Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NavyOne1978 on June 11, 2008, 04:16:01 PM
-
Just curious about everyones opinion on the best way to finish the Iraq situation. I'm not going to post my opinion till later, but I wanna hear all of your ideas... See how many people we can involve in an "intelligent" conversation before it devolves into a bunch of NOOK THE MIDEAST comments... :lol
Anyhow, curious about your opinions, ESPECIALLY the ones from other servicemembers..
Navy....
-
Just curious about everyones opinion on the best way to finish the Iraq situation.
finish it in Iran and Syria....
-
Just curious about everyones opinion on the best way to finish the Iraq situation. I'm not going to post my opinion till later, but I wanna hear all of your ideas... See how many people we can involve in an "intelligent" conversation before it devolves into a bunch of NOOK THE MIDEAST comments... :lol
Anyhow, curious about your opinions, ESPECIALLY the ones from other servicemembers..
Navy....
i would place my opinion here, but i'm fairly sure that i'd log on later tonight to see it replaced with ""see rule#xx" :rofl :rofl
-
I'm not a service member, so I guess my opinion isnt very important so I won't give it. ;)
-
Get them out ASAP...Our job is done...we as a country have to look at our own situation...we need to
look out for our own in this time of need!
-
Get them out ASAP...Our job is done...we as a country have to look at our own situation...we need to
look out for our own in this time of need!
:aok
-
Get them out ASAP...Our job is done...we as a country have to look at our own situation...we need to
look out for our own in this time of need!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
what he said. i just would've added a few unsavoury comments
-
Looks like things are finally going ok there---absent any more attempts by Dems to surrender, Iraqi govt beginning to stand on its own, and we can start diminishing our presence there. Many arguments can be made about the whole mess prior to last year, but the past is just that
-
I'm not a service member, so I guess my opinion isnt very important so I won't give it. ;)
all opinions are important to me, servicemember or not... i was just especially curious to see what my fellow military had to say about it..
(unique point of views as most of us have been "over there" at least once....)
But I do want to hear everyones opinion....
-
Do what we should have done 5 years ago. Get out & put the UN Peacekeepers there to play cop. :salute
-
Dam RPM watta ya do to get Probation?
I thought you were one of the "Untouchables"
Like.........well I'm not naming names they know who they are.
:P
Mac
-
Get them out ASAP...Our job is done...we as a country have to look at our own situation...we need to
look out for our own in this time of need!
100% Agreed.
-
I would walk quietly ...and carry a big stick..
Its called orbiting B-52's loaded with Moabs/ nukes
We need to play hard ball..no more linguine spinned limp wristed liberal "feelings' crap
mac somebody posted pron and got in trouble
-
OHH NOES!!!!
RPM you knew better!!!!
Back on subject:
USA and Israel do a joint attack on Irans Nuclear site... drop one Tac Nuke and claim they had a safety accident. This pulls in the rest of the Global Community and solves the prob.
TaDaa...
Next prob? Global Famine?
Norway has alotta Lutefisk... If yer hungry enuff you'll eat anything.
TaDaa...
Next Prob? Global Warming?
Kill off alotta Polar Bears and the Ice Bergs will look bigger.
TaDaa...
Must I fix all the probs?
:D
Mac
-
Get out now.
-
Do what we should have done 5 years ago. Get out & put the UN Peacekeepers there to play cop. :salute
And at the same time, doom the place to genocide as the Blue Helmets do nothing.
-
Declare victory and leave.
-
Declare victory and leave.
Is that the new term for "Cut and Run"?
-
Dam RPM watta ya do to get Probation?
I thought you were one of the "Untouchables"
Like.........well I'm not naming names they know who they are.
:P
Mac
First you have to think everyone understands your sense of humor...
Second, you have to forget to order Skuzzy a garlic and pepperoni pie when you think your being funny.
Third, forget that if it wouldn't air on Sesame Street it won't air here.
Good luck with that par 5!
-
Here's what my Nephew had to say after 16 months there:
I think there was some confusion though as to where I was stationed, one of the people that replied thought those pictures were from the green zone in Baghdad. Truth be told I have never been to the green zone the closest I have ever been to it was BIAP (Baghdad International Airport) Most of the photos shown on that threat were taken about (XX) miles NW of the green zone.
The thing signifigant about that is that we were deep in Al Queda controlled teritory these were people who knew very little of what the U.S. intentions were. Because of that it was a major bed down location for insurgents in our area as well as a place for Al Queda members to retreat to after attacking key points in Baghdad.
Before we went to this location, a U.S. convoy could not drive more than (XXXX) meters without hitting a large deep buried Improvised explosive device, In fact a good friend of mine was lost to just such a devices 6 months prior to my unit taking over that area. Our expansion into that area would not have been possible without the surge of troops in Iraq.
Because of the surge we were able to focus on smaller previously ignored areas, and by doing so we were able to bring a group which had been one of our major enemies in the area over to our side and help us locate and defeat unreconciliable terrorist groups in our area of operations as well as areas around Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, and Tarmiyah.
By eliminating these safehavens together we were effectivly able to nutralize Al Quedas ability to recoup, restock, and recruit in a major junction point into larger cities. (Sorry for the redundancy I've been talking to way too many officers in the last 15 months). Anyhow I hope this helps to clarify some of what was going on around that area the time that I was there, I know I've got alot more stories some good and some bad, and there's alot of photos I won't be posting online aswell, but I will try in the future to put more on this Myspace page I mean I did take over 2000 pictures in my last 9 months there.
-
I hear ya RPM.
Well welcome to the Misfits.
We all have a sense of humor here.
Workin on my swing..doing a round tonight. Neighbours request.
Free Bucket 'o Kittens...
:D
Mac
-
finish it in Iran and Syria....
Absolutely correct.
-
A long term presence is needed in Iraq.The Kurds cannot be hung out to dry once again.Pressure on Iran is also needed in case they aquire nukes(which they will).
Religious partitioning of Iraq won't work..They gotta learn to live with one another.This wedge of liberty in the Arab world, the emancipation from facist Islamic dictatorship..is what the Mullah's fear the most.(their second most fear is the liberation of women)
-
We are currently working on having the Iraqis stand up and take charge. This is the only way we're going to be able to extricate ourselves over here, as democracy must be a locally brewed drink.
The IP are still shaky, and they have a nasty tendency to run when attacked, but they are starting to really pull their own too. We have to give them a chance or its all for naught.
