Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunthr on May 02, 2007, 07:41:28 PM
-
Please bear with me... I sometimes go off half cocked; I just heard O'Reilly say something about ... "How could we have gone so wrong in Iraq?"
I'm not sure how anyone can conclude that we have gone SO wrong in Iraq. And I don't think anyone is so naive to use body counts as a measure.
I could understand the $ spent as a point. But only as a point to consider.
From day one, I believed that we needed to be in the Middle East, not just to remove Saddam's increasingly dangerous regime, but for the long term presence of a US capabilaty in that region as a matter of national security. I still believe we need to be there. Frankly, I've considered US liberal opinions to be contrary... and only concerned about reelection.
I will be flying this belief in the future... so gather your arguments so that we do not waste each other's time...
-
I too believe we should be in the Middle East (I've read my Spencer), but speaking with the luxury of hindsight, I have to admit Iraq isn't the ideal country to start with.
Then again, I don't recall too much hawking about Iran or Syria back in 2001-03. I don't know if that's because they didn't present a threat then, or if that's simply because the media worked us up on Iraq. Kind of makes a difference.
Memory fails me :)
I do remember hearing generals ask for more troops back in 2003.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
"How could we have gone so wrong in Iraq?"
We had the wrong leader.
-
You need to define your terms.
IMO the "war" against Saddam's forces was "won" hands down by our troops.
The next phase is security and nation building, which is the domain of the incompetent boobs in the .gov, and the military is a tool to that end. Our forces will always win the battles, but at this point there's no more "war" to "win". Any end to this situation at this juncture will be made by our politicians, and as we well know most everything the repubs and dems try to accomplish FAILS.
So for the past 5 years our politicians have been in charge of using the military for security and nation building in Iraq... its fairly obvious there little or no security, why? because nation building of Iraq has thus far failed. And it will continue to be thwarted by all kinds of unreasonable, pissedoff, extremest whack jobs more than willing to take arms against out troops, many in the name of religion.
These same whack jobs will also do everything and anything to destabilize the US installed Iraq .gov. because as Bush Sr correctly stated; the Arabs don't want us there.
-
Just imagine if we handed over Iraq to some multinational force after we defeated Saddam. Elements from all over the world there to show the Arabs that it's not just the US that wants a safe, stable Iraq.
I wonder where we could have found something like that...
-
Originally posted by rpm
Just imagine if we handed over Iraq to some multinational force after we defeated Saddam. Elements from all over the world there to show the Arabs that it's not just the US that wants a safe, stable Iraq.
I wonder where we could have found something like that...
You can find that in Iraq.
-
I said a safe stable Iraq.
-
With the benefit of hindsight concerning current events, you could say it was inevitable.
There is going to be a shortage of oil, eventually. If you take all of the production fields scattered through the rest of the world, all together they can't equal the same production as the middle east. Plus, with nations' such as Vuenazuela giving us the finger ( Not that they've quit selling us oil, but their recent nationalization will affect the market) We will be hard pressed to find enough oil to meet demand. I grew up here in Kern County, near the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve. It used to produce as much oil as Salt dome in Louisana at one time. However, now they've depleted it to the point that it would'nt even help in an emergency.
So, for better or for worse, we'll be stuck in the Middle East for some time to come.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Then again, I don't recall too much hawking about Iran or Syria back in 2001-03. I don't know if that's because they didn't present a threat then, or if that's simply because the media worked us up on Iraq. Kind of makes a difference.
best reread the little speech from January 29, 2002 (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/)
Iran and Syria are joined at the hip.
Iraq is all about Iran. It has been from the start. Let us retreat from there and you will see why.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Just imagine if we handed over Iraq to some multinational force after we defeated Saddam. Elements from all over the world there to show the Arabs that it's not just the US that wants a safe, stable Iraq.
I wonder where we could have found something like that...
Right, like the UN has any balls. It was their lack of ability to back up their own resolutions that helped bring us to Iraq. It's like the parent in the store promising punishment if the kid doesnt stop....
Un: "Saddam, get your hand out of the candy!"
Saddam : "no!"
UN: " I mean it Saddam! Let go of the candy! If you dont i'll take it away!"
Saddam: " NO!"
UN: "Ok, THIS time i REALLY mean it! Put it back! If you dont i'll send you to bed without dinner!"
Saddam: "So what? i dont NEED your dinner!"
..... goes on like this until Father Uncle Sam shows up...
FAS: "Put that back NOW!"
Saddam: "F*** me!"
The UN threatened and threatened Saddam for over a decade and it NEVER worked. With out the U.S. the u.n. is a toothless dog. They cant handle the conflicts in Africa much less iraq. And to assume that the Arab nations really care about a world united for their bennefit. They have made attacks in NUMEROUS countries other then the U.S. They came here, lived the high life in our country, lived better here then they probaby would have at home. They were afforded the freedoms granted by our constitution and they STILL repay our generosity and "tolerance" by kiling thousands.
If you think they are so reasonable, go try and make friends with a man willing to blow himself up.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
If you take all of the production fields scattered through the rest of the world, all together they can't equal the same production as the middle east.
I need to check, but i thought that the US got more oil from Canada then from the mideast.... I'm trying to check that again...
heres the data (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm)
-
I can't believe it, another Iraq thread. You're putting out a challenge to argue the same points all over again? That was a rhetorical question. It's ridiculous. It's like "Groundhog Day." :)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Just imagine if we handed over Iraq to some multinational force after we defeated Saddam. Elements from all over the world there to show the Arabs that it's not just the US that wants a safe, stable Iraq.
I wonder where we could have found something like that...
No place.
-
To paraphrase Milo, think of all the oil as being in a big pool underground. It gets sucked up through straws and sold. Particular countries have straws in the pool, some have bigger straws than others. Countries without straws buy oil from those with straws in the pool.
If some countries, say Iran and Venezuela, decide not to sell to another country, say the US, the oil will still get sucked out of the pool. It's how Venezuela and Iran make money, so they'll still keep sucking and selling.
That oil gets sold to someone and the US will eventually buy from them. The US may pay a higher price but the oil will be available from someone.
Have you heard any of the countries with straws in the pool say they are going to quit sucking and selling? Didn't think so.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I can't believe it, another Iraq thread. You're putting out a challenge to argue the same points all over again? That was a rhetorical question. It's ridiculous. It's like "Groundhog Day." :)
You're right. Where's a good gun control thread when you need one? :)
-
Gay marriage!
