We MUST Stay In Iraq!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Sloth wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

OK, so can you explain why Vietnam was a war and Iraq today isn’t? What’s Afghanistan today then, is that a war? Was it a war when the Soviets were fighting the mujahideen instead of us? I’m confused.

I’m sorry, I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re confused about. We are not at war with Iraq. If fact, we temper our actions in accordance to what the Iraqi Government is prepared to do. Do you see us treating Sadr City as the legit military target that it is? And yes it, as it is the base of operations for Sadr’s militia. We conduct swat like raids and patrols instead of pummeling Sadr city in submission, or destruction.
[/quote]

So your definition of a war is based solely upon our tactics? Did it ever occur to you that massive use of firepower might just be counter-productive in a counter-insurgency campaign that depends upon intelligence and support from the people in the area?

I don’t really know how to argue this point with documented evidence, but if Israel cared about international public opinion there wouldn’t be a settlement left on the West Bank. The Israeli government is very susceptible to pressure from its own citizens, and from our government (rarely exercised), but not from the rest of the world.

I am fully aware he was IDF Chief of Staff, my reference was to him having been a former pilot. The air campaign and ground campaign are linked: the ground campaign was only necessary because the air campaign didn’t succeed. The idea of defeating a dispersed, guerrilla enemy with airpower was proven to be completely flawed. The Israelis had some trendy name for it, “the hawk and the scorpion” or something. As I said, worked real well.

[quote]
Ever heard of rally round the flag? How on earth would be removing their government by bombing it?

Ever heard of fighting against those who are ACTIVELY engaging in acts of war against us? Iran is helping to kill our troops. I’ll say it again…Iran is helping to kill our troops. I don’t care what they rally around afterwards, as long as they realize that fighting us isn’t going to ever work. That is unless they want to eat dirt for the next couple of generations. They don’t want to remove their terrorism exporting, US troop killing, theocratic leadership? Than fuck them and their future generations.

How about rallying around OUR flag, and take out the bastards helping to kill OUR troops? It’s an absolute national disgrace that our fighting men haven’t been avenged yet. Damn I’m glad we didn’t entertain these kind of excuses during WW2. “What if we kill thousands of German citizens???” “What if they rally around their flag???” Than they’ll die too, so long as we win. Why is the West so bent on defeating it’s own self? [/quote]

This isn’t about Western self-loathing, or political correctness, or any of that BS. It’s about the fact that airpower won’t change anything, and will quite likely make the situation worse, and the use of conventional ground forces is looking worse by the day in Iraq. This is not about left-wing capitulation, it’s about being realistic about what we can and can’t do, and finding to the best way to defend our interests in the Middle East. Clear?

62

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Doesn’t the whole “creative destruction” thing look a little suspect to you after the last three years?

Also, can’t see Russia or, especially, China, ever not vetoing an invasion of Iran, coastal or otherwise. They’re likely to veto sanctions, which are just a little less drastic.

I still fail to understand why armed containtment, whether from Iraq or the Gulf States, isn’t a much better idea than a needless war.

Good article on this from a while back, by an Israeli military historian you may have read (although apparently his book on the Wehrmacht is no longer part of the curriculum at the Marine Corps Command and Staff School at Quantico):
http://www.defense-and-society.org/creveld/to_bomb_iran.htm

[/quote]

If it ever turned into a shooting war with Iran, and I am by no means an advocate for that, I can’t imagine the U.S. being able to keep the Straits open without a sizable force on the ground. I might be obsessing on the terrain though.
Good article, anything by Martin Van Creveld is thought provoking. I think he is still on the Command and Staff curriculum, as well as the curriculum at Expeditionary Warfare School, which is for pre-company command captains.

63

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

This isn’t about Western self-loathing, or political correctness, or any of that BS. It’s about the fact that airpower won’t change anything, and will quite likely make the situation worse, and the use of conventional ground forces is looking worse by the day in Iraq. This is not about left-wing capitulation, it’s about being realistic about what we can and can’t do, and finding to the best way to defend our interests in the Middle East. Clear?[/quote]

First, I didn’t advocate air power alone. Second, Iran is helping to kill our troops. OUR troops. What do YOU want to do about it? Slap on some sanctions? Give them a stern talking to? How exactly do you think we should handle this? Ignore it? Meet it with a finger wagging? They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

64

[quote]Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be? [/quote]

Nuke the entire planet, obviously.

