Winning in Iraq!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
164

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
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.

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[/quote]

Absolutely, that’s how I feel. But bear in mind you’re in the minority in wanting to liberate the Iraqis for liberty’s sake.

166

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
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.

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

Absolutely, that’s how I feel. But bear in mind you’re in the minority in wanting to liberate the Iraqis for liberty’s sake.

I’m all for freeing oppressed peoples. Of course, that’s not why we went in, and not why we’re still there.

I thought the Republicans were the ones who wanted to think pragmatically about world affairs, and us Democrats were the bleeding heart idealists. Funny how that changed…[/quote]

I guess I am just not grasping who “we” are. Why is the multitude of reasons that the individuals went to war disregarded in the favor of why Bush “sent” us?

Mike

168

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I guess I am just not grasping who “we” are. Why is the multitude of reasons that the individuals went to war disregarded in the favor of why Bush “sent” us?[/quote]

Because the individual soldier doesn’t have a choice in the matter. Those in favor might be happy to go; but those who oppose the decision still have to go. Basically, the “multitude” of individual reasons for going to war don’t matter one iota; you go where you’re told, when you’re told and do as you’re commanded to do.

In the end, whether you personally oppose or support the mission is irrelevant.

169

[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]

When you say that we are building schols, roads, bridges, etc…

You are aware those things were in place before we destroyed them, right?

170

[quote]harris447 wrote:
You are aware those things were in place before we destroyed them, right?[/quote]

Yes, but Halliburton hadn’t made a penny on them, so they don’t really count.

171

[quote]JeffR wrote:
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.

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
[/quote]

Your precious president is a looser and a moran.

And so are you for supporting him.

Spellcheck that, you moran.

172

[quote]effR wrote:

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. [/quote]
Oh yeah? When did you enlist?

Oops, you didn’t.

[quote] 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. [/quote]

If you take a closer look at the map, you’ll notice that you could have taken him from Afghanistan. The truth is, Bush had his eye on that Iraqi oil the moment he stepped into office.

[quote] 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]

So effr, when are you signing up to get your dose of field learning?

[quote]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.
[/quote]
Gee, don’t you have a modern state at home? Sure looks like the New-Orleans area could have used some engineering.

Well, Iraq was a secular state. So it wasn’t an islamo-fascist home base before the invasion. It is now though. