War In Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]pookie wrote:
hedo wrote:
Pookie

Too bad your idealogy doesn’t allow open thought or new ideas. Perhaps the
Islamofacists will just stop in Europe or Canada because you know there just nice guys like that.

To give up and accept that it’s ok to elect your representative leaders whether be Islamofacists or National Socialists and the rest of the world should just smile is defeatist.

Yes those skinheads are quite the problem with thier terroist training bases, attacking buildings and subways, kidnapping and beheading huh? Oh wait a minute they aren’t doing that are they. They are a fringe group of disenchanted youth. How bout those Kamikaze’s. Seen one lately?

The populations of Japan and Germany were defeated because we made war on them. The will was broken. Of course it’s possible to defeat terrorism. Only the left believes it’s not possible.

Don’t worry we’ll handle it. Hop on the bandwagon when victory is assured.

Take care.

That’s an interesting way to debate. Pick up some random words, remove all of the original context in which they were used and make some random macho bullshit comments about how good you are at war.

Is it because you don’t understand what I said, or because you’re unable to form an opinion that hasn’t been fed to you?

Anyway, let me know when terrorism has been defeated.[/quote]

OK I will. Give us a few more years. Just stay out of the way ok. Try securing those borders a little better also. Canada is a terrorist haven due to those asylum rules you have.

If you don’t like your arguments to be refuted you always have the option of not making them? Didn’t you introduce skinheads as an example of Nazism not being defeated? If you have examples of skinheads using international terrorism to rekinlde National Socialism I’m all ears.

An opinion being fed to me…you have to see the humor in that statement coming from a Liberal. You have been manipulated since the 60’s by an agenda that is failing you precisely because it allows no room for deviation.

Take care. I know you guys always resort to attacking the person instead of the idea but if you have ideas let us know.

42

Most of your posts seem pretty rational/logical, Hedo. I find it hard to believe that you really believe that terrorism will be defeated in a few years. Seriously, I know you’re part of the Bush fan club, but this goes beyond that. Terrorism will not be stamped out period. Does that mean we tuck tail and quit fighting? Fuck no. But declaring war on terrorism and thinking you’re going to stamp it out with our current doctrines is ludicrous!

43

[quote]hedo wrote:
OK I will. Give us a few more years. Just stay out of the way ok. Try securing those borders a little better also. Canada is a terrorist haven due to those asylum rules you have.[/quote]

Yeah, they’ve even started opening terrorist restaurants where you can sample fine terrorist cuisine. You get quite a bang for your buck too.

I don’t mind if you refute them. Just refute what I said, not some random crap you make up from a few chosen words.

No, I introduced them as an example that the ideas of Nazism still exist today, and are still held by some fringe groups.

My point was that you can’t eradicate Islamofacism as an ideology. You can only make it so unpopular that the few idiots who adhere to it present no threat.

“the few idiots who adhere to it represent no threat.”

Tell me when you start to get it.

Are you Ann Coulter?

That’s because when I gave my opinions on your ideas, you suddenly starting responding with gibberish. So either, you can’t defend your opinions (most likely because you haven’t thought them out to any reasonable conclusion) or you don’t understand my criticism of them. Either way, it’s hard to continue the debate, as you’re commenting on things I didn’t say or you didn’t understand.

44

Quick question:

Let’s say we wave a magic wand and every terrorist on the planet dies.

Has terrorism been eradicated?

[] Yes [] No

Answer: No, of course not. As soon as someone, somewhere, gets pissed enough that he decides to detonate a bomb to make a point; to blow himself up in the name of some cause, you’ve got a new terrorist. Terrorism is a tool, not a race, not a religion, not a country, not an ideology.

Now, can we stop it with the “we’ll defeat terrorism” thing? Might as well wage a war on hammers.

45

Stop playing games with semantics. Obviously we are trying to defeat militant Islamists that use terrorism as a tool.

In spite of the word games we are not trying to defeat the hammer. We are targeting the assholes that are wielding it.

46

Pookie

I am sure you are trying to make a point. Sadly only you can understand it. For an idea to have merit and be debatable it has to make sense outside of your own head.