Anyone who believed the fools at the outset who said this would be quick are retards. Nation building isn't quick, easy or free of messes. It sucks over here, it sucks bad. Its hot and there's moon dust everywhere. I just lost my Platoon Sergeant not even a week ago, and two friends are now recovering from serious injuries. Still, we've gotta leave the Iraqis with something or its all pointless.
Worse yet, if we just declare victory and leave, as did the soviets in Afghanistan, we open the country to civil war that will probably just foster much more extremism and rear people who want to kill us. We have to leave this place better than we found it, for the good people's sake and for their children. It's possible and its happening. The strategies are working, we just need to give them time and make sure they're being followed.
Please send beer.......
-
imo, the intent was ok, but the given justification was foggy and the timing was not good. but that's all water under the bridge. to throw in the towel now with the recently made gains after 5 years of sweat and toil doesn't make sense to me. but i'm not over there and i'm not paying$ for it. it's just an opinion.
-
excel.. I think that you are correct.
That being said... is it just the hate for America that is causing the civilized nations of the world to shoot themselves in the foot on this issue?
Is it just that they are so weak or greedy? Why aren't they all banding together to help us finish this thing off once and for all and to get some stability for once in the region? Don't they realize that this is probly the last best chance of it ever happening again?
Is is because they are all over run with muslim populations? What?
lazs
-
its cus its not their problem, why would they want to clear up the mess that the US (and to a very minor extent the UK) caused? especially since they almost universally advised against it in the first place, for all the reasons which have become apparent over the last few years.
long term its probably a good idea to have plenty of western states which arent exactly aligned with the US over this - those middle eastern states which wont talk to the US can at least have dialog with someone in the west.
-
I'm amazed by the number of people....especially here....who still do not understand that one of the reasons we went there was to establish one or more permanent bases.....ala GITMO....
we're not ever leaving Iraq.... I knew that going in.
-
Hawk (who is there first hand) touches on the real issue, IMO.
We have passed the point of strategic military significance, by and large. Victory or defeat from now on will be political. I would almost say we're a spectator more than a driver of events now. The surge may work for local, temporary security but it's not a solution to the strategic problem. Nobody wants to have the surge in place for eterntiy, and at some point you have to pull out and let Iraq rule itself.
However, for that to work we have to realize that the new Govt. may be an awful lot like the one we eliminated (and not the one in the Neocon visions of Wolfiowits, Perle and Feife etc.) and be OK with that. It may not even be MUCH more accomodating of Israel or US regional policy since to be successful it has to be legitimate, which means it can't be an obvious puppet (see current Govt.). Unfortunately, allowing an appropriate political solution to develop with minimal meddling at our end is a difficult thing for us to do in the usual power circles.
So, are we smart enough to achieve a political victory? Perhaps, but I don't have a lot of faith in Washington or the Pentagon for thinking poutside the box in such areas. Evidence doen't seem to suggest a strong appreciation for 4th Generation warfare.
Fourth Generation War is normally characterized by a “stateless” entity fighting a state. Fighting can be physically such as Hezbollah or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam(LTTE) to use two modern examples. In this realm the 4GW entity uses all three levels of Fourth Generation War. These are the physical (actual combat; it is considered the least important), mental (the will to fight, belief in victory, etc) and moral (the most important, this includes cultural norms, etc) levels. Fighting can also be without the physical level of war. This is via non-violent means. Examples of this could be Gandhi’s opposition to the British Empire or by Martin Luther King’s marches. Both desired their factions to deescalate the conflict while the state escalates against them, the objective being to target the opponent on the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level. The state is then seen as a bully and loses support...
There are few examples of the state being effective in a 4GW conflict. The only major example is that of the British Army in Northern Ireland after the events of Bloody Sunday. A notable theorist of 4GW by the name of William Lind believes that the reason for the British being successful in that conflict was that the British Army did not use heavy weapons in that period and that the British Government forces attempted to get to know the areas involved in the conflict. Also according to Lind the British did not engage in collective punishment and desired to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. In other words they won over the population by reducing the risk of damage to civilians and their property and by getting to know the local area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare
I guess that if we were really on the right track for moving from a military to a hearts and mind perspective then the "we broke it we need to fix it" is something I could support for additrional years. There are SOME indications that we have recently started to shift some policy toward 4GW objectives, but others that show it's not universal. If we are just going to muddle around trying to push a square peg into a round hole for a few more years then it's hard to see it as worth it in terms of lives or wealth.
Charon
-
Pulling out would be a disaster. Even that nabob Obama isn't going to pull out if he gets elected as "Nations 1st black guy".
He may say hes going to pull the troops out but he wont.
Going in was risky, being a veteran of the region myself I know, but the bottom line is we went in there to overthrow a tyrant by force and to install a functioning Democracy before we left. To leave the place now would cause all hell to break loose. Think your paying high gas prices now???
Our losses sadden me. The terrible injuries our troops are incurring sadden me. But at the same time those of us in dangerous occupations chose our lives....
Even a partial pullout for Political gain, if it makes things harder on those left behind, would be stupid. In fact Politicizing what those troops are doing is stupid. We need to spend whatever is necessary to give our troops the very best available.
-
especially since they almost universally advised against it in the first place, for all the reasons which have become apparent over the last few years.
dude get your facts straight. The above statement is completely false. Would you like a list of who was with us or are you just content only pretending to know what you are talking about?
-
be more specific
edit: and less arsey...
-
68Hawk
One of my squadies is stationed there now too - thght you might like to know a fellow AH'r addict is close by
his bbs nick is -- Tom5572 -- he is in the WM's and went back about a month ago
Best of luck to you and stay safe
NwBie
:salute
-
My opinion....we leave when the Iraqis can stand on their own two feet and not a moment sooner.
-
My thought is to put it on the Iraqi government.
Tell them we are going to begin withdrawing troops unless they start picking up the cost. (In money anyway)
Then when we withdraw it can be because the Iraqi government would not foot the bill, not because we wanted to go.
-
holmes.. so it is your opinion that excel is in the minority with his opinion? That most of the civilized nations feel that the best way to fight muslim extremeism is to simply leave the muslim countries alone and fight the terrorists on their own ground? or.. is it that your socialist programs have made you so weak that really... that is all you can do?
you do not believe that the US turning Iraq into a democratic modern country free of despots and terrorists is the way to go? that eventually you will have to fight the 9th century muslims on their own ground? I believe it is now or when they have more power. I say now is the time and I say any muslim country will do.. we are already in Iraq... let's finish it up. A little help would be nice.