-
Originally posted by rpm
We had the wrong leader.
possibly....or maybe even the wrong Senate and House of Reps to. Bad CIA director. Bad intel. Bad government.
Maybe if those with the means to do so even before the Iraq war would have enforced things like they were supposed to , things would have been different still? Possibly never came to where we are now?
Here's a novel Idea....how about when countries say they are going to do something to the world community , they are held accountable if they don't? Nahhh...that wouldn't be good.
Perhaps all those Libs that voted for the war , that are now in power and want the war over by yesterday , just grow some friggin nuts and cut funding. Instead of playing politics. How about they DO THIER jobs instead of being wusses and crying about it. Then we won't have to worry about them being elected next election.
-
Actually Toad...Oil sands and deposits are where you find them, It's not one large pool.
Here in the U.S., we used to have quite a few areas with oil formations shallow enough to get to, that had a cap at the top of high-pressure natural gas. What the early wildcatters did, was look for these( 1,000 foot wells were the deepest that early tech could support) so that when they hit a strike, all they had to do was cap the well, hook a flowline up to a tank setting, and turn a valve. The High pressure gas would force the oil up the well under it's own pressure, so that outputs of 1,000 to as much as 2,500 Bbl. per day were achieveable. Now, keep in mind that this was from the turn of the 20th century 'till about 1950. That's when most of the wells finally had their high pressure gas bled off. So, Most Companies went abroad, looking for their oil. Turned out the Saudi Fields were some of the best producers ever seen, with some wells reportedly putting out up to 5,000 Bbls. per day.
What accidents of Geology caused this are quite a story in themselves. Suffice to say, The Saudi and Middle-eastern fields did'nt really get exploited until about the late '40's and early '50's. As a result, and due to much larger formations, Those Middle eastern fields have been the ones everyone in the oil industry's been after. Add to the environmental problems with Drilling in N. America (The EPA is harsh, I know from 10yrs. experience in the industry) And you see why everyone rushes to the Persian Gulf.
Now, the Venezuelans' have been big producers of Hvy. sour crude, But it's a lot harder to refine into fuels, due to being closer to tar, without the Light ends of the kind of oil found in the middle east (What is known as 'Light Sweet Crude') and if you watch shows like moneyline or take a look at the NASDAQ ticker on CNN in the morning, you'll see a big price difference per bbl. on the two.
There are always deposits found here and there,(I even know there's some in places like Colorado) But It's either very deep, or the lifting cost per bbl. makes it prohibitive to produce. Let me give you an example of what we used to have to do here to get oil out of the ground:
The well is drilled, and it goes through two or three layers of oil sands. After the well is perforated and gravel packed, a company like Halliburton comes in, and they hook up a bunch of very high pressure pumps to the well. They pump a mixture of sand and gel down the well at about 5,000 psi. This opens up the formation, and allows the oil to flow through the sand. Then, about 4 or 5 MORE wells are drilled around it. Instead of pumping oil out, though, these extra wells are for injecting High pressure, high temparture raw steam back into the ground, so that the steam will heat the heavy, tarry oil enough to make it liquid, so that it will flow through the sand, and into the well, where the pump can get it. The pump, which is driven by a Walking-beam pumping unit, powered itself by a 60 to 100 h.p. electric motor, sends it back up the well, to a tank setting which seperates out the oil from the water (which is mostly the condensed steam)
and also to clean sand out of the oil. When the produced crude has finally had enough water seperated from it (The refinery wants a cut of 2% or less water) then it's finally shipped for refining. When you add in all the maintance and facilities, what we have to go through to produce our own oil is staggering. Also consider, most of the wells we have now, if they make 50 bbl's a day, you're lucky.
So to make a long story short...Unless we can rely on the Canadian fields to produce well( Ty for the info, Clerick) We'll have to stay in the region for the foreseeable future, if not longer.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
possibly....or maybe even the wrong Senate and House of Reps to. Bad CIA director. Bad intel. Bad government.
Maybe if those with the means to do so even before the Iraq war would have enforced things like they were supposed to , things would have been different still? Possibly never came to where we are now?
Here's a novel Idea....how about when countries say they are going to do something to the world community , they are held accountable if they don't? Nahhh...that wouldn't be good.
Perhaps all those Libs that voted for the war , that are now in power and want the war over by yesterday , just grow some friggin nuts and cut funding. Instead of playing politics. How about they DO THIER jobs instead of being wusses and crying about it. Then we won't have to worry about them being elected next election.
Oh, so it's the liberals fault not Bush's? How do you think things would have been if Colin Powel was the CIC instead of Bush? Same outcome? I think not.
It's not the color of the paint, it's what's under the hood. But, nice try at blaming it on somebody besides the responsable party.
Frode, TY for pointing out that CANADA not the Middle East is our primary source of imported oil.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Please bear with me... I sometimes go off half cocked; I just heard O'Reilly say something about ... "How could we have gone so wrong in Iraq?"
I'm not sure how anyone can conclude that we have gone SO wrong in Iraq. And I don't think anyone is so naive to use body counts as a measure.
I could understand the $ spent as a point. But only as a point to consider.
From day one, I believed that we needed to be in the Middle East, not just to remove Saddam's increasingly dangerous regime, but for the long term presence of a US capabilaty in that region as a matter of national security. I still believe we need to be there. Frankly, I've considered US liberal opinions to be contrary... and only concerned about reelection.
I will be flying this belief in the future... so gather your arguments so that we do not waste each other's time...
Okay: Aside from the issue of going into Iraq in the first place instead of continuing to run al Qaida and their Taliban allies to ground in the countries they fled to from Afghanistan (and have since consolidated in while we've taken the pressure off of them).....like Bangladesh, Indonesia, the Philippians, Pakistan, Yemen, eastern Africa,.... Or what were the actual reasons for going into Iraq vs. the public reasons given........which is a rant for another thread....
#1 Not enough troop commitment to the operation to secure a country the size of Iraq. Billed as a 6 month operation paid for with Iraqi oil... everyone home by Christmas. You do not skimp on troop strength when you need to secure that much territory.
#2 Planning to use the 400,000+ Iraqi military in addition to the police forces to secure the country in addition to American and coalition forces after the fighting. Much effort to get the Iraqi military to stand idle during the invasion.
