Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 20, 2006, 09:53:41 AM
-
Per the latest Pentagon report, we have have 3 options. Post which option we should take, or post your option.
Mine: Go long.
"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.
"Go Long" -- calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.
The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.
"Go Home", the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.
Full story here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249_pf.html
-
Go long, definitely. Although with the current rate of sectarian murders the locals might wipe themselves out before that plan is fully implemented.
-
Go long. Get our men and women out of Iraq asap. We have taken down Sadaam and given the Iraqis the opportunity to choose thier own gov't. The final thing we need to do imo is to give them the ability to police and defend themselves, then our job is done.
-
i vote for full-blown and bloody civil war, then the USA can sit back with the rest of the world and say how terrible it all is and that somebody should do something to stop the killing of innocent women and childern.
maybe the great and wonderful UN can help?
-
I vote GO FOR THE OIL!
-
I like "Go Big" best of all in concept, except I wonder if you could ever go big enough. With a fairly unified country and resistance, go big could work. But there are too many factions with to much internal drive and too much outside support to be comfortable with final success. Of course, that also porks the whole "Go Long" thing.
IMO, the only way to keep the unnatural and artificial creation that is Iraq together involves: "Back to the Future." We install a cruel dictator with perhaps a Baathist flavor and turn a blind eye while he cleans house.
Making more sense, is the old but often ignored concept of "Divide and Conquer," where we slice up Iraq into three common sense parts and try to work out some resource sharing scheme. For a downside, the Turks would hate it and the Iranians would influence most of the wealth and stability could not be assured.
Cut and run may make the most sense, unfortunately, especially if we focus those resources on Afghanistan, which has fewer divisions and may still be winnable.
Charon
-
Originally posted by john9001
i vote for full-blown and bloody civil war, then the USA can sit back with the rest of the world and say how terrible it all is and that somebody should do something to stop the killing of innocent women and childern.
maybe the great and wonderful UN can help?
(http://www.bartcop.com/mission-accomplished.jpg)
-
Go big, then Go long.
-
Go big has a chance of working, go long doesn't. Go long puts most of the onus on the Iraqis, and they are not loyal to Iraq, but to various tribal and religious affiliations.
Go long will end up exactly the same as go home, except with better trained death squads.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
(http://www.bartcop.com/mission-accomplished.jpg)
sorry, the "mission accomplished" refered to the ship which had just finished it's tour of duty in the ME and was comming back to it's home port for refiting and retraining.
-
^^^hehe, right. :rolleyes: Notice that the banner is removed on the whitehouse web site now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u2ITs4yIAE&eurl
So, options one and three rejected by the group.
That leaves: Go Long--which sounds like "cut and run" camouflaged by saying "Oh we didn't really pull out, we left advisors!! Last gasp by a failing administration. Gets the guys out of there without sounding like a Democrat. Pathetic.
There are several other better options out there, we should look at them rather than this thinly veiled cut and run strategy.
-
Originally posted by john9001
sorry, the "mission accomplished" refered to the ship which had just finished it's tour of duty in the ME and was comming back to it's home port for refiting and retraining.
I know.. but its still funny.
Did you know the whitehouse made the poster for the navy?
-
Go home.
-
Go Home then after the radicals take over Go Nucular
-
During the Vietnam conflict, they used the same warnings. Failure meant dire consequences for the USA.
It wasn't true then and I doubt that it is true now.
-
I have nothing good to say about GeeDubya. The guy has let us all down.
:cry
-
Sandy,
Viet Nam didn't have the trade and economic implications that exist in the ME.
In another thread I had already stated I thought the only real option was the go long one. No change at this point in time.
-
For those of you that say go home....
What if the same scenario held true in Japan, insurgency and uprisings when our troops were rebuilding the place...
In Germany, same....
Would going home been the answer there as well?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
For those of you that say go home....
What if the same scenario held true in Japan, insurgency and uprisings when our troops were rebuilding the place...
In Germany, same....
Would going home been the answer there as well?
Yes indeed. Those countries started the war. If they didnt want the allied troops to stay and rebuild then they should have been granted that wish.
-
Go Nuke
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes indeed. Those countries started the war. If they didnt want the allied troops to stay and rebuild then they should have been granted that wish.
Ditto.
-
Go Long is not an option. War wears on a public, they don't like it and turn against it over time as the body bags(and horror stories) keep coming home. You need the support of the public for war, plain and simple.
In this same time period ww2 was in the history books. How the president could think 12 years was an option is beyond me, he is learning the hard way.
-
Go big would just be seen as an American occupation for good and cause more harm, go long is the only option really, even then all it will achieve is more insurgents infiltrating the iraqi military undercover.