If we prevail in our goal.. every civilized nation will benefit... yet... all you do is whine and pander to your extremeist populations.
lazs
-
pop a scooby or two there lazs, no need to get so defensive. :confused: if you're that bothered, instead of presuming to know what my views are on ... pretty much anything, why not try the easier route and just ask me?
-
Why post something like that? Why don't you just tell him your views?
-
because i get easily confused by hysterical ranting. i prefer direct questions, like yours. there ya go that wasnt too hard :)
-
i say drop a nuke on em and vaporize em all...... :D :noid
-BigBOBCH
-
We need to leave Iraq as soon as we leave all the other places around the globe we have strategic military bases...
Some just don't get it.. We are there for a very, very long time
-
We'll be in Tehran by next May...
Any takers?
Mac
-
We'll be in Tehran by next May...
Any takers?
Mac
finish it in Iran and Syria....
-
finish it in Iran and Syria....
Are you gonna be in either Country when "the US Attacks"?
-
Are you gonna be in either Country when "the US Attacks"?
If you insist on following me from thread to thread.....I'd prefer you wear a collar...and get me my slippers and some coffee.
-
If you insist on following me from thread to thread.....I'd prefer you wear a collar...and get me my slippers and some coffee.
Sorry, not following you. Just "going down the line" of the "Rah-Rah Kill em All!!!" Threads. I build up an appetite at work. You can ignore me if you want to instead of crying like my 6 year old son?
-
Not to barge in on anything...
But my whole 'idealism' on international involvement is... don't. America needs to deal with America's problems. That means, don't give money to third world countries, don't come in and take down dictatorships and set up democracies, don't get involved with other little countries, period. America has problems on it's own to deal with. The less money we spend rebuilding countries that either destroyed themselves or we destroyed, the more money we can spend on things here... keeping the country secure, building advanced defense systems, even more trivial things like going to Mars. The biggest payoff is that we wouldn't be losing American lives overthrowing 'tyrannical governments'. If the government is tyrannical then it's the peoples job to over throw it, not ours. The United States did it ~230 years ago.
If Iran gets nukes? They still need a very long range delivery system to threaten the United States. It'll be Europe's problem if anyone's, not ours. They can deal with it if they want to.
I'm thinking most people will think I'm naive for this but whatever.
-
If Iran gets nukes? They still need a very long range delivery system to threaten the United States. I'm thinking most people will think I'm naive for this but whatever.
please tell me you're kidding me with this...............
-
please tell me you're kidding me with this...............
They're going to need a missile or bomber to get it here. Once they actually get a nuke I highly doubt they'll already have the technology to microsize it like Russia and the United States can. Fat Man and Little Boy were IIRC 10,000 lbs. You're not gonna fit that in a suitcase and sneak it in.
-
LOL. Motherland, save your breath. ZetaNine roots for a has been NFL team and wishes the US to fight every country.
-
They're going to need a missile or bomber to get it here. Once they actually get a nuke I highly doubt they'll already have the technology to microsize it like Russia and the United States can. Fat Man and Little Boy were IIRC 10,000 lbs. You're not gonna fit that in a suitcase and sneak it in.
your thinking is flawed.
wake up and smell 2008. If I would have told you they were going to drop the world trade center and kill 3000 people with a carpet knife ten years ago....I suppose you'd have the same reaction that you have know.
additionally........ignoring them does not work. clinton did that after they blew up an embassy and killed 17 of our sailors on the USS COLE. He ignored them. lest you forget...the 911 terror cells were arriving during his watch as well.
-
your thinking is flawed.
wake up and smell 2008. If I would have told you they were going to drop the world trade center and kill 3000 people with a carpet knife ten years ago....I suppose you'd have the same reaction that you have know.
additionally........ignoring them does not work. clinton did that after they blew up an embassy and killed 17 of our sailors on the USS COLE. He ignored them. lest you forget...the 911 terror cells were arriving during his watch as well.
So, in 2008 people can magically micro size nuclear warheads as soon as they finally made one that worked at all?
"If I would have told you they were going to drop the world trade center and kill 3000 people with a carpet knife ten years ago"
Theres a pretty major piece missing in that equation... it has wings... and engines... and is really heavy...
-
LOL. Motherland, save your breath. ZetaNine roots for a has been NFL team and wishes the US to fight every country.
you either have a misquote fetish......or your reading comprehension skills are horrid.
or is it a case of a long time board reg looking tough for his pals while he's being slung around like a wet towel?
give it a rest, pumpkin. I've seen it before and the act is old.... put me on your ignore list.
-
Theres a pretty major piece missing in that equation... it has wings... and engines... and is really heavy...
you're catching on to your own "delivery system" question now.
-
you're catching on to your own "delivery system" question now.
So, they're going to use an airliner to fly a nuclear weapon to the United States? :lol
You don't think anything has changed since 9/11?
-
So, they're going to use an airliner to fly a nuclear weapon to the United States? :lol
You don't think anything has changed since 9/11?
the possibility of an airliner being used is always going to be there... although I tend to think it will be a ship. to think otherwise.....borders on absurdity.
-
They're going to need a missile or bomber to get it here.
Really?
Check into nuclear artillery shells. We had them, the Soviets had them. Cod knows how many are still floating around out there. Surely none of those could ever fall into the wrong hands or be duplicated right? I mean it's totally impossible, right? Just can't happen.
-
"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."
DEMocrat Senator Jay Rockefeller in October, 2002 (member of Senate Intel Committee, current Chairman) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687_pf.html
-
Iraq withdrawal??
Withdrawal isn't a reliable option no matter where you try it. I know, trust me. Go with a condom.
MtnMan
-
your thinking is flawed.
wake up and smell 2008. If I would have told you they were going to drop the world trade center and kill 3000 people with a carpet knife ten years ago....I suppose you'd have the same reaction that you have know.
additionally........ignoring them does not work. clinton did that after they blew up an embassy and killed 17 of our sailors on the USS COLE. He ignored them. lest you forget...the 911 terror cells were arriving during his watch as well.
This is why I like people from FloriDuh.
Wanna see him jump?
BOO!!!
:rofl
See?
Mac
-
Really?
Check into nuclear artillery shells. We had them, the Soviets had them. Cod knows how many are still floating around out there. Surely none of those could ever fall into the wrong hands or be duplicated right? I mean it's totally impossible, right? Just can't happen.
So... how would stopping Iran's nuclear program stop them from getting their hands on one of those?
-
you either have a misquote fetish......or your reading comprehension skills are horrid.
or is it a case of a long time board reg looking tough for his pals while he's being slung around like a wet towel?
give it a rest, pumpkin. I've seen it before and the act is old.... put me on your ignore list.