#3 Firing those 400,000+ Iraqi military and additional police forces after occupying the country. (I personally want those who made this particular blunder of a decision shot, as it led to so many other problems).
#4 Not securing the numerous ammo dumps around the country, or finding all the hiding places that arms and munitions were hid at (hid by some of the 400,000+ military personnel that we had "fired", btw, who we had planned to guard much of it once we occupied).
#5 emphasis on elections and freedom with little to no thought as toward security in the country. Should be pretty evident that without some level of security, holding elections and (que Mr. Gibson) "Freeeedddooommmmm" are not worth a fart in a whirlwind.
#6 Totally misreading the population of Iraq. Thinking that the people of Iraq had the national identity to come together around the campfire and sing cum bay ya together totally disregards the history of the peoples there. (But, that was the State Department's job.... and State sucks balls. If your are a total incompetent, and want to work for the U.S. government: Go State Department.) National identity is not a priority there: tribe, clan, religion, family, mullah, iam,.... most of those people have many other allegiances that come long before the country of Iraq.
#7 With the lack of true national identity, and plenty of old scores to settle among a people who hold grudges for half a millennium on average, with Kurds, Sunni Arabs, Shii'a Arabs, Turkomen, etc, and so forth.... And with Iraq's neighbors certainly not looking forward to a stable Iraq friendly with The Great Satan (despite what Mr. Baker believes in his report), rolling through the quickie microwave super duper Constitution (U.S.A. took 13 years for their Constitution, and they had far less divisiveness amongst them, we expected Iraq to pull this off in 2 years) and the very-weak-compromise-is-everything central government was a total mistake and is a total flop. I don't see anyway to recover from this particular blunder.
We'd have been better off with a strongman, a military junta, reinstalling the King..... But, American arrogance being what it is, and those in charge feeling everyone should model their way on our way, and everyone in a hurry to let freedom ring and then go home....... A strong interim central government to get control of the country, then work on the freedoms and elections for a permanent government comes later.
#8 The Insurgency is just a blip on the radar. (Heck, that was the official line coming down from Division as well while we were taking rounds every day in country.) Those 400,000+ former military types -- the unemployed ones who were led to believe during the assault that they'd keep their jobs if they stood aside to the coalition attack ---- that we fired, and had access to all those munitions..... not to worry.
#9 Three to Four years after the invasion, well, we still hadn't secured all the munitions sites around the country. Same munitions being converted by some of those 400,000+ unemployed military types into IED's and used against Coalition forces and civilians. The one's responsible for 70% of the injuries and deaths among coalition forces. See points #1 #2 and #3.
#10 Went to war with the Army we had. The one meant to fight the Soviet Union in Europe for the most part. Despite low intensity conflicts and urban fighting becoming the norm since Somalia and Bosnia, the force was still favoring high tech solutions against a massed organized enemy force. Meant very few armored patrol/tactical vehicles and armored cars intended for use in urban environments in the inventory. The convoys and supply trains especially vulnerable where there are no front lines.
#11 Failure to secure the borders (apparently we've never been good at this anywhere we've ever operated. SE Asia, Afghanistan, Mexico.) So, every nut job looking for a ticket to Paradise by killing an infidel in Iraq coming in from Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Also, more arms and munitions pour in to be used against coalition forces.
#12 Failure to admit to having made any mistakes along the way at any official level. Refusal to change tactics early enough to have made any difference. Arrogance displayed in many of the choices.
Four years in, the sound bites were "Mistakes were made." .... but that is it. Nothing further as to what mistakes they are referring to, so I've got to wonder if THEY know what mistakes they made, and are capable of learning from any of them.
#13 Was there even a plan for after Iraq was occupied? I'd love to see it.
Notice, these all pretty much are policy issues. The military forces on the ground of the coalition have performed superbly under impossible conditions. The fault can be found with the Pentagon, strategic military planners, State Department, Intelligence agencies, the Administration, even pressure brought by Congress on very skewed priorities at times.
"How could we have gone so wrong in Iraq?" How to screw up by the numbers is my preferred way to express it. Will make a great Military Channel special someday. Or maybe, as my PLT SGT in country was fond of saying: "it's like watching a monkey trying to (mount) a football."
-
Origanally posted by RPM
Frode, TY for pointing out that CANADA not the Middle East is our primary source of imported oil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it was Clerick. And Canada isn't, even according to Clericks Data: OPEC is still the number one supplier. The other problem is this: From what I can tell, this was compiled from Trading company data, which of course means that some companies that are listed as say, American, might buy they're oil before it comes here from overseas, and as such it is listed as American in origin. I know for a fact that Canadian Companies are very heavy into oil exploration in the U.S., Carribean, South America, and the Middle East. The only way to really keep track of oil is through production totals at the Wellhead.
-
We went wrong by letting the News Media run the war, instead of the generals.
It's pretty much been that way since Vietnam, arguably earlier.
(Correspondingly, or some of you might think Coincidentally) We haven't won a war since Vietnam.
One Addendum. I think the war is going fine. But when you let people who capitalize on alarmist news stories write the news, all you're ever going to get are chicken littles running around telling you about the end of the world.
-
OPEC* 188,868 barrels(largest single monthly supplier) Saudi Arabia 48,439 barrels
Non OPEC* 233,457 barrels(largest single monthly supplier) Canada 76,568 barrels
Canada alone produces nearly half of OPEC* total. Remove Venezuela's 37,050 barrels and OPEC's numbers are cut by 20%.
Canada is our primary supplier.
-
TEDRBR! Yeah!!!!
(http://www.suprmchaos.com/golden-globe_011405.jpg)
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Actually Toad...Oil sands and deposits are where you find them, It's not one large pool.
Actually Frode I think EVERYONE knows that; as I said, it's just a way to think of the situation. The oil is underground and gets sucked out by various suckees. But what value does unsold oil really have? No oil sucking country just sucks oil to move it from below ground to above ground and stockpile it in tanks so they can chortle about how rich they are. They suck it out to sell it.
And so while some countries may not sell to US, they WILL sell to someone. And that someone will sell to someone and that someone will sell to someone and eventually the US will get the oil it needs. The only real difference is "additional markup" and there the supply/demand function comes into play.
It's not like Iran or Venezuela will stop pumping oil and selling it. They'll just sell to middlemen who will then sell to the US.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
We went wrong by letting the News Media run the war, instead of the generals.
It's pretty much been that way since Vietnam, arguably earlier.