-
Originally posted by Horn
^^^hehe, right. :rolleyes: Notice that the banner is removed on the whitehouse web site now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u2ITs4yIAE&eurl
Notice how the guy in the video you linked to is a total liar.
My youtube = strongar!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRHki5P6fc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRHki5P6fc)
-
Go Home. The muslim people are incapable of freedom.
-
Originally posted by Ball
Go big would just be seen as an American occupation for good and cause more harm, go long is the only option really.
Do you realize how hypocritical that statement is?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Do you realize how hypocritical that statement is?
Maybe i could have been more clear? I think that going big could be seen by Iraqi's as a permanent occupation by American forces and cause more trouble with insurgency in Iraq and from the surrounding countries.
"for good" means permanent.
Going long and training the Iraqi forces would mean a huge recruiting drive - insurgents would get recruited into the security forces and destroy it from within.
-
Originally posted by Ball
Maybe i could have been more clear? I think that going big could be seen by Iraqi's as a permanent occupation by American forces and cause more trouble with insurgency in Iraq and from the surrounding countries.
And staying long wouldn't? The longer you stay, the more permanent it becomes
Going long and training the Iraqi forces would mean a huge recruiting drive - insurgents would get recruited into the security forces and destroy it from within.
Wouldn't that mean going long would be bad?
-
I'm sort of with Charon (who has had an educated view on this since the get-go).
My view is split it into three and Go Big on the part we want most.
Also the Kurds seem to know what they want so I would like to see them separated off and helped but I'm sure Turkey wouldn't like that too much and we need to keep them on-side because of future need of access to the ex-soviet countries.
Go Home and let them kill each other is about the only other option but would probably result in a Taliban-like dictatorship IMHO.
To imagine we can instill democracy in Iraq is IMO completely bizarre and always has been.
-
go big
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Notice how the guy in the video you linked to is a total liar.
My youtube = strongar!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRHki5P6fc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkRHki5P6fc)
Liar? Really? I saw the edited video. See if you can.
-
should have been "go big" from the begining, but its too late to "go big" now, so the only option is "go long"...
our allies :mad:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
For those of you that say go home....
What if the same scenario held true in Japan, insurgency and uprisings when our troops were rebuilding the place...
In Germany, same....
Would going home been the answer there as well?
you have to go back agian a few decades later and do it again.......wooowoooo WWII all over again (ie WWI wasnt cleaned up properly hence WWII)
-
I like go big, and if not that, then go home. I think a fourth idea could be a combination of sorts. "Get Tough"
Get tough with the current leaders In Iraq. They either help crack down, or we leave them to the wolves and jackals. They have to be held to account and not catered too. They are trying to play the game both ways......trying to tip-toe around with insugents and factions while still trying to keep the US committed, in order to remain on power.
I say we make it clear that they committ 100% and start getting deadly serious about stopping the insurgents, or we will up and leave them. They have had enough time. It's now time to step up.
-
if Iraq has a civil war, wont it kill off the ones we have problems with over there right now
-
I agree with Charion as well...and I believe it will be the final result regardless (I seem to recall predicting back in '03 on this board that if we invaded the end result would be a divided Iraq). Call it the Go Short plan...three short passes to gain yardage rather than a brute force rush or hail mary long shot.
The Kurds were pretty much autonomous and self sufficient once the no-fly zones were set. No reason they can't be again. And yes, that might cause unrest with Turkey's own Kurdish population.
Giving Sunnis autonomy will let them concentrate on fighting amongst themselves to see who rules, but at least it keeps them away from the Shi'ites.
Bad thing is that the Shi'ite Iraq will be heavily influenced by, or even run by, Iran...which would include Basra and the port to move oil out to the world. And given Bush's myopic comment lumping Iran into the Axis of Evil...we have some major headwind to overcome to keep Shi'ite Iraq friendly to the US in the long term.
Then leave Bagdad as a sort of "District of Columbia"...no one owns it...no one controls it...but all use it as a free commerce zone.
-
Originally posted by Horn
Liar? Really? I saw the edited video. See if you can.
What in gods name are you talking about? Did you even watch the video I linked?
-
I'd vote Big.
Next in line against the axis of evil should be its American branch: the next 300B$ should go into fixing internal resource leaks, e.g. jumpstarting alternative energies, fixing immigration and education.
-
Go big was always the only decisive answer, but GW wasn't looking down stream when he came up with this boneheaded war... Thats why Colin Powell left.
The Powell doctrine is that you commit absolutely. If you let the political machine run the war then you get Vietnam. And thats whats happening now.
GW was short-sighted and figured when Baghdad fell, Thomas Jefferson or someone was going to show up and run Iraq, it was naive and foolish.
Had there been a true plan for a post-Saddam Iraq when we started, we would have had to commit twice the troops we did. And we would have been done 2 years ago... But instead we have a piece-meal force moving from one hot-spot to the next and losing everything we gained each time we move. Its retarded, like the administration that dreamed it up.