I’d be happy to respond to any idea you may have and educate you where you are deficient in knowledge or reason. However for me to respond to any more of your insults strains my better judgement. If you make statements that are outlandish you should expect criticism. Alternately you could try defending them better perhaps instead of attacking the person who pointed reasoning out for what it is worth.

Simply lying down and accepting defeat really doesn’t work in this world. it may may sense on the internet but in reality people fight against evil and injustice every day. Well some do at least.

Again do you have something to say that will further the discussion if not…bye.

47

hedo:

Ok, let’s take it one point at a time. That’ll probably be simpler for everyone and will make it easier to clarify if needed.

Q: Explain to me how your administration’s policy regarding troop commitments in Iraq (AKA the Rumsfeld Doctrine) is better than the alternative of commiting the number of troops your own generals where asking for (AKA The Powell Doctrine).

48

props pookie, im in agreement with you and am impressed to see you relentlessly cutting through the bullshit ideologies and replies.

In all fairness, I can understand why these soldiers are refuting your claims. Im quite certain that I wouldn’t want to believe that I was risking my life for nothing, let alone for a lie. And many are willing to defend the soldiers name no matter what, because it has long been glorified as a heroic and selfless duty. Now Im not saying these things are unfounded, but at the same time I don’t believe we should allow them to cloud our senses, especially not the ‘common’ one.

I, however, don’t understand how so many americans (and my mum is american, and I have been raised in american an environment my whole life) refuse to believe the atrocities of which the american government is capable of. I don’t want to sound arrogant or condescending, but honestly, READ A HISTORY BOOK. And I’m not talking about the one you get in your public schools in Albama, for example. I mean critically acclaimed, internationally renowned, peer reviewed, History. I understand that many of you haven’t had the immediate opportunity to do so, because maybe, you went to the public school in Alabama, which is fine!

However, what you will find in these books is quite astonishing. Lets begin with colonialism. The US has been no different than the British Empire was during it’s prime. Which, is undoubtably ironic, but also somewhat disconcerting, due to the fact that originally the US was a british colony that won it’s independence due to the fact that it very much did not like foreign policies being imposed on them.

American Empire you say? Surely not!
Actually the Iraq war is not that different from many of the past conflicts that the US has dabbled with. Take a look at much of South and Central America. Here you will find that many countries have been directly effected by US, and, as a result, thousands and thousands of innocents were killed, there were and still are economic depressions, civil wars, and so on. There were also, as is the case with Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein, many US-government-backed revolutionaries, which were later opposed by america.

I can list a few of these countries off the top of my head:
Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Granada, Honduras… the list goes on.

Mind you, most if not all of the suffering and damage that was caused to the people of those nations was all commited in the interest of america only.

Now that it has been established that the US government is capable of unspeakable things, just like any governement really, I’d like take the liberty to adress several comments made before.

Something like: “The Iraqi’s were ignoring UN conventions.”

Interestingly enough, one of the main founders of the UN, The USA actualy ignored the UN and went to war prematurely, which should speak for itself, but since it seems to have gone unheard, it is not only illegal by their own standards, thus being extremely hypocritical, but also sets a bad example to the entire world, and undermines the importance, if any, of the UN.

And the point that Pookie has made about the ideology also seems to go unheard, even though it is irrefutable. Quote: (roughly) " We dont want to destroy the ideology, that’s impossible, we just want to kill all the bastards who believe in it!" (roughly!)

You’re missing the point, an ideology is immortal, intangible, cannot be killed -it can be adopted by anyone. And im not sure if you noticed or not, but ever since the WAR ON TERROR (stupidest thing I’ve ever heard) the number of muslims who adopted that ideology EXPLODED! Furthermore, many of these young muslims are being taken advantage of by persuasive lunatics in powerful positions.

Remember, the end does not justify the means. Hitler thought it did, and he also thought he was a hero and that GOD was on his side.

-Sepukku

49

Pookie

The Powell Doctrine was used instituted during the cold war and followed the sense of defeatism that permeated the military after Vietnam. It was appropriate for the times. Massed troops and armor facing massed troops and armor. The Powell doctrine was specifically designed for precisely that type of battle. I was trained in it. I commanded a platoon of M-1 tanks so please do not tell me I know not what I speak. It was appropriate for the times and at the time, the enemy.

