Winning in Iraq!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
Dang, JeffR, you’ve been wrong

so
many
times.

you have zero credibility.
none.

just had to bump this for the hilarious post title “winning in iraq”

Hey lumpy!!!

Maybe you should start your own thread titled, “Liberals love losing.” Or, “Losing in Iraq.”

You and your pals could have a field day celebrating!!!

JeffR
[/quote]

Hey effR, the liberals didn’t pick this fight.

Your precious president did. Perhaps because he loves losing?

He sure seems to make a habit off it.

142

[quote]reckless wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
Dang, JeffR, you’ve been wrong

so
many
times.

you have zero credibility.
none.

just had to bump this for the hilarious post title “winning in iraq”

Hey lumpy!!!

Maybe you should start your own thread titled, “Liberals love losing.” Or, “Losing in Iraq.”

You and your pals could have a field day celebrating!!!

JeffR

Hey effR, the liberals didn’t pick this fight.

Your precious president did. Perhaps because he loves losing?

He sure seems to make a habit off it.[/quote]

reckless,

Not going to get into how the democrats voted. Nor am I going to repost the democratic Administration’s “firm” comments on hussein. Finally, not going to comment on how pathetic these democrats are who are now against the war.

It would be wasted on you.

However, I did want to point out another error. You wrote: “He sure seems to make a habit off it”

Don’t call anyone else ignorant when you can’t master basic grammatical skills.

JeffR

143

[quote]Professor X wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
Professor X wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Will innocents die? Yep. But they will die at the hands of attaining a greater good. If that is indeed our goal.

Dude that’s fucked up. I thought we were trying to help these people. We’ll just turn them against us so some Iraqi orphan will orchastrate another 9/11 30 years from now.

You actually thought we went into Iraq to help those people?

Well…yeah. At least that’s why I’m joining, becuase I believe that Iraq can become a successful democracy and the economic powerhouse of the middle east instead of an Islamic dictatorship. That would be a huge blow to the terrorists.

You are joining the military…to help Iraq become a democracy?

I know we all have personal reasons. 9/11 probably caused a huge inlux of people initially. However, the world is a little larger than just Iraq and with other problems looming like dark clouds in the future…like Korea, perhaps you should widen your scope a little.

My personal perspective is that when you raise your hand and take that oath, Iraq is nowhere to be found in the words you repeat.[/quote]

I agree with the prof here…but what you have to consider is that at this point ,the invasion
has had one positive:it has given the Iraqis the opportunity and option to realize a democratic state.But it is THEIR civil war going on,and I dont believe the US can and should fight it for them.Every time I read of American casualties over there,it really saddens me.There is nothing over there that is worth the lives of your young men.The Iraquis don’t make the opportunity work?Unlucky for them.Not your problem.The only reason to be there is the
oil.There is no doubt the US could “win” over there,in whatever definition you choose,but is it worth it?The lives of your young men deseve better…
Just an opinion.

144

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I agree with the prof here…but what you have to consider is that at this point ,the invasion
has had one positive:it has given the Iraqis the opportunity and option to realize a democratic state.But it is THEIR civil war going on,and I dont believe the US can and should fight it for them.Every time I read of American casualties over there,it really saddens me.There is nothing over there that is worth the lives of your young men.The Iraquis don’t make the opportunity work?Unlucky for them.Not your problem.The only reason to be there is the
oil.There is no doubt the US could “win” over there,in whatever definition you choose,but is it worth it?The lives of your young men deseve better…
Just an opinion.[/quote]

Hey, Neuromancer. Excellent post. I appreciate your opinion.

I have been and am a steadfast supporter of the invasion and construction of the current Iraq. I’ve been mindful of the risks. I too am deeply saddened whenever one of our brave Americans dies.

There is more in play here than may be commonly known. iran comes to mind. If you look at the map, our troops are eyeball to eyeball with this nutjob. Logistics are in place if he has to be dealt with. Plus, don’t underestimate the amount of in the field learning that is going on. This is the war of the future. Urban. New ideas are being tried out. New systems and approaches. Experience.

For exampl, recently the Iraqi’s and the Americans began neighborhood sweeps. They are infiltrating these strongholds one by one.

If the scum are using civilians to hide behind, then conventional techniques aren’t going to be effective.

It isn’t just military operations that are being overhauled. We are learning how to engineer a modern state. Bridges, schools, communications, plumbing, and electricity. Another area of experience.

Remember that there is great merit in hitting the islamo-fascists in their home base. As much as the dinks like to avoid giving credit, there hasn’t been a major attack on our homeland since 9/11. You and I know they’ve been trying.