Today, Iraq has lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in WWII! And its all because of a short-sighted battle plan that assumed everything would turn to gold when Saddam fell.
-
Originally posted by moot
I'd vote Big.
Next in line against the axis of evil should be its American branch: the next 300B$ should go into fixing internal resource leaks, e.g. jumpstarting alternative energies, fixing immigration and education.
assuming those are broken, how do i know you're not a poorly educated foreigner?!?!!?:noid :noid :noid :noid
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
In Germany, same....
Would going home been the answer there as well?
We're still in Germany... 60 years later. Is that what you want in Iraq?
Shall we have a world where everytime we fire a shot we have to run the damn place?
The U.S. goes running into these fights always thinking we'll get it done quick... It never works... 15 years in 'Nam, 60 years later still in Germany, 50 years later still staring across the border at North Korea.
No one ever thinks about after the war.
WWII was the only conflict in the last 70 years we really NEEDED to get involved in. Everything else was local garbage that we shouldn't have messed with.
-
Assuming I am, why does it matter?
-
i dont know,
maybe ask someone who went to private school?
-
Good heavens, this is another one of your gags isn't it??
???
-
Go long.
hap
-
Originally posted by moot
Good heavens...
"Good heavens"?
do u wear a monocle?
Higgins, is that you?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
For those of you that say go home....
What if the same scenario held true in Japan, insurgency and uprisings when our troops were rebuilding the place...
In Germany, same....
Would going home been the answer there as well?
Back then we could fire bomb the population into submission without world wide whining, why isn't that option available today?.. because we have become spineless & nutless more willing to let troops get maimed / killed in the name of "moral high ground" than get necessary mid evil. Dead is dead.
See how fast the BS stops after a few Iraqi cities get burnt to a crisp, with the clear message; "Your Iraqi town is next on the BBQ menu unless you step up and take care of business"
-
Go Big
-
Originally posted by Debonair
"Good heavens"?
do u wear a monocle?
Higgins, is that you?
Oh, deary me, now I see where this conversation is headed...
-
Im saying you go big. Start with pulling all the troops out of bagdad and level it with a combination of artillery and B52 bombers... that should teach those terrorists not to mess with anyone again. :aok
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes indeed. Those countries started the war. If they didnt want the allied troops to stay and rebuild then they should have been granted that wish.
It seems you are implying that Iraq didn't start the war. If so, why do you ignore Saddams invasion of Kuwait, forced unconditional surrender, and continually violation of the terms of his surrender? Saddam simply had to go.
-
Originally posted by lukster
It seems you are implying that Iraq didn't start the war. If so, why do you ignore Saddams invasion of Kuwait, forced unconditional surrender, and continually violation of the terms of his surrender? Saddam simply had to go.
Iraq started the war against Kuwait. They were rightfully evicted and a big WTG on that.
Many people viloate the rules around the world without the US military trying to set _them_ straight.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Many people viloate the rules around the world without the US military trying to set _them_ straight.
your so impatient, with half of the USA wanting no war at all,one dictator at a time is the best we can do.
-
Ok.. we didn't catch him with nukes or biologicals... The whole world thought he had em...
He threw the inspectors out of his country so... what were we to assume? Why would he not let the inspectors go where they wanted? He was after all.. the guy who lost. Part of losing was being inspected.
You blue helmet loving impotent countries sent him nasty letters. We said... you don't get to run the country anymore or sit on the gold toiletseat.
We let the people vote and form their own government.
What did we do wrong again? Other than get involved with the UN.
lazs
-
Did i get you upset lazs? Sounds like you have blown another gasket. :D
-
really? then you don't know me.
I am just pointing out what is in the back of everyones mind... that ice bear people are pretty huffy given that they really are so very unimportant in the world.
That the only power you will ever have is when you are wearing a blue helmet and that, as we all know is just a joke.
We certainly expect you to be envious so it is no big deal but sheesh... every once in a while... look around at your own situation and what all your best thinking has done for your people.
you enjoy what freedom you have because the strong countries like the U.S. are benevelant... We all know what happens to you when strong countries not so benevelant cast an eye on your country... it is like watching a little kid sticking his tounge out at someone while clinging to his moms skirt.
lazs
-
:D
That just about did it. I will now go and cry a few patriotic tears for the things you have said about my country. Realizing you are spot on in your analysis i will then bow my head in shame and forever hold my opinions to myself.
I have been truly put in my place by your facts and I apologise for any wrongdoing I have done or said.
*buhu*
:lol
-
Go long.
But the thing i worry about is what happens when we do leave? I hope that the people that are being trained to run iraq in a democratic way don't become infultrated or bought out by terrorists. I mean we trained osama, and look what happened.