Technology in the US military has leapfrogged the capability of our enemies. We are on Generation 3 of weapons systems that our opponents do not even own. Baghdad fell in 2 weeks.
Now the left immediately discredits that because an irregualar force has been attacking the US ground forces. However, they hold no ground, have no bases and are hated by the people. More importantly they have no hope of rescue or resupply. It is a foregone conclusion they will be defeated as any competent strategist realizes. More US troops are not needed, more Iraqi troops are needed. The only people who support the Powell doctrine anymore are retired or soon to be retired generals. Unfortunately that is who provides most of the information to the public which the left jumps on. For example the talking heads on CNN.

You may not realize the advances in training, technology and coordination that has revolutionized military combat but the pentagon does. Wait and see what’s coming out. Precision bombing with GPS is only the beginning.

So that is the answer to your question. As a matter of principal I would have been much harsher on the Iraqi’s earlier on. This would have broken their will. That’s the military answer. Larger forces are not needed when facing an enemy that isn’t matching you asymetrically. It’s also the reason other countries want nukes when they face us. Rummy sees that. So do most of the leaders in the military.

You don’t need to be condescending. When you ask questions if you want anymore answered.

SEP,

Should Churchill have surrendered during the Battle of Britian? I mean it was hopeless right? National Socialism had defeated Europe and Britian didn’t really have a chance. You can’t defeat an idea right. Can’t kill all the Nazi’s. It’s pointless so why not just accept it. Your thoughts?

It’s great to be against the hard work of others but it’s equally important to be for something and have a sensible alternative.

50

Hedo:

I’ve already agreed previously that the initial onslaught against Iraq was extremely convincing. Shock & Awe did exactly what it’s name said.

Unfortunately, I don’t see the post-S&A period showing that a small number of troops can be as effective as a larger number. It took many weeks until some of the most loyalist regions got visited by your troops. It gave time for insurgents to regroup and organize.

I’m not questioning your training in either doctrine; simply observing that the insurgent’s “imminent defeat” has been announced time and time again, and still the bombings go on. The hawks keep repeating that they’re in their last throes of agony, but month after month, they seem to be able to carry on.

As for needing more Iraqi troops, one of the first thing that was done when you took over Iraq was to disband the army. Doing that simply made a lot of disgruntled mercenaries available to the other side. No wonder it’s taking so long for Iraq to rebuild its forces.

Finally, I don’t see where I’ve been condescending in asking my question. In fact, you’re the one who offered to “educate me where I am deficient in knowledge or reason.” If you’re uncomfortable discussing your views, just say so. Don’t read condescension where there is none and use that as an excuse to chicken out.

51

[quote]hedo wrote:
Should Churchill have surrendered during the Battle of Britian? I mean it was hopeless right? National Socialism had defeated Europe and Britian didn’t really have a chance. You can’t defeat an idea right. Can’t kill all the Nazi’s. It’s pointless so why not just accept it. Your thoughts?[/quote]

No, you can’t defeat an idea. What you can do is make the idea unpopular. If no one, or nearly no one shares that idea, then it is for all purpose and intent “defeated.”

What gave rise to national socialism in Germany was the harsh conditions imposed upon it after WWI. They had to accept all of the blame for the war and pay enormous reparations. Hitler capitalized on the anger felt by most Germans to build his Third Reich.

After the defeat of WWII, there were no similar draconian sanctions. In fact, Germany was helped in rebuilding its infrastructure and eventually became a world leader in many domains. A similar situation occured with Japan.

The current situation in Iraq is quite different. Iraq is being forced through a constitutional process that it wasn’t quite ready for. The former warring tribes that make up Iraq (Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis) are being sat down at the same table and told to ratify ASAP. From all accounts, it’s not going very well. Far from having separation of church and state; their current constitution proposal is based directly on Islamic Law. Basically, they’re setting up a Islamic Republic, closer to what you’ve got in Iran than any democratic nation.

That is going on against a background of nearly daily bombings; of which the local population must be extremely sick of. You’ve been there for what, over 2 years now? I don’t think the locals are seeing much progress in your fight against the insurgents. Eventually, they’ll decide that the only way to be able to live a peaceful life again is to get rid of your presence. It’s probably that sentiment that feeds the insurgency. And that’s why I feel that a larger number of troops from the start would’ve made a difference.