Another reason is to make an ally right in the middle of a very hostile region. Israel has been the only functioning Democracy. It’s bunker mentality and isolation make is almost useless as a broker for Middle East disputes. Imagine having Kuwait and Iraq as steadfast supporters of the United States in the region.

Finally, the area of deterrance has been underplayed. Tyrants like qadaffi understand very clearly the simple message: support terrorists and you will be removed.

Hope I’ve fleshed out some of the reasons to make sure Iraq works.

JeffR

145

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Professor X wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
Professor X wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Will innocents die? Yep. But they will die at the hands of attaining a greater good. If that is indeed our goal.

Dude that’s fucked up. I thought we were trying to help these people. We’ll just turn them against us so some Iraqi orphan will orchastrate another 9/11 30 years from now.

You actually thought we went into Iraq to help those people?

Well…yeah. At least that’s why I’m joining, becuase I believe that Iraq can become a successful democracy and the economic powerhouse of the middle east instead of an Islamic dictatorship. That would be a huge blow to the terrorists.

You are joining the military…to help Iraq become a democracy?

I know we all have personal reasons. 9/11 probably caused a huge inlux of people initially. However, the world is a little larger than just Iraq and with other problems looming like dark clouds in the future…like Korea, perhaps you should widen your scope a little.

My personal perspective is that when you raise your hand and take that oath, Iraq is nowhere to be found in the words you repeat.

I agree with the prof here…but what you have to consider is that at this point ,the invasion
has had one positive:it has given the Iraqis the opportunity and option to realize a democratic state.But it is THEIR civil war going on,and I dont believe the US can and should fight it for them.Every time I read of American casualties over there,it really saddens me.There is nothing over there that is worth the lives of your young men.The Iraquis don’t make the opportunity work?Unlucky for them.Not your problem.The only reason to be there is the
oil.There is no doubt the US could “win” over there,in whatever definition you choose,but is it worth it?The lives of your young men deseve better…
Just an opinion.[/quote]

OK, but you can hardly say we benevolently gave them the opportunity for this free society when we invaded with what was widely known to be not enough men, against the advice of many experts, and laid the groundwork for the subsequent insurgency and civil war. You break it you buy it, at least if you have any conscience at all.

146

No,you’re absolutely right.There was no benevolence involved.It was ,in my opinion,a tactical,economic move.And I don’t believe that there was too much conscience at the top when the decision was made,so I don’t see why the ones doing the dying should have to shoulder the responsibility.It’s done,the democracy opportunity is just a consequence,I don’t see the point for the US on the whole.

For some of the vested interests,of course it suits them.So let them spend their money and manpower doing what they want,not do it off your citizens backs.

147

The more I read about this, the more I wonder how deposing Saddam Hussein helped in the war against radical Islam.

We opened the door for massive Iranian influence, perhaps invasion, and the chance that when this Civil War is over, Iraq will also be (or some part of it) a crazed Islamic society.

I would rather have Hussein.

148

No country in the middle east deserves democracy until the citizens they grab it like we did.

149

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I agree with the prof here…but what you have to consider is that at this point ,the invasion
has had one positive:it has given the Iraqis the opportunity and option to realize a democratic state.But it is THEIR civil war going on,and I dont believe the US can and should fight it for them.Every time I read of American casualties over there,it really saddens me.There is nothing over there that is worth the lives of your young men.The Iraquis don’t make the opportunity work?Unlucky for them.Not your problem.The only reason to be there is the
oil.There is no doubt the US could “win” over there,in whatever definition you choose,but is it worth it?The lives of your young men deseve better…
Just an opinion.

Hey, Neuromancer. Excellent post. I appreciate your opinion.

I have been and am a steadfast supporter of the invasion and construction of the current Iraq. I’ve been mindful of the risks. I too am deeply saddened whenever one of our brave Americans dies.

There is more in play here than may be commonly known. iran comes to mind. If you look at the map, our troops are eyeball to eyeball with this nutjob. Logistics are in place if he has to be dealt with. Plus, don’t underestimate the amount of in the field learning that is going on. This is the war of the future. Urban. New ideas are being tried out. New systems and approaches. Experience.

For exampl, recently the Iraqi’s and the Americans began neighborhood sweeps. They are infiltrating these strongholds one by one.

If the scum are using civilians to hide behind, then conventional techniques aren’t going to be effective.

It isn’t just military operations that are being overhauled. We are learning how to engineer a modern state. Bridges, schools, communications, plumbing, and electricity. Another area of experience.

Remember that there is great merit in hitting the islamo-fascists in their home base. As much as the dinks like to avoid giving credit, there hasn’t been a major attack on our homeland since 9/11. You and I know they’ve been trying.