(Correspondingly, or some of you might think Coincidentally) We haven't won a war since Vietnam.
One Addendum. I think the war is going fine. But when you let people who capitalize on alarmist news stories write the news, all you're ever going to get are chicken littles running around telling you about the end of the world.
Yup.. its alot better to let the generals run the show un-checked and just give them the funding they need. The media is really just a pain, and one can clearly see that if the cameras had been turned off then the insurgants, terrorists, criminals, rebels and freedomfighters in Iraq would have stopped fighting back and the war would have been won.
Yup.. it should have been done the Soviet way!
;)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yup.. it should have been done the Soviet way!
;)
:rofl
FOR SALE:
Beautiful rezoned and subdivided lots with view of oil fields.
Name it what you wish.
No restrictions.
:aok
-
Originally posted by rpm
We had the wrong leader.
You have me curious.
Who do you think would have been the right leader?
Please name him/her. :)
-
Ok rpm, I will bite..
How could we have gotten an international organization to have put the country in order after we kicked the iraqi armies butt?
How would they have done it and how would they have gotten different results than we have gotten so far and...
Who do you think would be expected to pay for the "international effort"?
I say nothing would be any different.
For now I am content with tying up the worst of the fundie muslim terrorists in one little area and having them use all their resources just to survive and... show others just how inhuman they are.
They say that we are creating terrorists... that makes no sense if you think about it... if we are creating terrorists... what is a suicide bomber who kills half of the family of dozens of shoppers in the street creating?
If your family were blown to bits by a suicide bomber.. who would you hate?
lazs
-
I can't believe it, another Iraq thread. You're putting out a challenge to argue the same points all over again? That was a rhetorical question. It's ridiculous. It's like "Groundhog Day." - Rolex
well hey, excuse me for throwing the **** on the table... :) but that is what the middle east is, and it is the number one issue on the planet, "global warming" notwithstanding.
i didn't mean to sound quite so contentious. im not interested in arguments "for or against" the war in Iraq. im thinking about Iraq and the middle east in different terms: what will happen next? why will it happen?
i don't think that US troops are going to completely leave Iraq no matter what the pre-election politicians are saying - and what the congress just did in rejecting the iraq thing was completely disingenuous political hype that they knew would be vetoed.
I think a good bit of the democrat hot air about the issue is appeasment of the extreme left elements of the party so that they can get a democrat president elected... but when and if that happens, i think we may hear a slightly different tune when push comes to shove.
there are several plausible scenarios about what is going to happen over there. none of them are good, just various degrees of bad in my opinion, unless there is a miracle. we have a tiger by the tail, and we can't let go...
-
Here's the deal. The US is going to be in Iraq for a long, long time. The reason is obvious. IRAN. Iran is the largest power broker in the Mid East. Their president is a complete lunatic, and that country is trying to develop nuclear arms. Anyone who actually believes that Iran wants nuclear power for any reason other than building weapons is an idiot.
So will a nuclear armed Iran in the Mid East be a threat to our national security here at home. YES IT WILL!!!!! Again, anyone who thinks that it's not a national security issue is an idiot.
With US forces already in Iraq, if Iran gets squirly we already have a base of operations to move in quickly and take care of things. We NEED to have troops over there full time to protect our interests here at home.
All those Islamic terrorist groups have ALL stated that the destruction of the US is a top priority for them after Israel (which also happens to be an ally of ours and we have treaty commitments to protect that country).
Considering that we have already been attacked here at home on several occasions by these extreamists, doesn't it make sense to take the fight to their backyard?
Now as far as comparing Afganistan to Iraq, those are two totaly seperate issues when it comes to our national security. We did the right thing going into Afganistan and removing the Taliban from power and going after Al-Quadia there but looking at the big picture Afganistan is a side issue. That country doesn't have any real natural resorces we want or need. It never has been nor will it ever be a large player in the world. Iraq on the other hand is very important. It's geographic location and the resorces it has are very important to our national security. It has been a world player since oil was discovered there. When an important country like Iraq is lead by a dictator like Saddam, well steps need to be taken to insure that country is as stable as possible.
The UN tried for over 10 years to get Saddam to "play nice with others" but it didn't work. Enter the US. Now we are there and granted things are bad but it is a mission we need to be performing. If we were to just pull out of there, Iran would take over in a matter of days. If you think people are dieing in large numbers over there now, what do you think would happen if Iran moved in? It would be a blood bath. Who would be able to stop it?? The UN???
I know people are tired of "stay the course" but that's what we need to do. Too many people in this country of ours get fired up by their emotions about the war and they fail to look at the larger picture of what is happening in the world. Iran, Iraq, Israel.....they all tie in together over there. It's a volitile reagion filled with volitile people and the US is the only country, with the help of the British and few other allies of ours, that has the balls to go in and try to keep some semblance of order. If we weren't there the entire region would soon self destruct and if you think that wouldn't cause us harm here at home....well your an idiot.
-
Hi Gunthr,
Let's start with your first sentence:
"well hey, excuse me for throwing the **** on the table... but that is what the middle east is, and it is the number one issue on the planet, "global warming" notwithstanding."
You may think Iraq is the number one issue on the planet because the US media and politicians beat you over the head with it day after day, but the majority of the planet does not give a hoot about Iraq, or think it is the number issue.
That's enough. I'm tired already. ;)
-
ok, nappy time. high five. :)
but i want you to dream about what the world might think about nuclear war - precipitated in the Middle East...
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yup.. its alot better to let the generals run the show un-checked and just give them the funding they need. The media is really just a pain, and one can clearly see that if the cameras had been turned off then the insurgants, terrorists, criminals, rebels and freedomfighters in Iraq would have stopped fighting back and the war would have been won.
Yup.. it should have been done the Soviet way!
;)
Wow, you spun that one so hard it didn't even make it to the catcher.
No one but you said anything about giving the generals free-reign. I said that the generals should make the decisions, not the Press. How it is right now is that all decisions, both local and foreign are made by the press and how they report things.
Like take for example Iraq. The press wants to show how horrible it is, so they stick to only the really bad stories. They'll never ever show you any possibility that we'd be doing well. And the government makes decisions based off of public opinion, which is based off of the Press' reports.
Or the Attorney General firings. The liberal media turned a non-event into something like Gonzales had stoned jesus himself.