With more troops, you could’ve hit the major loyalist centers faster, giving them less time to organize. You’d have more men available to patrol and keep the peace; more men to train the police and replacement army. Less succesful attacks from the insurgents; and from that more goodwill for a longer period from the local populace.

52

I understand that you were trying to create a parallel of comparison. But the fact is there is no parallel at all!

Lets examine the facts: Germany invaded all surrounding countries. America invaded Iraq. England was being bombed by the German forces. Iraq is being bombed by American forces.

Now I’m NOT drawing a parallel between the Americans and the Germans, but I AM showing how they are completely different situations.

The Allied NATIONS(key word) fought the Axis NATIONS(same key word here). America isn’t fighting against a nation, they’re fighting against an ideology. Sure every nation has it’s own ideology but Europe wasn’t fighting Germany because they were Nazis. They were fighting them primarily because they were invading everyone! Sure they were fighting anti-semitism because the the Nazis were, well, Nazis! But that’s not WHY they were fighting.

I could keep going, but I’m sure you can see how the two situations are totally different.

-Sepukku

53

Sep

I disagree the parallels are accurate. The difference is the time line. Hitler could have been crushed much earlier on. Militarily if France acted when Germany moved early on, the situation would have been much different for Europe. Appeasement and a belief that it “can’t happen again” allowed the idea to take hold and spread. I don’t think the West, or at least the US, will let that happen again.

But I’ll ask again. Being against something, or everything, seems to be acceptable in this day and age but alternative and viable ideas seem to be in short supply from the anti’s. Any ideas?

Pookie,

Specifically I was referring to your check the box quiz regarding asking a question to annoy rather then asking a question to seek an answer.

However I disagree with your position and that’s ok. I would propose this. A small, quick force reacts much faster then a large force. That’s what we are doing. Disbanding the Iraqi aremy may not seem to be a good idea but I don’t think they were considered reliable, being composed mostly of loyalists. We could not tactically afford to have a large, armed force, that was not reliable and committed.

Consider this. The media is not going to report what is going well. Therefore the information you are recieving is going to be a severly edited version of the facts reported by a media that is distinctly biased. It must be worse in Canada. I don’t know what level of research you have done on the subject but I would propose by whatever metric you use the outcome is a foregone conclusion as is the status of the battle. Consider that the enemy has been frozen in place, at a place and time of our choosing, and is being decimated at every turn. They have no political base and the population is against them and wants their blood. Not a good outlook for the army of murderers.

54

From James Dunnigan a noted military strategist.

Cash, Cell Phones and Iraq

September 18, 2005: Sunni Arab terrorists have long used financial incentives to encourage their men to kill, or even capture, American troops. Now they are offering bounties, of $30,000-$100,000, for anyone who kills senior Iraqi government officials.

U.S. military intelligence tries to monitor these prices, as a way to gauge how well the terrorists are doing. Over the last two years, its been noted that the terrorists have been offering more money for planting bombs, or firing at U.S. convoys, when the terrorists want to make a splash in the media, or when heavy casualties among terrorists has made it difficult to get reliable people. The Sunni Arab terrorists are the most mercenary, although many of these lads can be persuaded to help out for free (out of tribal loyalty, or revenge for a relative killed by U.S. troops.)

Al Qaeda offers eternal paradise instead of cash bonuses, and thus attracts a generally less capable bunch of fighters. Al Qaeda tends to put people on the payroll, especially technical experts and senior leaders. Still, compared to the Iraq Sunni Arabs, and all the billions that Saddam stole while he was in power, the al Qaeda crowd seems poverty stricken. That’s why the al Qaeda terrorists go for a small number of spectacular suicide bomb attacks, while the Sunni Arabs carry out a much larger number of ambushes, assassinations and roadside bombings.

The major weakness in all this is the inability to get enough people for work that is considered too dangerous. American troops have made terrorism more and more dangerous, generally keeping ahead of the terrorists, and slowly gaining a greater edge on them. In addition, more Iraqi police and soldiers are entering service each month.