I don't think, or at least hope we won't be pulling out of there for a while, but if we do, all this will have been for nothing. I believe that military, and economic advisors, at least, should be left there even when we do pull out, to help the iraqi gov't with keeping there own army, police, and citizens in order, well paid, and loyal.
In all honesty, as much as i support Bush, and think sadam insane was a great capture, what happened to the great osama hunt? There's really nothing i can say when a lib asks that question either.
Edit: He did after start this whole chain of events.
-
nelson... I really do expect that is what you will do... you don't really blow gaskets so much as...... leak... the big alligator tears just ooze out past your gaskets... look at the cluster munitions thread for instance..
lazs
-
You got me again lazs.. when will the hurting stop :cry
-
The united states will never be able to leave iraq and save face.Like vietnam before you failed to learn the lessons of history.Dien bien phu.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
The united states will never be able to leave iraq and save face.Like vietnam before you failed to learn the lessons of history.Dien bien phu.
We had it right during WWII, they knew in order to quash years of civil unrest... the populations of Germany & Japan had to be on board. They got on board by being fire bombed to the stone age & nuked... knowing if they tried any flapdoodle, it would rain fiery death upon them once again.
We have lost our nerve to end war, for real, thanks to our idiot nut-less leaders being more concerned about appearances..
My plan; Adhere to the proven WWII method of winning and ending war; systematic and mid-evil destruction of any and all insurgent strong holds by overwhelming force; "Operation linebacker 06"... including any civilians not smart enough to separate themselves from the bad guys.
Show them no mercy, for they will show you none, then leave.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
The united states will never be able to leave iraq and save face.Like vietnam before you failed to learn the lessons of history.Dien bien phu.
you so funny, dien bien phu was down in a valley surrounded by mountains, it was undefendable, the french were badly defeated and gave up all of indo-china.
the NVA tried to do the some thing at KEH SAHN, only KEH SAHN was on a mountain top, the NVA sent 30,000 battle hardened regular troops at only 3000 US marines defending KEH SAHN.
the 3000 marines destroyed the 30,000 NVA troops. (ok, the marines had a little help from air power).
what about the tet offensive? the NVA and viet cong hoped to over run south vietnam with that country wide attack. Instead the viet cong were wiped out as a effective fighting force for the rest of the war and the NVA suffered severe loses.
maybe our enemys should "learn from history".
-
very well said john9001
-
Is hazzer another one of beetles shades?
-
the more I look at it the more I like dividing iraq into 2 or three countries... then divide iran into two or three..
If they can't get along then at least let em wallow in it.. if they are allways terrorizing this or that little chunk of sand they will be no trouble to the rest of the world. If one starts to take over too much sand or oil.... we help the other guy by wiping out most of the bad guys war machine in one or two strikes.
If they ever drop their religious biggotry and act civilized... we can let em form bigger countries.
lazs
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
We had it right during WWII, they knew in order to quash years of civil unrest... the populations of Germany & Japan had to be on board. They got on board by being fire bombed to the stone age & nuked... knowing if they tried any flapdoodle, it would rain fiery death upon them once again.
We have lost our nerve to end war, for real, thanks to our idiot nut-less leaders being more concerned about appearances..
My plan; Adhere to the proven WWII method of winning and ending war; systematic and mid-evil destruction of any and all insurgent strong holds by overwhelming force; "Operation linebacker 06"... including any civilians not smart enough to separate themselves from the bad guys.
Show them no mercy, for they will show you none, then leave.
But there is one thing you fail to take into account...oil. We have been spending billions every year to secure middle east oil, the world economy depends on it.
To fire bomb Iraq into the ground would defeat the purpose of being there.
-
Vietnam and Korea were battles in a larger war: the Cold War. We won the Cold War.
Period
-
Wow you mean Shinseki was right? Who would've thought that the best and most experienced people in the military would have better plans for things military?
I know it's crazy right? It's an idea so ridiculous it made Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz chuckle.
-
Not a bad idea laz.
-
I say go big and long...
You know... Iraq has become our own "Terrorist nutjob BugZapper" It seems that every lunatic in the region cant resist the appeal to go there rapidly to die. There have been many tens of thousands of them die there since 2003. I just wonder how they keep getting in? Maybe the border there is in as sad of a shape as our own southern border!
I say stay there and give 700,000 or 800,000 Islamofascists a chance to be killed, that's what they want and I feel we should not deprive them of this opportunity.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
I say go big and long...
You know... Iraq has become our own "Terrorist nutjob BugZapper" It seems that every lunatic in the region cant resist the appeal to go there rapidly to die. There have been many tens of thousands of them die there since 2003. I just wonder how they keep getting in? Maybe the border there is in as sad of a shape as our own southern border!