No, but I guarantee you 9/11 affected me more than yourself and you don't see me in here whining about it. I don't "misquote" unless "you stated yourself incorrectly".
What's next Parcheesi?
-
If America could make its own cars, own computers, or anything that didn't say Made in China, Japan, Mexico, Germany, Mongolia, etc.... and be able to run itself without the help of other countries then hell yes, lets just stay out of everyones problems and solve are owns, but really we can't. America needs other countries so that we can have things we use or need everyday like, food, sugar, salts, cars, computers, ipods, cellphones, fruits, oil, natural gas, wood, fish, rubber, metals, etc.ect... Without these countries we couldn't survive as a state. The reason why we need to be in everyones buisness is because if one of these countries destroyes itself cuz of a tyrannt government or economic disaster then it affects us. There is just no way America can just sit and watch the world destroy and rebuild and destroy itself over and over for us not to get effected.
I really hate it when people say we went to Iraq for oil. If we went to Iraq for oil then why isn't my gas a $1.34 a gallon. Please tell me then why I'm paying over $4.00 a gallon for gas?? Then people ask, 'is there a way we can lower gas prices'?? Will how about we invade a oil rich nation and take their oil? Then our prices will be lower wouldn't it? But wait no it wouldn't cuz why? We are in an oil rich country and my gas is still over $4.00 a gallon. :mad:
Then again if we fix things in Iraq and trade with them and our gas prices go down and a once dictatorship nation turns to a democracy that can handle itself, then damn I think this war was for a good cause cuz now I'm paying $2.00 a gallon. :rock
-
Four thousand of our finest have given their lives serving their country in Iraq. They toppled a genocidal dictator, held the line against blood thirsty fanatics, patroled the streets of troubled cities, acted as ambassadors of good will, dispensed food and medicine, rebuilt the country's infrastructure, provided security during Iraq's first democratic elections, are equipping and training native Iraqi security forces, and endured long tours of duty away from their families with surprisingly few complaints.
They have performed magnificently. It is ludicrous for some to state that they support the troops but are against the war. The war gives every sign of winding down and achieving its goals. Nation building isn't easy, and the time and effort necessary for that to happen is apparently beyond the capacity of some to comprehend.
Our sons and daughters have shed their blood in a foreign land. We should stay the course, and finish the job, so that their blood will not have been shed in vain.
-
Four thousand of our finest have given their lives serving their country in Iraq. They toppled a genocidal dictator, held the line against blood thirsty fanatics, patroled the streets of troubled cities, acted as ambassadors of good will, dispensed food and medicine, rebuilt the country's infrastructure, provided security during Iraq's first democratic elections, are equipping and training native Iraqi security forces, and endured long tours of duty away from their families with surprisingly few complaints.
They have performed magnificently. It is ludicrous for some to state that they support the troops but are against the war. The war gives every sign of winding down and achieving its goals. Nation building isn't easy, and the time and effort necessary for that to happen is apparently beyond the capacity of some to comprehend.
Our sons and daughters have shed their blood in a foreign land. We should stay the course, and finish the job, so that their blood will not have been shed in vain.
100% agreed :salute
-
Shukins, you said it best of all here... :salute :salute
-
Charon and Shuckins make some good points, but I gotta say that I think its past an issue of us winning hearts and minds. The Iraqi government may still have that chance, but enough people hate us here that I think we blew it.
Will the Iraqi government be able to accomplish this? Well sometimes they run from fire. Sometimes they decide to beat the hell out of some guy, then just release him as he apparently didn't do anything (almost got video of that one). Not sure how the local population will view the legitimacy of the government, but we really won't know that till theyr'e on their own, and then its completetly up to them anyway.
Yes we have begun to see real progress at last, and now is not the time to simply cut out, but we need to begin to lay weight on the Iraqi soldiers, as we've carried the burden soley for long enough. If they don't take it themselves then we can never be victorious.
As for Iran......
Now would be a horrible time to invade Iran. Our troops are tired and overextended. Our vehicles are wearing out. Our gear is ok, but not as plentifully supplied as would be appreciated. If we run in there now we're in for a serious world of hurt. Sure we could take their military, no sweat. But what happens after that? Failing to answer that question before the conflict got us into the situation we're in now. What about the rest of the Arab world if we invade? We dodged the bullet on that one this last time. Probably won't happen again. Iran with a couple nukes isn't a serious threat, because if they use them the entire world will hate them and they know it. Our country has lots of nukes. I don't want to see a nuclear Iran, but there's only so much they can do with it. They're not fools after all. Starting a war because we think they might have one is only going to give them a reason to use it. Lets not be rash.
I'm more concerned with their support for the insurgency here, which our government has said is on the wane. Lots of the EFPs and material to make them has come from Iran, and those are really nasty. If we engage the Iranians diplomatically we have a chance of stabalizing Iraq and achieving our objectives in the wider Middle East. If we attack Iran we lose it all.
If Israel attacks Iran I say let them stand alone and bear the consequences. Last thing we need is to be drawn into a theater conflict by a cranky teenager throwing a panicy tantrum.
-
Iran "not a threat" ...???
Iran is already attacking the US and Israel by proxy
How many of us have they killed through their training, weapons and ppl sent over the borders? They ARE hezbollah as most Israelis already know
As for their nuke dev, they dont need a delivery system nor do they need some super powerful nuke .. just a few allah crazed virgin hunrgry fools willing to carry a suitcase or two (dirty bombs) into the downtown areas say of our top 6 cities and watch the country implode on itself in the months following the attack. By the time we figure out and can blame Iran for it, our country would be toast
Iran IS the reason we invaded Iraq IMO
No worries.. Obama will talk them out of their zealous lunatic hatred of the west LOL
-
excel.. I think that you are correct.
That being said... is it just the hate for America that is causing the civilized nations of the world to shoot themselves in the foot on this issue?
Is it just that they are so weak or greedy? Why aren't they all banding together to help us finish this thing off once and for all and to get some stability for once in the region? Don't they realize that this is probly the last best chance of it ever happening again?