The terrorists have made it somewhat easier for the counter-terror forces, by restricting most of their operations to a small area of Iraq. About a third of all attacks are made in Baghdad, and about sixty percent take place in the rest of central Iraq (where most of the Sunni Arab population has always lived.) The Kurdish north is so quiet that it’s become a vacation resort for the rest of Iraq. The largely Shia south has more to worry about from gangsters, and feuding religious and political militias.

Most Iraqis have stopped blaming the United States for all the violence. It’s obvious, even to the most obdurate Iraqi, that local talent is committing most of the mayhem, and the rest is perpetrated by Arabs from neighboring countries. The Americans can still kill you, especially if you speed towards an American checkpoint, or try to pass an American convoy. But the biggest killer of Iraqis are Arab terrorists, either diehard Saddam thugs, or the al Qaeda fanatics. As a result, the 15 percent of Iraqis with cell phones, are increasingly finding a local police station, and calling in tips. Increasingly, the cops respond pretty quickly, and efficiently. It’s becoming too dangerous to be a terrorist in Iraq, and most Iraqis like it that way

55

Hedo,

If you have a large force, can’t you split it up in many small forces? You then have more small, quick forces that you can use to cover more territory; you don’t have to compromise as much if you find yourself having to cover large areas or multiple cities.

I’m sure there were many loyalists in the Iraqi army. But weren’t there any troops that did it for love of their country? I understand that it was possibly not doable to separate patriots from Saddam loyalist, but disbanding the army made a lot of trained soldier available for recruitment by the other side.

As for research, I read a wide variety of sources; I don’t restrict myself to the CBC and CNN. I see the good reported along with the bad; but it’s too easy to dismiss everything that’s not going well as “media bias.” It’s not media bias that the current constitutional talks are not exactly going as hoped.

That said, I agree with you that you can’t be defeated militarily in Iraq. What can happen, though, is that the conflict goes on for so long that the U.S. public decides to elect an administration that promises to bring the troops home. That can’t happen before 2008, but if progress isn’t seen until then, that might become a plausible scenario. That’s why I think a larger force, or a stronger coalition would’ve been a better strategy going into the war. The sooner the whole place reaches a reasonable stability, the better it is for the Iraqis, your troops and your administration.

Don’t see this as “being against something” simply because I want to be against it. I don’t disagree with the basic goals. Removing Saddam, instituting a secular democracy in the region, and so on, are all worthwhile goals. I just think that the current methods employed to achieve those objectives haven’t been well planned. This lack of planning is costing lives and a lot of money, not to mention the blow to your standing with many of your long time allies.

56

Pookie

After a rough start I am enjoying debating with you.

I think a larger force makes political sense but from a military standpoint, to me, it still doesn’t make sense.

The modern US Army has a much higher tooth to tail ration. Cooks, maitenance, even transportation is contracted out. That means more troops in the field and fighting instead of peeling potatoes. My guess is that the majority of the troops are fighting compared with other wars where maybe 20% were front line. The reality is large forces were seen as no longer being necessary so many divisions were eliminated or reduced.

As to the Iraqi army I can’t imagine how the sorting out process would have went. I also think that those that did love their country got back into the military.

I hope your wrong about 2008 but agree that a weak president ,if elected, may cave into political pressure and withdrawl the troops too early.

57

[quote]hedo wrote:
Sep

I disagree the parallels are accurate. The difference is the time line. Hitler could have been crushed much earlier on. Militarily if France acted when Germany moved early on, the situation would have been much different for Europe. Appeasement and a belief that it “can’t happen again” allowed the idea to take hold and spread. I don’t think the West, or at least the US, will let that happen again.

But I’ll ask again. Being against something, or everything, seems to be acceptable in this day and age but alternative and viable ideas seem to be in short supply from the anti’s. Any ideas?

[/quote]

That wasn’t the parallel you were drawing in your first statement. Initially it was “would Churchill have just given up fighting because he was fighting an ideology, which, as you (me) say ,cannot be destroyed?” or something roughly along those lines.

So I’m not sure how it has evolved into a discussion on European military strategy… However, yes I am in agreement with you that it was due to a disbelief that it could happen again, and that the Germans were a bit of alright now, had chilled out since their last defeat so to speak. And yes, France defo made some huge mistakes, which all of Europe suffered from.