I say stay there and give 700,000 or 800,000 Islamofascists a chance to be killed, that's what they want and I feel we should not deprive them of this opportunity.
So you think it attracts terrorists like flypaper?
If so then you are using your own troops and the civilian Iraqi population as bate for terrorists. Is that right?
I belive it is creating new terrorists rather than just killing off excisting terrorists.
The "old" hardcore terrorists are prolly staying away and doing their bit in directing and recruiting now.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the more I look at it the more I like dividing iraq into 2 or three countries... then divide iran into two or three..
If they can't get along then at least let em wallow in it.. if they are allways terrorizing this or that little chunk of sand they will be no trouble to the rest of the world. If one starts to take over too much sand or oil.... we help the other guy by wiping out most of the bad guys war machine in one or two strikes.
If they ever drop their religious biggotry and act civilized... we can let em form bigger countries.
lazs
dividing things up has done wonders in the middle east...just ask the ottomans or on a smaller scale, the lebanese.
it has solved everything up til just now hasnt it?...and it's only because we havent divided them up enough that it is failing now right?
i see now that while you are wholly "AGAINST" government intervention with regards to your own rights and responsibilities, you are totally "FOR"
governmental intervention in someone elses...
not sure how that transcribes, or works out it the end...but it is certainly fascinating to see them exist side by side in your philosophy with so little percievable degree of difficulty.
-
but wait 88...is not I nor my government that wants the intervention in personal freedom... they would be allowed to divide. They can't get along.. they don't want to get along.. one nut job faction wants to wipe out one or 3 other nut job factions of the same backward barbaric religion..
sooo... I am saying... allow them all the freedom of forming their own states.
I want the same for the U.S. in that I want more autonomous states here.. I would even welcome secession by a few states.
We have somewhat the same thing in that we have taxi riding metrosexual sardine people all wanting to make laws for rural people when the worlds are totaly different.
The arabs tend to bunch up into nutball sects anyway and treat anyone not of that particular insanity as some form of devil so... it would be an easy thing... everyone would be happy.
lazs
-
They way I see it:
Going Big would result in the most dead Americans and Iraqis, and the most animosity against the US from the subsequent Iraqi state/states, which also implies the most subsequent terrorist attacks. It's essentially the Vietnam option, and would be equally successful. On the plus side the US economy will do well from the brisk trade in arms and materiel, but the defecit will be enormous -- it is currently set to be the most expensive war since WWII.
Going Long would result in less dead Americans and Iraqis, although the permenant bases that this will lead to may lead to about the same amount of animosity against the US (and thus terrorist attacks) from the subsequent Iraqi state/states. On the plus side many of the terror attacks may well be directed at the US bases rather than the US itself.
This is the course the US will take. It will end with the subsequent Iraqi government imploding, a decent into chaos and then an anti-US government/s arising.
Going Home would result in the least dead Americans and Iraqis and the least animosity & terror attacks. It would end with the subsequent Iraqi government imploding, a decent into chaos and then an anti-US government/s arising. Just like the other option. I'd go with this one -- you're going home anyway, and whatever government you leave will collapse anyway, so why prolong the agony? Although if it were left up to me I would have chosen the optimum option: "Don't go in the first place".
As to the "what if..." WWII scenario: given the circumstances surrounding the start of the Iraq war, perhaps a more analogous question would be "Should Germany/Japan have gone home instead of invading and occupying Europe/Asia?" There the same scenario does at least apply, no "what if?" is required: they did endure insurgency and uprisings when their troops were "rebuilding". So which was the right choice for Germany & Japan? Go Big, Go Long or Go Home?
-
Going big sure took the urge to be mad out of Germany and Japan, didn't it?
-
Should the USA have gone home instead of invading and occupying Europe/Asia in WW2?
-
no way we should have never let the soviets put all of that territory under another dictatorship at the end of the war either
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. we didn't catch him with nukes or biologicals... The whole world thought he had em...
He threw the inspectors out of his country so... what were we to assume? Why would he not let the inspectors go where they wanted? He was after all.. the guy who lost. Part of losing was being inspected.
You blue helmet loving impotent countries sent him nasty letters. We said... you don't get to run the country anymore or sit on the gold toiletseat.
We let the people vote and form their own government.
What did we do wrong again? Other than get involved with the UN.
lazs
Refresher:
RM: I think our citizens can be forgiven for being a little confused at this point. We have the Secretary of State, Mr. Colin Powell, saying to us in February 2001, “Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” Condoleeza Rice, July 29, 2001: “We are able to keep his arms from him, his military forces have not been rebuilt.”