65

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Japan and Germany also have had foreign troops on their soil from 1945 to the present, largely to protect them from a mutual enemy. To compare their experience (not to mention that both were Western countries) to an ongoing bombardment of Iran is kind of silly.[/quote]

The situations aren’t identical, that’s a given.

What I mean is that if you go to war with Iran, you should put the fear of into them. Make it clear that they can either surrender and enjoy Western support, as long as they agree to a few conditions OR that they will be hurt, badly, maybe even permanently, until they comply or figure out how to beat the US in a war.

To simply go in, blow everything to shit and leave simply mean you’ll have to repeat it again, probably after the situation has become worse. Give them a way to save face, to become part of the world community, to play by the rules. That might have a chance to set up a lasting peace.

66

[quote]Sloth wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

This isn’t about Western self-loathing, or political correctness, or any of that BS. It’s about the fact that airpower won’t change anything, and will quite likely make the situation worse, and the use of conventional ground forces is looking worse by the day in Iraq. This is not about left-wing capitulation, it’s about being realistic about what we can and can’t do, and finding to the best way to defend our interests in the Middle East. Clear?

First, I didn’t advocate air power alone. Second, Iran is helping to kill our troops. OUR troops. What do YOU want to do about it? Slap on some sanctions? Give them a stern talking to? How exactly do you think we should handle this? Ignore it? Meet it with a finger wagging? They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be? [/quote]

Maybe very intense finger wagging…With a democratic controled congress we will have to be attacked again to approve any funding for more military action. Most of those people could give a fuck about our troops.

67

[quote]Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be? [/quote]

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.

68

[quote]tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.[/quote]

Haven’t you heard? If you don’t fight them there, they’ll all swim over and you’ll have to fight them here.

69

[quote]tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.

[/quote]

I support moving our troops…To Tehran

70

[quote]pookie wrote:
tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.

Haven’t you heard? If you don’t fight them there, they’ll all swim over and you’ll have to fight them here.
[/quote]

No, they go by conventional means through the border. And, there’s alway Europe to consider.

71

[quote]tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.

[/quote]

The evil then controls billions in oil. Guess what they’d use the money for, bugwit.

72

[quote]Sloth wrote:
tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.

I support moving our troops…To Tehran[/quote]

Only because you’re confident of not being one of them.

73

[quote]Sloth wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

This isn’t about Western self-loathing, or political correctness, or any of that BS. It’s about the fact that airpower won’t change anything, and will quite likely make the situation worse, and the use of conventional ground forces is looking worse by the day in Iraq. This is not about left-wing capitulation, it’s about being realistic about what we can and can’t do, and finding to the best way to defend our interests in the Middle East. Clear?

First, I didn’t advocate air power alone. Second, Iran is helping to kill our troops. OUR troops. What do YOU want to do about it? Slap on some sanctions? Give them a stern talking to? How exactly do you think we should handle this? Ignore it? Meet it with a finger wagging? They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be? [/quote]

I think our response should be intelligent, not mindless visceral war. Did we attack Russia when they were killing our soldiers in Vietnam, occasionally directly, or nuke China when they crossed the Yalu? No, and there’s a reason for that. There aren’t nice, easy answers to a lot of questions. And like most people who post here, I think you have way too much faith in American military power.

74

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.

The evil then controls billions in oil. Guess what they’d use the money for, bugwit.

[/quote]

“The evil” huh? Could you even give that evil a name, beyond some moronic term like “Islamofascist”? I’m guessing you’d have a hard time explaining concrete differences between Shia and Sunni without cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, but maybe I’m wrong.

75

[quote]tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.

I support moving our troops…To Tehran

Only because you’re confident of not being one of them.

[/quote]

Yes, very confident of not being one of those soldiers. Thanks to having emergency surgery to correct esophageal varicies (induced by hypertension of the hepatic portal vein) at 16 years of age. Spent about a week in a drug induced coma before having the vascular system around my liver rerouted to relieve the blood pressure. I have one shunt that is a blood vessel removed from my groin area on the left side. And another that is synthetic.

Even so, I did my best to receive a waiver. I was able to get my surgeon to write a letter of opinion stating that he felt I could serve without restrictions. Marines, Army, and finally the airforce all said “No”. Oddly enough, I ended up being able to get onto a police force in Georgia without any hassles. I spent two years on the force before making the decision to be the first of my immediate family to attend college.