Is is because they are all over run with muslim populations? What?
lazs
i think you pretty much know the reasons lazs
as you say, weakness and greed, plus sanctimonious socialist hypercritical ivory tower politics with some historical envy and historical ignorance thrown in to the mix, about sums it up i think.
my guese is that this apparent post cold war view that is held by some western nations that a weaker u.s with less influence and therefore counterbalanced and held in "check" by a host of tyrannical nations of assorted sizes is somehow better for the world is in for a realignment sooner or later when those western nations own comfy zones are iminintly threatened when history repeats
in the mean time, it's not practical and i don't think it would do it, but i wouldn't blame the u.s if it did slam the shutters up
-
No, but I guarantee you 9/11 affected me more than yourself and you don't see me in here whining about it. I don't "misquote" unless "you stated yourself incorrectly".
What's next Parcheesi?
:weak:
-
Four thousand of our finest have given their lives serving their country in Iraq. They toppled a genocidal dictator, held the line against blood thirsty fanatics, patroled the streets of troubled cities, acted as ambassadors of good will, dispensed food and medicine, rebuilt the country's infrastructure, provided security during Iraq's first democratic elections, are equipping and training native Iraqi security forces, and endured long tours of duty away from their families with surprisingly few complaints.
They have performed magnificently. It is ludicrous for some to state that they support the troops but are against the war. The war gives every sign of winding down and achieving its goals. Nation building isn't easy, and the time and effort necessary for that to happen is apparently beyond the capacity of some to comprehend.
Our sons and daughters have shed their blood in a foreign land. We should stay the course, and finish the job, so that their blood will not have been shed in vain.
:aok
-
So... how would stopping Iran's nuclear program stop them from getting their hands on one of those?
Might stop them from making one of those or something similar.
Your idea that they won't be able to make a small nuke seems to disregard the fact that the technology to make one as small as an 8" artillery shell has been around a long time and is no secret.
-
Four thousand of our finest have given their lives serving their country in Iraq. They toppled a genocidal dictator, held the line against blood thirsty fanatics, patroled the streets of troubled cities, acted as ambassadors of good will, dispensed food and medicine, rebuilt the country's infrastructure, provided security during Iraq's first democratic elections, are equipping and training native Iraqi security forces, and endured long tours of duty away from their families with surprisingly few complaints.
They have performed magnificently. It is ludicrous for some to state that they support the troops but are against the war. The war gives every sign of winding down and achieving its goals. Nation building isn't easy, and the time and effort necessary for that to happen is apparently beyond the capacity of some to comprehend.
Our sons and daughters have shed their blood in a foreign land. We should stay the course, and finish the job, so that their blood will not have been shed in vain.
if i'm not mistaken, didn't we put said genocidal dictator in power? and didn't we support him for years, untill it became inconvienent? i'm not sure, so don't flame me, i'm only asking.
it actually is NOT ludicrous to support the troops but not the war. what that means to me is someone who admires what our brave men and women are doing, but doesn't think that they should still have to be over there trying to fight a one handed fight, with a bunch of insane muslims trying to kill them in any way they can possibly imagine.
i agree, we SHOULD finish the job. again though, i'm not sure, but it appers to me that our brave soldiers have to fight with rules of engagement? whereas the enemy doesn't? it's really...in my opinion anyway.....very difficult to win a war fighting this way. we need to let our soldiers do the jobs they've trained to do. then, and only then will a quick descisive victory be achieved, and we can get out of there.
just my opinions
<<S>>
-
Iran IS the reason we invaded Iraq IMO
I have to agree that it was one of the reasons,if not THE reason.Any nation's "President" that threatens to "Wipe Isreal off the Earth",holds "Holocaust Denail" summits & terrorist training camps..in my opinion has lost not only it's right to aquire nuclear power,but has lost it's soverign nation status.They haven't quite met all four UN mandates for that(unless they vilolate The Non Proliferation Treaty)..Iraq was a serial violator of all four and had lost it's soverign status.(though the UN did nothing)
I'm all for Nation building if it involves removing Islamic facist governments.These mullahs and their monotheistic governments are hell bent on bringing on the Apocolypse,and one day one of them will set one off in Isreal.It is a huge deterrent having a large millitary force in Iraq.
Say what you want about Cheney and GWB..I think it is to their credit that they went ahead with this even though they had to lie,mislead the general public as to their true intentions as to ensure the safety of the greater good.
The biggest crime imho was letting Iraq rot for 12 years(mostly under Clinton's watch) before finishing off this murderous regime.
-
holmes... in light of excels reply to me (he seemed to be able to decipher my questions) I will break it down into simple questions for you.
I said... "holmes.. so it is your opinion that excel is in the minority with his opinion? That most of the civilized nations feel that the best way to fight muslim extremeism is to simply leave the muslim countries alone and fight the terrorists on their own ground? or.. is it t hat your socialist programs have made you so weak that really... that is all you can do?
you do not believe that the US turning Iraq into a democratic modern country free of despots and terrorists is the way to go? that eventually you will have to fight the 9th century muslims on their own ground?"
now...
(1) "holmes.. so it is your opinion that excel is in the minority with his opinion?"
(2) "That most of the civilized nations feel that the best way to fight muslim extremeism is to simply leave the muslim countries alone and fight the terrorists on their own ground?
(3) "or.. is it t hat your socialist programs have made you so weak that really... that is all you can do?
(4) "you do not believe that the US turning Iraq into a democratic modern country free of despots and terrorists is the way to go? that eventually you will have to fight the 9th century muslims on their own ground?"
you can answer some or all of the above simple questions. excel seemed to figure out how to answer.
lazs
-
There are fanatics in every major religious organization. Here is example of recent Jewish extremists http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/20/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-New-Testament-Burned.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/20/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-New-Testament-Burned.php). I think we need too step back and realize that the actions of the few are what galvanize our image of that society. I would say, the vast majority of people want to live in peace , raise there family and go on holidays. We need to get over our current xenophobic mindset. We are the most powerful country in the world, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
-
Sirloin, I don't think what Bush and company told the public about Saddam's activities was a lie. There was, undoubtedly, a degree of self-deception involved. Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds had been well documented. The intelligence agencies of various western nations had issued reports stating that he was continuing his efforts to acquire wmds. Those reports were believed by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, and Tony Blair, among others. Saddam's behavior in the months prior to the U.S. invasion did little to reassure those leaders that he was not up to his old tricks. Sure, there were isolated voices that expressed doubts, but given the man's past history of deception and duplicity, who were these leaders going to believe?
Should we invade "sovereign" nations in order to remove tyrants from power? That has always been the 800 pound gorilla in any discussion about the invasion of Iraq. One could make the case that by doing so, we save the lives of those innocents who oppose his rule, but are powerless to oust him. Certainly, many historians have made the argument that World War II's horrendous destruction and high body count could have been avoided if the western European powers had simply invaded Germany the first time Hitler violated the Versailles Treaty. There are many who oppose that viewpoint, but until and unless we settle the question of whether or not we have an obligation to protect the lives of our fellow human beings living under the rule of a bloodthirsty despot, members of the left and the right in our country will continue to bash each other over the head about taking preemptive action like we did in Iraq.