Then all of a sudden, we have weapons of mass destruction galore in Iraq. Shortly after 911, we have the president telling us, ‘There is no doubt that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” We have Secretary Rumsfeld saying, in his typically quotable way, “There is no debate in the world as to whether that they have those weapons. We all know that. A trained ape knows that.” He even professed to know where they were, out there-- Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, southwest of there. How do you explain that, Mr. Ritter? How do you explain first of all, that there were none there before 911, then all of a sudden there were a plethora of same. What was going on?
SR: First of all, let’s also refer to statements made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when justifying the analysis put forward that there were weapons of mass destruction. He acknowledged that the United States suffered from a lack of current intelligence data about the status of Iraq’s WMD program. That in fact the foundation of the analysis was based upon data that existed prior to 1998, that is data that existed when UN inspection teams, of which I was a part of, served in Iraq.
Now, this is the data that prompted Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice to make their statements in 2001 that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. This is data that was known to the Clinton administration. Since 1995, the United States intelligence community knew that Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed in the field of ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons and biological weapons. What cause the Bush administration to change its stated assessment is the policy decision undertaken by the Bush administration to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from power. Around this policy, the Bush administration fixed intelligence, including analysis that it claims was the result of a reexamination of the facts in light of the events of September 11, 2001-- namely that because of the terrorist attacks against the United States on that date, the United States could no longer tolerate an uncertain situation in Iraq. The reason why I highlight this is that the Bush administration in making these statements acknowledges the uncertainty that exists regarding WMD. This is a far cry from the statements made by the president and indeed members of his administration, under oath to the Congress of the United States, that they knew these weapons existed.
http://www.bushcommission.org/?q=node/30
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
I say go big and long...
You know... Iraq has become our own "Terrorist nutjob BugZapper" It seems that every lunatic in the region cant resist the appeal to go there rapidly to die. There have been many tens of thousands of them die there since 2003. I just wonder how they keep getting in? Maybe the border there is in as sad of a shape as our own southern border!
I say stay there and give 700,000 or 800,000 Islamofascists a chance to be killed, that's what they want and I feel we should not deprive them of this opportunity.
Im so confused. Not 2 months ago the reps were saying that the dems were full of it when they said "Iraq has become a haven for terrorist wannabees because of the Bush war".
Now I hear the righties/libertarians in here saying just that...
I just want to know what the cut & run Reps plan for victory is. The reps have asserted that the dems have no plan. Well I really want to know what their(reps) plan is. It appears they dont and never really had one. Oh yeah they did have that one plan where the Iraq people showered them with flowers and the war would last a few months.........
The Pres and the reps are still in charge so what is the plan?
-
poor saddam, unjustly removed from his golden toilets by the evil boosh.
poor saddam will never again have the pleasure of gassing the Kurds or putting live Iraqis into a wood chipper or watching his idiot sons rape and kill Iraq women, oh the sadness. :cry
-
Yes John, you've made their lives so much better. :rolleyes:
Fri Nov 24, 5:34 AM ET
BAGHDAD (AFP) - The Iraqi capital has been locked down by an indefinite curfew after more than 200 people were killed in a wave of bombings in a *****e slum, by far the deadliest attack since the war.
Iraqi *****es, many weeping, were collecting bodies of the victims of the bloodshed and heading to the southern shrine city of Najaf under police protection for mass burials.
A hospital source said the toll from four car bombs that tore through Baghdad's *****e bastion of Sadr City Thursday had risen to 202 dead and 256 wounded, adding that the toll was expected to rise as many of the wounded were in critical condition.
The bombings triggered fears of widespread *****e reprisals against Sunni Arabs as the two communites are engaged in a brutal sectarian conflict unleashed after an attack on a *****e shrine in February.
-
Skuzzy … if I were a *****e Muslim, I would take offence at having my religion edited by the profanity filter. ;)
-
what bothers me about nation building, more than anything is the fact that it is not a peoples choosing their own destiny it is another group altogether.
while i certainly sympathize (for lack of a better word) with the iraqi people for their suffering, i do not sympathize with their lack of action against the regime in the first place.
our country was founded by an internal revolution...though we recieved assistance from france, it was by and large our own efforts which led to our independence.
worse, we went in without a global concensus which would have allowed for a far more productive dialouge rather than the lead weight of outcry that has existed since the first explosion of round 2.
americans are going to have to shift their paradigms if they want to solve this problem. we need to actually CARE about these people rather than giving it lip service.
i have yet to see anyone donate anything to the iraqi people other than a bloated allowance to the contractors (for doing a rather crummy job for the price IMHO) or the welfare that continues to flow into the far pockets of military contractors.
its a shame from start to end.
i say go long...but do so by reconsidering our method and asking not only the american people to act with honest charitably and real concern for a peoples
rather than pay lip service, but the world as well. doing so first by example.
if one american civilian is too many to lose to the war on terror than what makes an iraqi civilian any different?
everytime we blow it by focusing on the "war" we miss the point of it entirely.
it's time we either got out heads out of our selfish butts and start actually working for their sake, or get the hell out of their house and let them take care of the problem on their own.
my 2.