The media controls everything now.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Oh, so it's the liberals fault not Bush's? How do you think things would have been if Colin Powel was the CIC instead of Bush? Same outcome? I think not.
It's not the color of the paint, it's what's under the hood. But, nice try at blaming it on somebody besides the responsable party.
Frode, TY for pointing out that CANADA not the Middle East is our primary source of imported oil.
I re-read what I posted several times. I don't think I layed the blame at the Libs feet.
I simply stated that instead of playing politics like they are , why not use the power they have and just end it. They won't. They'll continue to pissandmoan due to thier wanting to stay in power. Playing politics is the #1 goal in D.C. whether its LIBS or Cons. They both at this point have my upmost disdain.
Fault lies with Bush , Clinton , Bush Sr. and all the politicians in EACH of thier admins. It lies with the U.N.. There are a number of places IMO to sling mud. Not just Libs , but Conservatives as well.
Being a conservative that I am.....I find the whole act a frikin Joke and hope someday , in my lifetime , to see term limits on every elected official in this country. From Dog catcher to the POTUS. And remove this carrer obstructionist government that we have in place.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
I re-read what I posted several times. I don't think I layed the blame at the Libs feet.
I simply stated that instead of playing politics like they are , why not use the power they have and just end it. They won't. They'll continue to pissandmoan due to thier wanting to stay in power. Playing politics is the #1 goal in D.C. whether its LIBS or Cons. They both at this point have my upmost disdain.
Fault lies with Bush , Clinton , Bush Sr. and all the politicians in EACH of thier admins. It lies with the U.N.. There are a number of places IMO to sling mud. Not just Libs , but Conservatives as well.
Being a conservative that I am.....I find the whole act a frikin Joke and hope someday , in my lifetime , to see term limits on every elected official in this country. From Dog catcher to the POTUS. And remove this carrer obstructionist government that we have in place.
Couldn't have said it better myself! TERM LIMITS! :aok
-
Fault lies with Bush , Clinton , Bush Sr. and all the politicians in EACH of thier admins. It lies with the U.N.. There are a number of places IMO to sling mud. Not just Libs , but Conservatives as well.
Agreed.
Clerik, I was responding to red top's post blaming the libs.
-
Imagine it's 1776,and Iraq is a British colony,and the Iraqi ppl are Americans.That is why you have lost and that is why you can't win.
Your forefathers were insurgents once,you really should read your own and other peoples history before you go rearanging the Globe.;)
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Imagine it's 1776,and Iraq is a British colony,and the Iraqi ppl are Americans.That is why you have lost and that is why you can't win.
Your forefathers were insurgents once,you really should read your own and other peoples history before you go rearanging the Globe.;)
If you think that the insurgents are fighting for freedom or fighting FOR Iraq then i have to whole heartedly dissagree. Our forefathers were gurilla fighters, maybe, but they werent invading Canada to fight the British JUST because they hated the Brits. They were fighting on home soil to earn the freedoms we now have.
The insurgents in Iraq are for the most part NOT Iraqi. They are Sirian, Iranian, Al Queda. They are flooding INTO Iraq, hence the insurgent label, to fight Americans becauase they see us as "the great satan". They are not fighting for Iraq in the same way we are. They are fighting in hopes of conquring. If we pull out before fixing this issue Iraq will be no better off then it was, in fact it is reasonable to assume that it wil be far worse.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Imagine it's 1776,and Iraq is a British colony,and the Iraqi ppl are Americans.That is why you have lost and that is why you can't win.
Your forefathers were insurgents once,you really should read your own and other peoples history before you go rearanging the Globe.;)
zero comparison - did you sleep through American History class?
-
Are you honestly trying to tell me that the problems in Iraq are all caused by outsiders,your independece was rightly supported by outsiders,anyone who hated the British in fact.The French in particular,and as for fighting for freedom,only for white Americans if I recall.
The war in Iraq is lost,Bush can't get out and save face,and my God he knows it.He'll talk to anyone that can find him a way out.
If you know please tell him he would love to know.
-
Yes,but you were in a coma;)
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
The war in Iraq is lost,Bush can't get out and save face,and my God he knows it.He'll talk to anyone that can find him a way out..
If we lose the war, it will not be Bush that loses it.
If we stick it out, history will prove the rest of your ramble wrong as well.
-
Foriegn soldiers walking down your street telling you how to run your country and use it's resources,what would you do?put flowers in their gun barrels?
A puppet leader who used to work for the cia,is no better than a viceroy.
-
Your right about one thing,History will be the judge.Agreed.:aok
-
Originally posted by clerick
Gay marriage!
The Bush / Cheney relationship?
-
The whole world needs to deal with these people sooner or later.
They aren't doing so now because they are far too weak.... hazzer isn't going to jump in with the worlds 28th largest army for instance.
We are doing it because we are the only ones who can. The rest of the dying socialist countries are just pretending that they could do something if they really wanted to.
We all know tho that no matter what.. they are powerless. They know they are not just powerless in the middle east but at home...if they speak up their growing muslim populations might get angry and there will be nothing they can do about it... Their people and military personnel will get kidnapped and bombs will explode and...
They won't be able to do a thing...
Soooo... their impotent opinion means nothing.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Yup.. its alot better to let the generals run the show un-checked and just give them the funding they need. The media is really just a pain, and one can clearly see that if the cameras had been turned off then the insurgants, terrorists, criminals, rebels and freedomfighters in Iraq would have stopped fighting back and the war would have been won.
Yup.. it should have been done the Soviet way!
;)
Terrorism is a useless tactic without media cooperation.
The freedom fighters in Iraq are on our side.
Most of Iraq is stable and peaceful but the media isn't reporting that for some reason.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Are you honestly trying to tell me that the problems in Iraq are all caused by outsiders,your independece was rightly supported by outsiders,anyone who hated the British in fact.The French in particular,and as for fighting for freedom,only for white Americans if I recall.
Using that, i would place America in a role more similar to that of France in the revolutionary war then the British Empire. We are supporting a liberation not oppressing.
-
Originally posted by clerick
The insurgents in Iraq are for the most part NOT Iraqi. They are Sirian, Iranian, Al Queda. They are flooding INTO Iraq, hence the insurgent label, to fight Americans becauase they see us as "the great satan". They are not fighting for Iraq in the same way we are. They are fighting in hopes of conquring. If we pull out before fixing this issue Iraq will be no better off then it was, in fact it is reasonable to assume that it wil be far worse.