CAP, we didn't put Saddam into power. He was one of many Baathists who cooperated with the CIA during its operations in Iraq during the 1950s and 1960s. Saddam seized power in a coup in 1979, after being one of the Baath party's top government officials for several years. To give the devil his due, Saddam was instrumental in modernizing the Iraqi economy, advancing women's rights, mechanizing agriculture, and raising the living standards and income of the poor. Like Mussolini, he made the trains run on time. Certainly, the U.S. government used him to achieve their own ends, at a time when Iran was seen as our great enemy in the region...and certainly many U.S. companies did business with him....but we also traded with the Nazis during the 1930s, BEFORE Hitler was seen as a threat.
So, let me just sum up by saying that, formulating a foreign policy in the Middle East is like walking through a mine field: take the wrong step, and ...
-
When it is the actions of a few we can afford to ignore it or at least.. to not generalize or paint with so broad a brush.
the muslim extremeist problem far exceeds every other extremest group combined tho. It is part of a religion and is an organized group of people who have a culture of "submit or die" and a culture of suicide bombing or suicide raids.
To compare them to any other terrorist group, in scope at least, is laughable and idiotic.
lazs
-
There are fanatics in every major religious organization. Here is example of recent Jewish extremists http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/20/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-New-Testament-Burned.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/20/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-New-Testament-Burned.php). I think we need too step back and realize that the actions of the few are what galvanize our image of that society. I would say, the vast majority of people want to live in peace , raise there family and go on holidays. We need to get over our current xenophobic mindset. We are the most powerful country in the world, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
your thinking is flawed
-
hmmm different timezones don't really help the flow of a discussion do they. anyways, my original post was in answer to lazs question of why the rest of the world isn't rushing in to help sort out the mess in Iraq, i'll elaborate:
my point was that you shouldn't be surprised by this. during the invasion of Iraq, when there might have been a reasonable chance of the coalition achieving its objectives, how many of the 190ish member states of the UN provided real support to the coalition? by real support I mean troops in numbers. anyone can say its a good idea, real commitment is risking the lives of your citizens. I make it 3* (4 if you count a token Polish force of 200ish). not exactly overwhelming support.
the situation in Iraq is now way more complicated than in 2003, any country looking at getting involved in Iraq will see big bills and a steady stream of body bags. as well as improving their ranking on al-qaedas hitlist. not exactly tempting is it?
im not saying its right, im just saying i understand
*edit: I forgot about the Spanish. al-qaeda didnt. make it 4.
-
Sirloin, I don't think what Bush and company told the public about Saddam's activities was a lie. There was, undoubtedly, a degree of self-deception involved. Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds had been well documented.
I don't want to get into the forged documents from Africa thing(and the White House leak)Like I said,it's to their credit in finishing the job,correcting the mistake of GWB's father in not going in.
BTW,Saddam's use of Gas vs Iran is also well documented.
-
Iran isn't as big a threat as it has been made out to look like by some in the media lately. It will be a big problem if we react to it in the wrong way, but for now prudence must be our guide. Historical parallels with the appeasement of Hitler seem apt, but are largely overstretching. If Iran invades someone, genuinely, this will be different. The mistake was made in invading Iraq of not looking forward to the aftermath after we creamed their militry defenses. Big Mistake! If we don't learn from this and do it again we'll be doubly foolish. There are far more important geopolitical considerations to be taken into account than just people waving big sticks at each other.
The line about 'wiping Israel off the map' has been largely misquoted. He said that the people should be resettled elsewhere and that the state of Israel should be removed. I don't necessarily agree with this, but he didn't say that everyone in Israel should be killed. Is Holocaust denial stupid? Sure, its retarded, but remember that he's playing to a political base too. I remember one of our own leaders trying to retake toast from the French.
Overreacting is the worst thing we can do. The Middle East is volatile enough. We as a country have to learn that we can't always get our way and we need to work with others and sometimes accept things that we don't like. This is the heart of the problem. I don't mean to be a bleeding heart about this, and I'll definatly use the M4 sitting next to me whenever need be, but sticks and carrots must be used together.
I know Iran has been supporting hezbollah and making a lot of waves internationally, but neither have we or Israel been blameless in the medling game. Pissing off more people than are already pissed at us is the worst thing we could do. Let's not do it.
-
I don't have either the time or inclination to read all the posts in this thread, but I did notice an abundance of "just pull out and leave now" type comments.
Does this seem amazingly short sighted to anyone else besides me? Does anyone else feel that for whatever reason we went in there, it would be a phenomenally huge mistake to just pull out and leave before the Iraqis were fully able to control the country themselves? Surely I can't be the only one here who is pretty sure just dropping everything and pulling out would just sentence Iraq into a spiral downward and becoming a huge breeding and training ground for terrorists?
I know the Harry Reids and Pelosi types are very afraid we might succeed, and are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of success, but come on, are we that short sighted?
-
Option 3
Iraq kicks us out....
We can wash our hands, they take it into theirs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7452853.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7452853.stm)
Good riddance to the problem.
Not sure if this is a good solution, but it will be interesting to see how this angle plays out.
-
As the last troop leaves, we leave President Bush there with a mini-14. :salute (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/ad/surrender.gif)
-
holmes.. I understand the time zone thing does screw up the flow but... I didn't really think you had answered me except to dismiss my questions. I think your latest response is more of a... well.. response.
I "understand" too why other countries are not rushing in to help. As you say.. body bags and expense. I think you overstate the body bags since it is not really a costly war in that respect and.. every one of your soldiers killed or wounded would be highly motivated volunteers.
The expense gets to the heart of it.. most of you are broke because of socialist programs but... I think it is short sighted. Your last best chance to do something to resolve the whole festering middle east thing is now. I think that it is more even than money.. I think that you all have a large muslim population that you fear. You fear riots and protests more than body bags of soldiers.
I also think that to an extent.. you are unwilling to admit that the US is not stupid and evil and that you should have got on board from the beginning (you did to an extent in england).
It baffles me that the rest of the world would allow us to just walk away if that is what ends up happening. It would make more sense to give some support.. even political but more with troops and supplies. We are doing what no UN without us could ever do. What we are doing is best for the world and, especially for civilized countries.