-
so what you lefties are saying here is that muslims are not really humans with human wants... that they are bloodthirsty barbarians that can only be kept in line by having the most brutal dictators rule them with an iron fist under a reign of terror?
I guess we can be excussed for thinking that any human would embrace freedom tho eh?
Do you lefties really believe that there is no hope at all for middle eastern muslim countries and the people who live in them?
lazs
-
That bait is just way too stinky Lazs. You have to do better than that!
-
Originally posted by Viking
That bait is just way too stinky Lazs. You have to do better than that!
nice dodge on the question.
-
I'd like to suggest a different alternative:
Go capitalist: Tell the Iraqi government that US funding of the war will shortly end and that the US will begin withdrawing troops, but the US military will be available for hire at whatever level the new Iraq government feels is appropriate. Make service in this voluntary and budget large pay increases into the quote so the soldiers are properly compensated and have a reason to stick around. Sell munitions and rent the military equipment at appropriate rates so that the hemorhage of money stops. There are a number of advantages. The two top ones I see are:
1. The US government is no longer seen as the the guys in charge, which defangs much of the terrorist propaganda.
2. The Iraqi government suddenly has a pressing reason to expedite the training of their replacements: $$$$$
Because of these, stability would essentially be forced into place with a minimum of further losses.
-
Originally posted by john9001
nice dodge on the question.
Dodge this.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1845000/images/_1848524_demonstration_ap300.jpg)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38733000/jpg/_38733241_prosaddam_afp300.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'd like to suggest a different alternative:
Go capitalist: Tell the Iraqi government that US funding of the war will shortly end and that the US will begin withdrawing troops, but the US military will be available for hire at whatever level the new Iraq government feels is appropriate. Make service in this voluntary and budget large pay increases into the quote so the soldiers are properly compensated and have a reason to stick around. Sell munitions and rent the military equipment at appropriate rates so that the hemorhage of money stops. There are a number of advantages. The two top ones I see are:
1. The US government is no longer seen as the the guys in charge, which defangs much of the terrorist propaganda.
2. The Iraqi government suddenly has a pressing reason to expedite the training of their replacements: $$$$$
Because of these, stability would essentially be forced into place with a minimum of further losses.
hmmmmm....not such a bad idea. we could even create our own foreign legion which might help solve the illegal immigration issue.
;)
-
I thought the dumbarsecrats were elected to fix that Iraq mess.. what are they waiting for?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I thought the dumbarsecrats were elected to fix that Iraq mess.. what are they waiting for?
That was before they were elected. They're really only good at taxing the haves to buy the votes of the have nots.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I thought the dumbarsecrats were elected to fix that Iraq mess.. what are they waiting for?
January?
-
Originally posted by Viking
January?
:rofl
pwned.
-
Originally posted by Viking
January?
I'm embarrassed that a commie pinko eurokitten is more up on our political system than some posters on this bbs. nice coup kitty. :D
-
:D
-
I never thought this war was started for oil, that is the view of the pansy europeans. I also don't think it was a just cause to go into Iraq. Personally, I think little Bush went in for a couple of reasons:
1) Terrorism
2) Daddy Bush's conflict with Saddam
3) Little Bush is a bully
Fact of the matter is, we're in it now. The old Nam adage of win the hearts and mind won't work. Those ME peeps are schooled against the west from younglings.
Go Big! This may or may not have been started over religion, but they're sure making it turn out that way. It's time to start targetting religion, not to abolish muslim religion, but exterminate the extremism.
All those Iman's that practice hate need to be targetted and eliminated. We should be funding schools and establishing bigger propaganda weapons.
Finally, I think we need to nut up. Mosques should not be havens of refuge. All the PC crap we've been displaying should go out the window and we should begin a dirty fighting campaign. I mean, come on, how much more face would we lose?
-
Originally posted by Viking
January?
so they aren't even going think about or discuss it until next year?
ok - I'll ask again in 60 days as ZERO will have changed by then also ...
-
eagler, the democrats won't officially be in control until January when the 110th session of congress will commence. each session of congress is two years in duration. the 109th session is currently in recess. we'll have to wait until march before we can cry foul.
-
storch
I know that
I am just acting as a typical dem would if the situation were reversed and the reps had won control from them...
-
Sure you are.
-
Eagler, you take your cues from the people you least respect? What an odd demonstration of character.
-
palosie, "i will do everything in my power to get the US out of Iraq", now you know what the democrats will do.