Where'd you get that particular TTP? It is overly simplistic and plain wrong.
As to the definition of an insurgent "An insurgency is an armed rebellion by any irregular armed force that rises up against an established authority, government, or administration. Those carrying out an insurgency are insurgents . Insurgents conduct sabotage and harassment. Insurgents usually are in opposition to a civil authority or government primarily in the hope of improving their condition."
The INSURGENTS in Iraq are generally Iraqi, and more often than not pro-Baathists or support the old regime, or at least Sunnis that want to still dominate Iraq over the Shiaa' and Kurds, or afraid of being dominated by them in a new Iraq. Others are simply fighting against what they see as an occupation (which it is, they just mad enough to do something about it). The Insurgents target other Iraqis as much, if not more, than they target coalition forces, especially the Iraqi police and Iraqi military. They operate very randomly at times.
Foreign Fighters, al Qaida in Iraq, Terrorists, and such are most often foreign fighters coming in from other nations (but supplemented by some local recruits) to fight Americans and disrupt work to rebuild Iraq. They make up by far some of the smallest numbers in Iraq, but have some of the greatest impact due to their determination, tactics, and PR campaigns in the fight. They cause the most damage on a per-person basis to collision forces.
The various MILITIAS support whoever they are following. Their first loyalty is not national in nature. They fight each other, the coalition, the government, even against foreign fighters/terrorists. There are a lot of them and they are everywhere in some form or another. Some militia members operate among the Iraqi military and police forces.
The DEATH SQUADS come from various groups and organizations, many of them controlled by the Iraqi government or political parties within that government or the militias. Some operate within the military and police forces. They go after who they are told to go after. These are more Iraqi fighting Iraqi in an ongoing play for power and control over Iraq's future.
ORGANIZED CRIME got a big boost when 400,000+ soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Iraqi military (many armed thugs to begin with) were fired en mass in 2003. They are responsible for much of the hijackings and kidnappings across Iraq. Most of the bodies I saw floating down the Tigres River past Abu Newas that had been shot in the head were kidnapped victims whose families would/could not pay for their ransom to these groups. In 2003 and 2004 these groups were hijacking KBR convoys, and may still be.
IRANIAN operatives. From actual combatants to arms smugglers, intelligence operatives, and those attempting to influence the political parties in Iraq. Iran is operating at many levels to disrupt Iraq, as a stable Iraq friendly to western nations is not in Iran's best interests.
And none of this includes all the tribal and clan wars that are taking place. Lot's of old grudges have come back to the surface and old scores are being settled across Iraq.
A lot of people have a very narrow and simple view of what is going on in Iraq. It is a far more complex and complicated set of problems than what most people can imagine or understand.
Most of the combatants in Iraq (outside of the U.S. coalition) are in fact Iraqi. There are sizable numbers of foreign fighters, true, and they cause a lot of problems due to their training, tactics, determination.... but their numbers are small compared to the others.
There are 3,000 to 4,000 Iraqis dying violently every month in Iraq from many fronts.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Agreed.
:aok :D
I am awaiting your answer to Lazs tho. Not to nitpick...but I am to interested. Not only in your opinion...but others as well.
Funny.....My wife and I were talking the other evening about tons of stuff. (we do that alot and it's always good).....but she said something that kind of struck me.....
She said I am getting more and more narrow minded the older I get. Her and I share the same outlook on almost everything. Kind of funny she said that.
-
Gunthr,
The idea that an end to Islamic terror attacks and lasting peace could be achieved in Iraq, and throughout the Middle East via the overthrow of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq and a truncated occupation of both countries wasn't realistic from the start. Our problem was never merely a leader or a government, be it Saddam and his Baathists or Mullah Omar and the Taliban. Our problem is with an ideology that transcends borders and will not be satisfied with anything less than the total defeat of the nations and peoples of the Dar-El-Harb.
The war in Iraq is not going to put an end to this: http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_AhmadBahr200407.asx
(Personally I thought he was off his mark that day, the above wasn't nearly as lyrical as his earlier speech: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet – defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them." - PA Speaker Ahmed Bahr, speaking in Sudan, April 13, 2007.)
But that's just one example among thousands...
Do we plan to deal with this via successive invasions and occupations of Iran, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon, etc. etc. and then reinvasions of Iraq and Afghanistan after we leave and the Jihadis overthrow the client governments we abandon?
Either we get serious about confronting and replacing the ideology rather than trying to kill the never ending supply of foot soldiers one by one or we accept that we will eventually lose. At present all we seem to be doing is reacting militarily, I have yet to see anything close to a strategy for winning the broader war, which is being waged everywhere from Europe to Thailand.
Sorry to be a bummer, but I think it's high time we abandoned the concept that either staying in Iraq or "redeploying" out of Iraq is the magic key to "peace in our time."
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Gunthr,
The idea that an end to Islamic terror attacks and lasting peace could be achieved in Iraq, and throughout the Middle East via the overthrow of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq and a truncated occupation of both countries wasn't realistic from the start. Our problem was never merely a leader or a government, be it Saddam and his Baathists or Mullah Omar and the Taliban. Our problem is with an ideology that transcends borders and will not be satisfied with anything less than the total defeat of the nations and peoples of the Dar-El-Harb.
The war in Iraq is not going to put an end to this: http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_AhmadBahr200407.asx
(Personally I thought he was off his mark that day, the above wasn't nearly as lyrical as his earlier speech: "Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet – defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them." - PA Speaker Ahmed Bahr, speaking in Sudan, April 13, 2007.)
But that's just one example among thousands...
Do we plan to deal with this via successive invasions and occupations of Iran, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon, etc. etc. and then reinvasions of Iraq and Afghanistan after we leave and the Jihadis overthrow the client governments we abandon?
Either we get serious about confronting and replacing the ideology rather than trying to kill the never ending supply of foot soldiers one by one or we accept that we will eventually lose. At present all we seem to be doing is reacting militarily, I have yet to see anything close to a strategy for winning the broader war, which is being waged everywhere from Europe to Thailand.
Sorry to be a bummer, but I think it's high time we abandoned the concept that either staying in Iraq or "redeploying" out of Iraq is the magic key to "peace in our time."
- SEAGOON
Hi Andy,
Nice write up. Be nice if the twits in power in D.C. could think with the same common sense.
