War in Iraq - Is it a Disaster

[straffo]

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
T'as pas vu la taille de mon filet?

C'est Ma zone de peche !

n'oublie pas de remettre les plus petits à l'eau

[Eagler]

WW2 was looking pretty bad for how long?

yep, should have just said "It ain't worth it" and left

too bad all the good news in Iraq isn't reported but then when is good news newsworthy?

[Scootter]

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Where does it says the word "French, or France" in this article?

Is it the average American behavior to blame his failure on the French?

I was only responding to the proposed deal from Straffo, I have no  beef with the French people,  I kind of wish things were different in this respect.

I wonder how the rank and file French feel about the American people all politics aside?

Ahh politics something hard to understand, but most people are not politicians, thank God.

Frenchy I would say no to your question (hope I’m right) many would not call it a failure and I hope most are educated enough to see this as a political problem that has two sides. Disagreement is not the end of a relationship, keep in mind marriage works at least half the time.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

Originally posted by anonymous
what failure? by your reasoning world war two should have been done with in less than a year or allies would have "failed" in fighting axis. i love the reasoning that clearcut victory not attained on a timetable set by a political party equals "failure". the coalition isnt the germans and the insurgents arent the french this thing is going to be a fight for awhile.

In WW2 Eisenhower didn't declare "Mission accomplished" on June 10th, 1944.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by straffo
you give 33% of the oil ?
if so we have a deal.

Whats this? you mean your willing to trade blood for oil?

[anonymous]

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
In WW2 Eisenhower didn't declare "Mission accomplished" on June 10th, 1944.

thats because the allies were fighting the german army. when bush said mission accomplished he was in part referring to cv coming off double deployment. as for military mission accomplished tell me where iraqi military was still active against coalition when he said this?

[anonymous]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Whats this? you mean your willing to trade blood for oil?

only the blood of iraqi civilians.

[TweetyBird]

Here's another plan - just claim victory e.g.,

"No, what I said was that, because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I mean, we thought we'd whip more of them going in.
But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operation, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they didn't.
And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work.
" - Bush 1st presidential debate


So let me get this straight - we won. We had a rapid victory. But we did it too fast, so we're taking casualties? It must be very hard  work comming up with that convoluted logic. But I guess it comes in handy when one cuts taxes and increases spending.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
Here's another plan - just claim victory e.g.,


So let me get this straight - we won. We had a rapid victory. But we did it too fast, so we're taking casualties? It must be very hard  work comming up with that convoluted logic. But I guess it comes in handy when one cuts taxes and increases spending.

the logic makes sence. Least I fully understand what he ment.

Nice try on the spin though

[cpxxx]

Yes it's a mess right now. It was always going to be a mess. But maybe we all believed too much in the idea of the quick, minimum casualty, precision guidance war.  But it seems they were always the exception. Now it's gone a bit like the Palestine issue, low level ongoing bloodletting and bitterness. Or perhaps Iraq is going down the road of Lebanon, virtual anarchy for many years.

America and everybody else could disengage right now and watch what happens while wringing their hands and crying that they did their best. That won't happen because Iraq is too important. So everyone is in it for the medium term. It will drag on, even if an acceptable government is elected, even if the Iraqis gain more control of their country from the terrorists. It will be the destination of many an American and British soldier (and the rest) for some time to come. There won't be any neat ending this year or the next.

It's mostly Iraqis dying in this war. We owe it to them to stay engaged because we can't let the Baathist or the fanatics to take it.  It will only be a failure or a disaster if that happens.

[Nash]

Originally posted by cpxxx
It was always going to be a mess. But maybe we all believed too much in the idea of the quick, minimum casualty, precision guidance war.

Not everyone did...

[TweetyBird]

>>the logic makes [sense]. Least I fully understand what he [meant].

Nice try on the spin though <<

Its not spin at all. If the Baathists were retreating stategically (in order to form up for guerilla tactics), allowing them to do so by not modifying the attack (e.g., slow down and use more tactical forces to capture as many Baathists as possible), is a blunder and by no means a "victory."

It is my belief there weren't enough forces to to capture and hold the Baathists - thats why they were allowed to escape and reform to fight a guerilla war. Thats not spin. Claiming victory is spin.

[VOR]

Screwballs.

[GRUNHERZ]

What is all this failure talk?

If John Kerry wins in november all you ameristalkers will sing a different tune as your hero assumes gloriouis command of his old band of brothers and brings in tyhe french and germans to help us in Iraq!

[Nash]

The more likely scenario, Grun, is that you will begin to blame Kerry for the mess over there. It is just going to get worse.