resources.. we abondoned them by signing on to a treaty that we knew was not worth the paper it was written on.
In iraq... who are we fighting? Seems they are fighting each other. There is no regular army that opposses us. There is not even a faction that is against us so much as against each other. they hate each other more than us.. the people that hate us are terrorists from all over the muslim world who come to fight and die. They also help the countries factions kill each other.
And what is happening? treaties are being signed between the iraq government and syria and iran.. the iraq government is being recognized.. syria and iran have promised to not allow the terrorists to base in their countries..
Perhaps that will do it. Maybe it will take a partitioning of the country..
No matter what... I am glad that the sadman is gone. I am glad that the worlds terrorists gather in iraq for our soldiers to kill.
lazs