You don’t even begin to know how much it hurts to be told you can’t do something you’ve set your heart on since childhood.
Because, for whatever reason, you develop a condition that you have no control over. Especially when you remain optimistic and bust your ass to try to overcome a possible dead end in your aspirations, only to have someone make the decision for you.

I spent months in physical therapy (secondary nerve damage in a my left leg) trying to walk without a walker. I progressed to a crutch, a cane, then finally no assistance. I began to run, to lift weights, etc. All the time thinking that if I can up show at the physical as a specimen of excellent physical health, I’d be ok. They’d end up giving me a waiver, if not passing me right through. Sometimes optimism doesn’t cut it and reality smacks you down.

Now, do you wish to continue to get personal? Do you wish to act like a dumb shit? Or, do you actually want to discuss an issue?

76

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.

The evil then controls billions in oil. Guess what they’d use the money for, bugwit.

“The evil” huh? Could you even give that evil a name, beyond some moronic term like “Islamofascist”? I’m guessing you’d have a hard time explaining concrete differences between Shia and Sunni without cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, but maybe I’m wrong.[/quote]

Glad you asked. I believe this article does a damn fine job answering that.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

77

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

This isn’t about Western self-loathing, or political correctness, or any of that BS. It’s about the fact that airpower won’t change anything, and will quite likely make the situation worse, and the use of conventional ground forces is looking worse by the day in Iraq. This is not about left-wing capitulation, it’s about being realistic about what we can and can’t do, and finding to the best way to defend our interests in the Middle East. Clear?

First, I didn’t advocate air power alone. Second, Iran is helping to kill our troops. OUR troops. What do YOU want to do about it? Slap on some sanctions? Give them a stern talking to? How exactly do you think we should handle this? Ignore it? Meet it with a finger wagging? They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

I think our response should be intelligent, not mindless visceral war. Did we attack Russia when they were killing our soldiers in Vietnam, occasionally directly, or nuke China when they crossed the Yalu? No, and there’s a reason for that. There aren’t nice, easy answers to a lot of questions. And like most people who post here, I think you have way too much faith in American military power.[/quote]

And the intelligent answer is? Sanctions that will be vetoed? Taking those deaths in our shorts? Waiting till Iran has a nuclear umbrella to hold over the heads of our grandchildren while it exports Islamic terrorism, separatism, and totalitarianism? This war needs to go wide and with extreme measures.

78

[quote]Sloth wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.

The evil then controls billions in oil. Guess what they’d use the money for, bugwit.

“The evil” huh? Could you even give that evil a name, beyond some moronic term like “Islamofascist”? I’m guessing you’d have a hard time explaining concrete differences between Shia and Sunni without cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, but maybe I’m wrong.

Glad you asked. I believe this article does a damn fine job answering that.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp [/quote]

That was directed at Headhunter, not you dude.

79

Wow.

Some of you folks need to realize that our values are based on people. Living human beings. Nationalities and non-totalitarian ideologies are of secondary importance.

I can’t believe the wild warmongering hatred and fear based hype going on around here.

I don’t know what has you so wound up, but the world isn’t going to end tomorrow, and this is true whether the troops stay in Iraq or not.

Also, a news flash, the bad guys already have access to lots of money and supplies with which to inflict damage.

Anyway, while it might feel good to go kick some ass, it does have a way polarizing things and leaving the world in a more dangerous state than it was in previously.

What we need is some intelligent and wise decisions that work towards a better future… not generations of warfare. I believe, though of course I’m not sure, that it would be possible to defuse things, reduce the hatred coming at us from the enemy, reduce their ability to recruit and increase the level of moderate thinking in the region.

Picking fights and acting like the old style Soviet Union (suppressing as much territory as possible via military might) while citizens live within a police state is not the way to a bright future.

Funny how so many ideals are breaking down under the slightest pressure.

EDIT: Wow, nice typo’s. Sometimes I think the guy writing these is illiterate…

80

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They’re killing our troops, what do you think our response should be?

Umm, move our troops? They’d be harder to kill if they weren’t in Iraq.

The evil then controls billions in oil. Guess what they’d use the money for, bugwit.

“The evil” huh? Could you even give that evil a name, beyond some moronic term like “Islamofascist”? I’m guessing you’d have a hard time explaining concrete differences between Shia and Sunni without cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, but maybe I’m wrong.

Glad you asked. I believe this article does a damn fine job answering that.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp

That was directed at Headhunter, not you dude.[/quote]

I know, but I wanted to take up the chance to provide my take on it.