-
The idea that an end to Islamic terror attacks and lasting peace could be achieved in Iraq, and throughout the Middle East via the overthrow of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq and a truncated occupation of both countries wasn't realistic from the start. Our problem was never merely a leader or a government, be it Saddam and his Baathists or Mullah Omar and the Taliban. Our problem is with an ideology that transcends borders and will not be satisfied with anything less than the total defeat of the nations and peoples of the Dar-El-Harb. - Seagoon
i agree with you Seagoon. it looks like there were unrealistic or naive assumptions made early on, particularly about nation building, which is hard enough, but even harder - democratic nation building in the middle of a sea of fundemental Islam. Iraq was stable under Saddam.
We thought we could replace him with a new democratic Iraqi government to fill the power vaccum and a stable, secure, American-friendly government would be the result, powered by, and assuring the free flow of, black gold.
it proved to be very very hard to achieve. and worse, they appear to have over-estimated the will of the American people and thier willingness to take casualties to achieve this on the other side of the world.
I also agree with your view of what our real enemy is: the ideology held by the Islamists, who would attack, in perpetuity, any democratic government in Iraq seen as a puppet government for America.
(i almost think there would be a better chance of a stable Iraqi government if there was a quick and brutal coup d'etat by non-Al Qaeda Iraqis who would sieze power from the current Iraqi government which would then not be seen as a USA puppet.)
Anyway Seagoon, my point is that we are there, things are the way they are. Iraq may or may not be getting more secure. Iran is getting very nasty, and closer to nuclear weapons. Israelis are fingering their own weapons, waiting and watching, and Americans are getting ready to go to the polls.
The question is: What do we do now?
Throw away a strategic position, or presence, that has already been paid for in precious blood and bales of money? Let the collossal cave-in happen when we leave, providing a new safe haven for al qaeda, who's number one goal is to push Americans out of Iraq and then claim victory over America? I don't think so.
I could see a decision to relieve our military of the nation building and rely on the CIA for whatever can be acomplished in that area. withdraw American volunteer soldiers to hardened, heavily defended areas or compounds around Iraq, but away from residential or governmental areas from which they could deploy as necessary to support whatever stakeholder government is there. a low profile, far less photo ops, and no more patrolling. let the contractors provide there own protection with help from the Iraqis. we would provide services for whatever Iraqi stakeholder government is in place, maybe oil facility security, whatever. in exchange, we have a base in the middle east.
not forever maybe, but for the time being.
Gunthr
(edited to add reference to Israel)
-
Either we get serious about confronting and replacing the ideology rather than trying to kill the never ending supply of foot soldiers one by one or we accept that we will eventually lose. At present all we seem to be doing is reacting militarily, I have yet to see anything close to a strategy for winning the broader war, which is being waged everywhere from Europe to Thailand. - Seagoon
I can't agree with you here Seagoon. I think the idea of "confronting and replacing" the Islamist ideology is pie in the sky.
Confronting Islamists is obviously possible. We kill them where we find them. But the idea of replacing Islamist ideology with another one is just not possible, if you think about it.
What could happen is that being an Islamist could become a trait not favored by nature... you know, not conducive to long life, survival and procreation? ;)
Could you clarify?
-
Hi Gunthr,
Let me answer your second question first, because a) I'm exhausted b) I already have a prepared answer from an earlier thread. I'll give your earlier question about Iraq in particular some more thought and see what little I can come up with...
Originally posted by Gunthr
I can't agree with you here Seagoon. I think the idea of "confronting and replacing" the Islamist ideology is pie in the sky.
Confronting Islamists is obviously possible. We kill them where we find them. But the idea of replacing Islamist ideology with another one is just not possible, if you think about it.
What could happen is that being an Islamist could become a trait not favored by nature... you know, not conducive to long life, survival and procreation? ;)
Could you clarify?
Gunthr, actually its confronting and neutralizing them militarily that is impossible for a number of reasons not the least of which as I mentioned earlier, there is "always more where that came from." Afghanistan is a perfect case in point. Jihadis cross the border from Pakistan, go to prepared weapons caches in safe villages, conduct attacks or attrocities and then if they can be caught while armed and in the act, are either despatched by coalition forces or captured and most likely, released. Even if they are martyred (which is after all the point for them) the Masjids and Madrassas just across the border are busily training their replacements selected from a generation that has known nothing but brutality and Sharia for as long as they've been alive. For Americans, our soldiers being killed is reason to withdraw, for Jihadis, Shaheeds being martyred is recruiting poster material. Every martyrdom video (complete with a catchy music track) shown on the net or circulated on DVDs produces scores of new recruits.
So how can we confront the Ideology that produces them? Well I believe we could begin to do that by at least "leveling the playing field." Here are 5 suggestions from a previous thread. Tell me if you find any of them to be unreasonable:
1) Stop misdefining the problem as "terrorism" - no one dies for terrorism, terrorism is a means, not a movement or an end. We cannot defeat terrorism any more than we can defeat "bombs."
If we are unwilling to critically examine Islam, so be it, lets at least define the problem more accurately and precisely as "Jihadism" - Jihad is also a means to an end, but at least people are actually signing up to be Jihadis or Shaheeds and we are actually fighting an ideological orientation that way.
2) Identify the ideologies that accept, encourage, or promote "Jihadism" as unacceptable and the enemies of freedom. This will mean that we are saying Wahabbism and Salafism are unacceptable. Indicate that we will do all that we can to suppress and eliminate those ideologies where we can. This will mean banning the importation of Wahhabbi media (books, tapes, videos) into our countries, deporting Wahabbi Imams, and closing down Maddrassas and Masjids that teach those doctrines.
3) Refuse to allow countries that do not allow freedom of religion in their own nations to build houses of worship, sponsor clergy, or send in religious materials. Make it clear that until non-Muslims are allowed to freely practice their religions in Saudi Arabia and build houses of worship, the Saudis may not pour money into the construction of Islamic centers in the USA or Europe. Deny visas to citizens of those countries coming in to serve as Imams, if they would deny visas to missionaries trying to enter their own country. Deport foriegn Imams who try to get around the rules by entering under false pretenses (and yes, they also do that to missionaries - and worse - in their own countries).
4) Indicate that in order to qualify as being "our friends" you will also have to reject and work against Wahabbism and Salafism. This will mean, for instance, that we will no longer accept the Pakistanis tolerating or encouraging Jihadist Masjids, Maddrassas, and training camps on their side of the border. Indicate that if they will not cooperate in closing them down permanently, we will take military action against those training centers proven to be sending Jihadis in ourselves.