Churchill however, was, before he became prime minister, one of the only in parliament who saw this coming, and fought to bring it to light, but obviously was ignored, and actually shunned until it was too late.

Either way, no one is invading, or even planning on invading your country, the enemy you are fighting is a purely ideological one and taking a war to some country that “harbours” terrorists, is in effect, only going to create more terrorists, and has done.

As for suggestions, my first would be, don’t break international laws that you have fought to put into place! Also, I would recommend keeping your sticky fingers out of third world politics in the sense that, Osama bin Laden was trained and funded to fight the Russians, in the interests of America, specifically the spread of monolithic communism. Saddam Hussein was also an american puppe. And now they’re all causing problems for the US and in the case of Osama and Saddam, have murdered thousands.

And that’s just to name a few. Basically, The Government of the United States of America is responsible for secretly funding and supporting many bloody revolutions, influencing third world politics at the expense of thousands of innocent lives and crippling economies all in the interest of a few in the U.S.

Not only that, but they have also started wars on fake pretenses i.e. Vietnam and now Iraq. Not only were thousands of innocents killed, (actually millions in the case of Vietnam, Loas and Cambodia) but so have thousands of innocent young American soldiers! Fighting for a LIE! DYING FOR A LIE! KILLING FOR A LIE!!

I don’t have a solution for this incredible quagmire, and it looks like nobody does. But I think this war is not the problem itself, just one of it’s symptoms. We all know you dont resolve a problem by fixing it’s symptoms, you get rid of the cause. The cause of the War and the cause for such anti-american sentiment in most of the third world comes from its absolutely shit foreign policy, and cloak and dagger operations all over the world.

Well, I hope I have cleared things up and answered your question as best as possible.

-Sep

58

[quote]Devil0351Dog wrote:
we are helping a formerly oppressed people AND taking the war to the enemy. I’d much rather fight terrorists in Iraq than in my backyard.
[/quote]
No, we aren’t helping them and the enemy that you are speaking of was not a terrorist threat to us. You beleive any lie the Bush administration tells you? It’s one thing to question orders it’s another thing to believe the orders you recieve are truth. Don’t worry you’ll get a chance to fight them in your backyard, too.

59

Hedo

For front line fighting, your troop numbers are more than sufficient. It is for the peacekeeping effort that the effectives are too few. In a country in the situation where Iraq is right now, there is a lot of opportunities for lawlessness. Having a couple of soldiers on each street is a great help in restoring and keeping stability.

From the reports we’re seeing, it is only a small region of Iraq that’s causing most of the troubles. But that small region encompasses many cities, and with all it’s other responsibilities, it seems your army (with the British) are having to do with a lot less troops than would be optimal.

Of course, it might be possible to complete the mission with fewer troops, but that will take longer, cost more, get more GIs killed and risks having the U.S. public remove support for the war. That’s why I believe time to be of the essence.

The point might be moot, since from all accounts, you’re already stretched nearly to the limit; forcing soldiers to stay for longer than usual and sending national guards overseas. You have to keep some reserve, in case a major situation develops that can’t be ignored.

Concerning the Iraqi army, if those who loved their country got back in the military, you’re still left with the question: How do you tell them apart from loyalists trying to sneak back in?

For the 2008 election, I guess we’ll have to see how the situation progresses until then. Lucky for you, the Democrats seem unable to get their act together and present a strong alternative.

60

Sep

Your ideas are more of the same idealogical rants of what you think we shouldn’t do. I pointed out the timeline as an addition to bolster my argument and further point out you ducked the question.

It’s the basic reason why your side of the argument is deemed irrelevant. Even though you look at the facts you are choosing to believe the hyperbole.

That may be the current cosmopolitan european outlook on the situation that the left in this ountry bows too. In reality it remains and idealogy of complaints not solutions. You outlined the what we shouldn’t do in your mind not what should be done. Do you really think Castro is a relevant world leader or that the US is concerned about him. The only people who fear him or are hurt by him are his own people.

The United States has been a benevolent superpower for over 60 years. Your opponent in this war doesn’t share the same cosmopolitan views. Hopefully Europe will not become a Dihmini (sp) to Islam but who knows?

If you don’t have anything more then the US starts bloody wars with secret funding I don’t think you have anything to debate other the unsubstantiated opinion.