-
Don't blame me, I voted Republican :)
sorry some didn't get my attempt at humor or maybe they did but don't think it was funny as the dems necks are now in the noose...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Don't blame me, I voted Republican :)
the dems necks are now in the noose...
they just have a say in matters again...the administration is in the noose really, now they have to convince the congress while they have the power of oversight.
-
Yeah, now the repubs get to blame the dems for Iraq, the dems are gonna wish they lost
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Yeah, now the repubs get to blame the dems for Iraq, the dems are gonna wish they lost
how do you figure?
the admin created the problem. it is still the administrations leadership which is neccessary to solve it.
boy the republicans are really being a bit defeatist these days.
balance has been restored to the force, this is a good thing i think.
still, i wonder if the far righticons arent just mad that the divisive language isnt really working all that well anymore.
democrat or republican or other, we have ALL got alot of work to do and it is ALL of our responsibility to do so in the best interests of our nation.
geesh.
:)
-
To be honest. Go Home, ever since WW2 the US has pretty much almost always got involved in other countries civil wars... Leave em be, if they wanna kill emselfs let em. Or do you not have enough oil yet?
-
Go Big. Will be seen in Iraq, and the region, as colonialism. A new crusade. It will again swell the numbers of insurgents. Go Big is what they should have done at the very beginning. Compare it to the British and American war leadership styles of WWII. British tried to reduce casualties as a priority battle by battle (Monty). American thought was to fight big to end the war faster as a way to reduce overall casualties (Patton and Ike). We already missed our opportunity to Go Big and be successful at it.
Go Long. That's where we are now, and politicians will be loath to stretch the war out even longer due to voter response of last election. More advisors and redeploying troops (within Iraq) to cover the borders (Jordan, Syria, Iran...) as well as some nodal points in the country where U.S. rapid response teams can deploy from to help Iraqi forces when called upon may be the best bet from a losing hand. Try to stave off flow of foreign money, terrorists, supplies. Still plenty of resources in Iraq to continue insurgency though.
Go Home. Civil War. Whole region brought into the fight as Sunni and *****es fight jihad. Oil supplies disrupted. Gallon of gas in the U.S. going for $6 a gallon... or more. World crashes into economic depression.
We turned Afghanistan over to NATO, whose member nations restrict their forces use, and the Taliban and terrorsits grow stronger and more active. We fail to chase down terrorists in Pakistan. We fail to chase terrorists to Indonesia from Afghanistan. We fail to seriously develop alternate fuel and energy to put the United States interests out of that region completely.
The Iraq War will be seen as an example of how to screw up by the numbers 30 years from now. Win the war, lose the peace.
1. - Not enough troops at the beginning: we won the war, but lost the peace. Unable to secure the ground from looters or enforce even martial law until a government could be stood up. They tried to do it on the cheap, and touting high tech solutions. Low tech war in urban environments requires boots on the ground.... lot's of them.
2. - Firing 400,000 Iraq military personel from the beginning. That's 400,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen that found themselves unemployed, trained to be professional thugs and bullies, and knew where most of the ordanace was buried. Those that did not become insurgents or part of armed militias turned to organized crime all across the country stealing, raiding, extorting and kidnapping everywhere.
Gen Patton would not have made this mistake in post WWII Germany. MacArthur neither in Japan. It took the U.S. State Department to mess this up, and the Generals should be fired for allowing to happen. They certainly should know enough history to have made a better decision.
IMHO, the Biggest Blunder of the whole war. Should have kept them on payrole, shuffled their leadership around, and locked them down on their bases until they could be retrained.
3. - Forcing democracy in that region totally ignores that region's history and ethnic realities. They don't see themsleves as Iraqis... they are Kurds, Sunni, *****es, Turkomen.... their borders created by a shrinking British Empire. Loyalty is to the Clan, their family, their religion..... all before they look at national loyalties. That is the oldest of the old world there. Some people there actually remember Alexander the Great fondly, and would like to see the return of such a ruler. Strong one-man rule is the ideal. The Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, modern day Saudi Arabia. They look for kings and emperors..... not corrupt elected officials.
We'd have been better off installing a dynastic ruling family along side an parliment with a royal house and a elected common house. Or a dictatorship. Putting in a republic form a government similar to our own was vanity on our part. It does not work well there with so many ethnic and religious tensions and power grabs.
Too many mistakes over too long a period of time. There is no right answer now..... just varying degrees of failure and disaster to be courted. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory becoming a tradition in this country.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Yeah, now the repubs get to blame the dems for Iraq, the dems are gonna wish they lost
They really should have saved the Iraq card for '08. Would have been much more valuable then.
Guess they didn't want to risk it taking a turn for the better between now and then.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Yeah, now the repubs get to blame the dems for Iraq, the dems are gonna wish they lost
take a brief look at the 1946 elections. it's possibly the closest parallel to the 2006 elections.