Another reason is to make an ally right in the middle of a very hostile region. Israel has been the only functioning Democracy. It’s bunker mentality and isolation make is almost useless as a broker for Middle East disputes. Imagine having Kuwait and Iraq as steadfast supporters of the United States in the region.

Finally, the area of deterrance has been underplayed. Tyrants like qadaffi understand very clearly the simple message: support terrorists and you will be removed.

Hope I’ve fleshed out some of the reasons to make sure Iraq works.

JeffR
[/quote]

I appreciate your point of view on staying in Iraq,but,(and this is just my opinion and not an attack on yours)I have yet to see any link between Iraq and Islamist terrorists that existed prior to the invasion.Now,it’s a different kettle of sharks altogether.

I believe that the American public was fed a red herring of monumental proportions after the totally abhorrent and despicable events of 9/11. And if you look at the history of the region I personally do not believe that democracy can be imposed,And I have my doubts wether they even want it.(I have nothing whatsoever to back this statement with,its just a gut feel!)

The unfortunate state is that they have the oil
and for better or worse it powers the economies of the world.As for fighting the terrorists I believe it requires an approach more akin to that of fighting organized crime.Infiltrate,assasinate them anywhere in the world they may be.But clandestinely and low profile.The US has the resources and I believe they would have the full support of the vast majority of the countries of the world,as well as massive amounts of help,intelligence wise and financially as well.

I don’t think the current status quo does your wonderful country any justice at all,in any way.And while I’m not a fan of the current administration at all,it doesn’t mean I dont appreciate the conservative view.I just don’t trust politicians in general,left,right or centre.
Once again,just my opinion and nothing more.

150

little irish wrote:

“I would rather have Hussein.”

JeffR

151

Thank you, Neuromancer for your thoughts.

I would encourage you to google the saddam tapes. At last report we had translated about 5%. However, we’ve established that saddam funded al-qaeda in the Phillipines. He also once did P.R. work for bin laden.

As far as the red herring, I disagree. Many of us put together the dots on our own.

It didn’t take Bush’s persuasion (he’s a rather poor public speaker).

You start connecting the dots, and the picture of a hostile saddam funding terrorism became unacceptable.

JeffR

152

[quote]JeffR wrote:
little irish wrote:

“I would rather have Hussein.”

JeffR

[/quote]

I disagree with Irish, but it’s not at all beyond the pale to say that from a global strategic picture, keeping Saddam in power as a counter-balance to a much more powerful, and much more ambitious, Iran would have been a good move. Also, Iraq is beginning to look very much like a potential failed state, along the lines of a 1990s Afghanistan. Again, I don’t agree with this, but it’s certainly a legitimate argument, not something to be flippantly dismissed.

153

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I agree with the prof here…but what you have to consider is that at this point ,the invasion
has had one positive:it has given the Iraqis the opportunity and option to realize a democratic state.But it is THEIR civil war going on,and I dont believe the US can and should fight it for them.Every time I read of American casualties over there,it really saddens me.There is nothing over there that is worth the lives of your young men.The Iraquis don’t make the opportunity work?Unlucky for them.Not your problem.The only reason to be there is the
oil.There is no doubt the US could “win” over there,in whatever definition you choose,but is it worth it?The lives of your young men deseve better…
Just an opinion.

Hey, Neuromancer. Excellent post. I appreciate your opinion.

I have been and am a steadfast supporter of the invasion and construction of the current Iraq. I’ve been mindful of the risks. I too am deeply saddened whenever one of our brave Americans dies.

There is more in play here than may be commonly known. iran comes to mind. If you look at the map, our troops are eyeball to eyeball with this nutjob. Logistics are in place if he has to be dealt with. Plus, don’t underestimate the amount of in the field learning that is going on. This is the war of the future. Urban. New ideas are being tried out. New systems and approaches. Experience.
[/quote]

You’re absolutely right about the learning that has taken place in Iraq in terms of counter-insurgency. Whether the Army (though not the Corps) chooses to immediately forget it all again, as we did in the wake of Vietnam, is another question.

As for being “eyeball to eyeball with this nutjob”, I hope you’re kidding. Us being next to Iran is not an advantageous position in any way. Our troops are far more hostages (can you imagine what a full-scale, Iran-driven Shia insurgency in Iraq would mean?) than they are a threat to Iran.

Great point, but I think the odds of that happening are pretty slim these days. A Kurdish state in the north would be even more pro-American than the Israelis, and far less duplicitous, but then you run into the issue of Turkey and its Kurds.

Qadaffi’s about-face, as far as I know, appears to have been driven as much by the breakup of the AQ Khan network as by fears of American attack. And do you think the Syrians or Iranians legitimately fear an invasion after the disaster Iraq has become?