5) Stop affording Islam "specially protected status" in our societies. Even the playing field. If people can ridicule Christianity, why should Islam be any different? If Muslims can proselytize without it being a "hate crime", evangelizing Muslims should not be a hate crime either.
Those are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head, note that all of them are simply applying the same rules that westerners have to play by in the Isalmic world to Islam.
It's my belief that if their society were as religiously open as ours, that Islam could not compete and would begin to wither. Sharia law however, keeps it artificially protected. The Quran, for instance, could not withstand the same level of higher critical scrutiny the bible has been subjected to for 200 years in the West for a moment without complete collapse.
-
Have to agree with Gunthr on this one. You are not going to replace Islamic ideology with (I'm betting here...waitforit....waitforti t....) Christianity in that region. Any overt attempt to do so will just instill greater jihad among the populations. Not happening. They still haven't forgiven the west for the Crusades, much less European Imperial Colonialism.
Islam is the new Communism. It's well entrenched in that area. It's presented more often than not as a Patriarchy that reduces women to 2nd class status, or even property status. It is spreading among poor nations. It's spreading among disenfranchised minorities in wealthier nations. It is being spread as a religion of no tolerance (which is against some of it's actual teachings).
At it's core among those spreading the Islamic faith (to those that can't read the Koran themselves especially) is an Anti-west, Anti-American, Anti-Israel theme over and over. A hijacked and corrupted religion spread by a desire to hurt others. Us against Them.
You take a guy living in poverty; mud hut, eats 3 times a week, has an ugly goat and an even uglier wife. Show him "this" as the road to paradise --- what has he got to lose. Take a young poor kid, drug him up, toss him to a prostitute, and when he comes around you tell him that was paradise and a perpetual virgin: to go there again, he only need strap on this bomb and take a few infidels with him when he goes boom. Easy sell.
If we did not have strategic national interests in the Middle East (oil), we could withdraw and I'd expect infighting and power grabs would cut the problems down to size...... but we are tied to a "stable" Middle East and it's oil. So long as they have big external enemies to focus on, they won't kill each other off (at least not in great numbers). I think with the level of bloodletting that the different factions in the region could bring between themselves could eventually "burn out" the fundamental extremism, but that does not keep the oil flowing.
And as long as Islamic fundamentalists have external enemies of the west present in the Middle East that they can focus their hate on, you won't see a reduction in the numbers of fanatics.
There is no real solution in the foreseeable future. None.
This will probably dominate and define the 21st Century.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
possibly....or maybe even the wrong Senate and House of Reps to. Bad CIA director. Bad intel. Bad government.
Maybe if those with the means to do so even before the Iraq war would have enforced things like they were supposed to , things would have been different still? Possibly never came to where we are now?
Here's a novel Idea....how about when countries say they are going to do something to the world community , they are held accountable if they don't? Nahhh...that wouldn't be good.
Perhaps all those Libs that voted for the war , that are now in power and want the war over by yesterday , just grow some friggin nuts and cut funding. Instead of playing politics. How about they DO THIER jobs instead of being wusses and crying about it. Then we won't have to worry about them being elected next election.
Because they dont have the votes to cut funding Red. You need 67 to override a Cheney veto.
So the reps still control the agenda.
-
Originally posted by rpm
We had the wrong leader.
Leaders. Plural. As in Congress, the Senate, and the White House. The situation in leadership only got worse after the last election.
We have no Generals capable, or willing to tell the civilians to bugger off and untie the military's hands. Most became politicians during peace times just to keep the military alive, and lost the skill to run a war effectively.
Think back to Viet Nam, when the White House, and the rest of the politicians ran the war. We were carpet bombing the very country we were trying to defend, instead of going North... all because the politicians thought they knew how best to fight the war.
Same thing in Iraq, only now the media doesn't report news... it distorts it for their ratings sake. And the average sheep.. uh citizen believes the media's biased pov. Toss in the talking heads, and our own anti-American politicians, (you know, those same idiots you keep voting into office term after term?) and you get a situation like we have now.
Saddly, we went in not fully understanding the mind of the middle easterner. Equally sad is the fact that the average middle easterner mind is stuck in medieveal times with Sectarian leadership, which only understands greater force as a sign to be respected.
Get rid of the Sectarian rivalry, and you can have peace. If we pull out, tuck tail and run, we'll only be telling them that we are weak, and deserve to be attacked again as on 9-11. Only the next time, and there will be a next time, the attack is going to take out far more than 9-11 did.
We either show strength their way, or tie our hands and pray they will learn tolerance of non-Islamists... And learning tolerance, my friends, is one thing they will never do.
-
Originally posted by Odee
Leaders. Plural. As in Congress, the Senate, and the White House. The situation in leadership only got worse after the last election.
Very true. Although CIC, you can't blame everything on 1 man, even if that 1 man is prone to surrounding himself with "yes-men", there is a lot of input from many sides that is supposed to go into decisions like this.
We have no Generals capable, or willing to tell the civilians to bugger off and untie the military's hands. Most became politicians during peace times just to keep the military alive, and lost the skill to run a war effectively.[/B]
Flag Rank has far more to do with politics than military abilities just to get to those positions (Congress has to give it's okie dokey), and modern technology and media has everyone looking over your shoulder in real time. You can't get a capable General into position most times, and even if you could, he'd never be allowed to operate effectively.
Sadly, we went in not fully understanding the mind of the middle easterner. Equally sad is the fact that the average middle easterner mind is stuck in medieval times with Sectarian leadership, which only understands greater force as a sign to be respected.[/B]
A lot of truth to this. Part of the reason Warlords and tribal chieftons still carry so much power in influence in that part of the world. It's part of the reason militias are so prevalent. Western ideals are alien to their way of thinking, as much as their ways are often alien to us.
We'd have been much better off putting a military leader in charge of Iraq's rebuilding, created a secure and stable environment, and left the "Constitutional" Committee work everything out in their own good time, instead of forcing a quick Constitution through (in no small part due to an impatient American Congress) which led a a very weak central government in Iraq, that (surprise, surprise) can't pull a divided people together.
Instead the great panacea solution to everything was "elections" and "freedom" as fast as could be managed. A quickie-microwave-constitution.
Seems to be an ongoing exercise on how we can continuously set ourselves and our allies up for failure.