You guys seem to be taking a huge risk on blowing your last best hope for a middle east solution with your fear and prejudice against the U.S.
lazs
-
If the government is tyrannical then it's the peoples job to over throw it, not ours. The United States did it ~230 years ago.
The US didn't do it without help.
-
Well my opinion is that if we withdraw now, while Iraq is still week a country such as Iran might attack.
Plus remember what hapened when we withdrawed from Vietnam
-
Honestly, I think that there are a lot of valid points here, but here are some basic facts, as I have seen them.
1. If we were to do a mass withdrawl, Iran would probably just move in and take the land in Iraq that they used to claim..
2. An already unstable region would probably erupt into all out war, to include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel.
3. The world would condemn the US even further, as Iraqi tribal factions slaughtered each other in moves for control of the regions they wanted to claim as their own.
Now, this is all just conjecture, at this point, but there are a LOT of eyes in the Mid East, looking for any excuse to justify their own "holy wars against all those who do not believe the exact same things they do.
Also, theres a kind of damned if we do, damned if we don't situation going on in Iraq, with US forces.. Theres a TON of misconception out there, that we are somehow responsible for millions of deaths of Iraqi civilians, where its actually the fundamentalists doing 98% of the killing over there.
So, world opinion is that we are wrong for being there, but we really cant leave yet, because we actually are the only forces keeping a lot of the crazies from going all out..
As far as withdrawl, I think a very SLOW trickling out of troops and equipment is the right thing to do, as the Iraqi Police get trained and get better equipment.. They are starting to stand up to some of the extremists, now, because the moderate civilian population as a whole is getting very sick and tired of the kidnappings, suicide bombings, and other violence in the country. People aren't hiding their support for the US nearly as much anymore, because frankly, they don't want to deal with living in chaos any more.
Just my opinion....
-
finish it in Iran and Syria....
-
I thought it would be best clear up my original post first before moving on to your questions. also I'm a little confused by your reference to "socialist programs." I'm actually English and although we have state welfare, unions, minimum wages, a bill of rights etc (as the US has) we would be accurately described a capitalist country. (A socialist might even argue that the US gets a higher score purely because of the extent of union power.)
and for the record I have no fear or prejudice against the US, nor have I ever suggested that the US is stupid and evil.
the UK certainly doesnt have a problem with the principle of intervention in foreign affairs, the reason we are broke now is because we spent our entire imperial fortune fighting 2 world wars, on foreign soil, because it was the right thing to do.
as for withdrawl, I'd have to echo NavyOne's post, and add that we have a strong moral obligation to the people of Iraq to see this through.
-
Honestly, I think that there are a lot of valid points here, but here are some basic facts, as I have seen them.
1. If we were to do a mass withdrawl, Iran would probably just move in and take the land in Iraq that they used to claim..
2. An already unstable region would probably erupt into all out war, to include Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel.
3. The world would condemn the US even further, as Iraqi tribal factions slaughtered each other in moves for control of the regions they wanted to claim as their own.
Now, this is all just conjecture, at this point, but there are a LOT of eyes in the Mid East, looking for any excuse to justify their own "holy wars against all those who do not believe the exact same things they do.
Also, theres a kind of damned if we do, damned if we don't situation going on in Iraq, with US forces.. Theres a TON of misconception out there, that we are somehow responsible for millions of deaths of Iraqi civilians, where its actually the fundamentalists doing 98% of the killing over there.
So, world opinion is that we are wrong for being there, but we really cant leave yet, because we actually are the only forces keeping a lot of the crazies from going all out..
As far as withdrawl, I think a very SLOW trickling out of troops and equipment is the right thing to do, as the Iraqi Police get trained and get better equipment.. They are starting to stand up to some of the extremists, now, because the moderate civilian population as a whole is getting very sick and tired of the kidnappings, suicide bombings, and other violence in the country. People aren't hiding their support for the US nearly as much anymore, because frankly, they don't want to deal with living in chaos any more.
Just my opinion....
Well said Sir.
-
hmmm different timezones don't really help the flow of a discussion do they. anyways, my original post was in answer to lazs question of why the rest of the world isn't rushing in to help sort out the mess in Iraq, i'll elaborate:
my point was that you shouldn't be surprised by this. during the invasion of Iraq, when there might have been a reasonable chance of the coalition achieving its objectives, how many of the 190ish member states of the UN provided real support to the coalition? by real support I mean troops in numbers. anyone can say its a good idea, real commitment is risking the lives of your citizens. I make it 3* (4 if you count a token Polish force of 200ish). not exactly overwhelming support.
the situation in Iraq is now way more complicated than in 2003, any country looking at getting involved in Iraq will see big bills and a steady stream of body bags. as well as improving their ranking on al-qaedas hitlist. not exactly tempting is it?
im not saying its right, im just saying i understand
*edit: I forgot about the Spanish. al-qaeda didnt. make it 4.
Forget about Iraq for a moment--it's understandable why many able countries wouldn't send troops there, but Afghanistan:
NOone can say Afghanistan is an illegal war, and we ask for 7 THOUSAND fighting men from the ENTIRE rest of the frikking world, and said world can barely come up with 3 thousand. Many countries in NATO simply refuse to spend the money to HAVE an army, many others only look at the cost, screw their obligations
-
While I've never been a fan of pulling out, withdrawal is always better than paying child support!
-
the bearingpoint hydrocarbon law will give the queen and uncle sam exclusive rights to 80% of iraqi's oil reserves for the next thirty years.
so... i'm guessing 29 years after the iraqis are forced to pass it... after all the wells are dry... the pullout will occur.
-
holmes.... not to nit pic but the two world wars you fought were only on foreign soil because you knew that you were next. and.. you were attacked. As were we.
I don't want to get into colonialism here too much but that is hardly the same as benevolent. Not too many countries look to england as being benevolent. You are not vilified so much now tho because you have no real power not because you have been benevolent in the past.
As for socialism? I would measure it on the size of government and how much it redistributes wealth.. while I am not in the least happy with our creeping socialism... it is nothing compared to your cradle to grave socialism. Unions here are not strong. save a few.. they have pretty much gone away.. many states are right to work states. We may be catching up with you.. osamabama wants caps on profit and socialized medicine and a huge tax on gasoline...
That aside.. I can't believe the rest of the civilized world can't see the potential the situation in iraq presents for some much needed and long overdue solution to the problem of the middle east and it's ninth century barbarism. It is gonna reach out and touch you guys long before it touches us.
It will be far worse than any world war so far because it will be fought from without and within.