156

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Thank you, Neuromancer for your thoughts.

I would encourage you to google the saddam tapes. At last report we had translated about 5%. However, we’ve established that saddam funded al-qaeda in the Phillipines. He also once did P.R. work for bin laden.

As far as the red herring, I disagree. Many of us put together the dots on our own.

It didn’t take Bush’s persuasion (he’s a rather poor public speaker).

You start connecting the dots, and the picture of a hostile saddam funding terrorism became unacceptable.

JeffR[/quote]

I think we can find documentation to support both arguments.Then we give it due consideration and go with what we believe to be
the truth.I read the 9/11 comission reports,which found no evidence of Hussein/Al qaeda operational links or Iraqi involvement in 9/11.I do not believe that much of the information available on the subject is genuine,and I definately believe the public is being lied to and manipulated,and by both sides of the debate.

The commission had access to resources and documentation beyond what most sources of information that are available have got and are ever likely to have,and I found the report very credible.
Furthermore, it is my opinion that Bin Laden’s immense dislike of secular Muslim states,seeing as he believes in complete Islamic states,would have made it highly unlikely that he and Hussein were bedfellows.Ithink it’s more likely that Saudi Arabia was involved.In a very serious way.
Personally,that is what makes sense to me and what I believe,

157

[quote]JeffR wrote:
little irish wrote:

“I would rather have Hussein.”

JeffR

[/quote]

little irish wrote:

“I would rather have Hussein.”

JeffR

159

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
JeffR wrote:
little irish wrote:

“I would rather have Hussein.”

JeffR

little irish wrote:

“I would rather have Hussein.”

JeffR

Logic really escapes you huh?[/quote]

Uhmmm…guys?

JeffR like the admin has no credibility as both have been wrong
every
step
of
the way.

I mean look and laugh at the title of the post! There is a blood bath happening right now, totally unforeseen by the admin and completely predicted by everybody else.

Luckily though, this thing is only gonna cost us 1.5 billion when all said and done.

oh. damn.

160

[quote]
“I would rather have Hussein.”
JeffR[/quote]

xoxo

161

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
No country in the middle east deserves democracy until the citizens they grab it like we did.[/quote]

Tell that to the Kurds and the Shiites gassed in the 91’ uprising. And so far as us Americans being worthy of our freedom I shall invoke John Adams," We were about one third Tories, and [one] third timid, and one third true blue." It was a noisy few that made us free; a noisy few with limited help from the frogs. Iraq has that noisy few and I’d have been go to hell before I left them hanging.

Mike

162

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
little irish wrote:

“I would rather have Hussein.”

JeffR

I disagree with Irish, but it’s not at all beyond the pale to say that from a global strategic picture, keeping Saddam in power as a counter-balance to a much more powerful, and much more ambitious, Iran would have been a good move. Also, Iraq is beginning to look very much like a potential failed state, along the lines of a 1990s Afghanistan. Again, I don’t agree with this, but it’s certainly a legitimate argument, not something to be flippantly dismissed.[/quote]

No, in such a case, leaving in Saddam would be the lesser of two evils. However, what people fail to consider is that a move for the lesser of two evils is still a move for evil.

Mike

163

[quote]100meters wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
JeffR wrote:
little irish wrote:

“I would rather have Hussein.”

JeffR

little irish wrote:

“I would rather have Hussein.”

JeffR

Logic really escapes you huh?

Uhmmm…guys?

JeffR like the admin has no credibility as both have been wrong
every
step
of
the way.

I mean look and laugh at the title of the post! There is a blood bath happening right now, totally unforeseen by the admin and completely predicted by everybody else.

Luckily though, this thing is only gonna cost us 1.5 billion when all said and done.

oh. damn.[/quote]

Every step? Come on man, I hate Bush too but every step? Let’s be somewhat reasonable here. People complain that we moved too quickly and didn’t have enough troops to keep the peace. They are right, but those that make this statement know little or nothing about manuever warfare. If we had invaded the way all these armchair generals are saying we should have then there would have been many many more causalties during the push.

The military is controlled by civilian authority. Civilian authority does not know how to fight wars because they are civilians but if we were to operate with a military that was allowed to do as it wished we would find ourselves in a post-republic Rome with generals running the show in situations foreign and domestic. This of course is bad for us all. Should Bush listen to his generals? Of course, but you know another president that didn’t listen to his generals? Abraham Lincoln.

I guess my point is that mistakes are going to be made in war. Let those that screw up be accountable, but don’t armchair general about things you are ignorant of and most Americans are ignorant on the subject of strategic warfighting.

Mike