We just can't win.. we stay out of your problems and we get blamed.. we get proactive and we get blamed... one can only conclude... sour grapes and envy are the motivators more than reason.
lazs
-
Well, we didnt declare war in either instance because we were attacked, you're getting confused with the US involvement in WWII which was reactionary. WWI: invasion of Belgium and then France led to the declaration of war, WWII: invasion of Poland. neither preceeded by open hostilities between Germany and Britain. I never asserted the actions were benevolent, they were pre-emptive and pragmatic to protect our global interests. like I said, we dont have a problem with the principle.
Unfortunately I guess i'm with the rest of the civilised world on this, I cant see any obvious "potential the situation in iraq presents for some much needed and long overdue solution to the problem of the middle east and it's ninth century barbarism." I see an almost disastrous situation which at this point is more about damage limitation than a magic bullet to solve the world's problems.
-
How about a standard intermodal shipping container, at worst you get it into port and pop it before the ship can be inspected, at best you put it on a truck and ship it to the desirered destination....Saying "They cant do that" is just head in the sand stuff. Our real defence is the allmost compleat lack of operational security in the region by our antagonists, they suffer from a "this is waay too cool to not talk about" mentality.
Regards,
Kevin
They're going to need a missile or bomber to get it here. Once they actually get a nuke I highly doubt they'll already have the technology to microsize it like Russia and the United States can. Fat Man and Little Boy were IIRC 10,000 lbs. You're not gonna fit that in a suitcase and sneak it in.
-
Get them out ASAP...Our job is done...we as a country have to look at our own situation...we need to
look out for our own in this time of need!
+1
-
holmes.. I would have to say that despite chamberlain.. you guys knew you were on hitlers hit list. I would also say that socialism and not wars have made you the weak country you are today.. that and the fact the the civilized world (of which you are part) really frowns on imperialism and colonialism which were how you got powerful and wealthy in the first place.
As to iraq and the middle east.. at this point I would hope that you would see that Israel is the only shinning and modern thinking country in the region.. that it is the only one not rooted in ninth century barbarism. I would hope that you would realize that building on that is good.. that turning Iraq into a democratic and free capitalistic country in the region with a growing economy and middle class would be a huge step in getting the people of the middle east out of their barbaric ninth century interpretation of a religion of "submit or die".
That.. while it may have not been wholly perfect in reason... it was still a good choice for a start. That all it really lacked was a democratic government and fair constitution to make it into something that could join the ranks of the civilized world.
It is a great opportunity that you are blowing while you watch your countries decay from within and fill with the very same unassimilated ninth century barbarians that are the cause of all the problems over there. You will watch them gain more and more power in your own countries as you try to appease them and pretend that you like it. They will make no such pretense so far as you are concerned tho.
I think you, and the other countries, are not helping because you are impotent in the face of your own problems and.. more sordid.. out of some hate born of envy that you have for the U.S.
At least.. that is what it looks like.
lazs
-
this socialist thing is waaay OT. if you post a new topic, maybe "How the UK descended into fundamentalist socialism during the C20th while the US completely avoided it" I will happily discuss it with you, as it is it just comes across as UK-bashing. which I find curious as we are surely the US's closest ally? As for "not helping" we are the guys who drink and swear alot in funny accents while standing shoulder to shoulder with your guys over there. and who fly home in a bag when things dont work out. please dont forget that.
I dont really see Israel as a shining example of anything (except perhaps of how to dodge the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) or particularly relevant to finding the best way forward in Iraq. I don't think anyone is disputing that the best thing for Iraq, the middle east as a whole, and the credibility of the coalition members is a stable, democratic, independent state. The real question is how is that best achieved. The more worrying question is if its possible at all.
-
I'd like to say we should stay and create order, but I think that that's a near impossibility. With the partisan presence, and the local population being split ideologically between the Western Point of view and what can only be described as decidedly non-western, I fear it is inevitable that the US will only incur more and more hatred, and less and less ideoligical and political sympathy from the locals.
We ar enoit making their lives better, at this point, so their attitude should be fairly easy to predict. Sadly, it is this attitude that is steering their future. For one reason or another, we failed to win their hearts and minds. After that, it's only a question of how long we try to control them physically.
My suggest is get out while we can and take the fight to the source.
Or, as the original poster suggested, indirectly, just Nook the whole place to hell.
-
i think you've nailed the problem there slipknot, we may still have a chance to pull this off but it will require some pretty radical changes of policy to build trust with the Iraqis, and that imo is the only way this could work.
-
i think you've nailed the problem there slipknot, we may still have a chance to pull this off but it will require some pretty radical changes of policy to build trust with the Iraqis, and that imo is the only way this could work.
This is true... However, the failing with this is that their own troops, and police, being under American supervision, may be seen as an extension of the US force itself, rather than its own indiginous power. This, of course, may be exploited by the partisan/fanatic propaganda. If they view their own army and police force as a puppet of the invaders, that army or police force will be even more hated than the invaders themselves. Very much the same as a traitor is always viewed with more disdain than an enemy soldier.
This really is a war of ideology and indoctrination. Like it or not, we are trying to re-indoctrinate a group of people that has existed under the veil of religious and dictatorial oppression for a long time. What seems natural to us (freedom of choice, conviction, commerce, speech, etc...) is far from intuitive for many others.
We cannot seem to cross this cultural divide because what seems so obvious to us runs contrary to what seems obvious to them. This is perhaps the most compelling reason to stop tryin gto export freedom the way we do, and simply treat less than friendly nations as nothing more than reluctant but necessary trading partners.
-
well.... It is not as complex as some would make it. the bad guys.. the ninth century barbarians.. have a fairly large playground that is isolated from western thought.. On the one hand.. they can control their huge populations with an iron fist and make sure that their people stay rooted in barbarism.
On the other hand.. they can export it using modern methods.. they can send their people to the civilized world and still maintain a religious hold on them that keep them down and unassimilated.
The only way they can get away with all this is to own the whole middle east region except for Israel which.. they do their best to crush.. they are able to concentrate all their effort at this one and only serious threat to their maintaining such a hold in the region.
The only logical way to fight them is to have areas of democratic freedom and capitalism based on human rights and constitutional rule. The whole thing reaches a tipping point when people just like them (not just jews) start to live the good life of the middle class.. hell.. when there is a middle class to look at.
This is the best opportunity to achieve that in this region the world has ever seen and the rest of the world is pi###ing it away.
Yes, I realize the problems other countries have.. of their own making or not.. but.. I still think a lot of the lack of support is due to fear and envy.
lazs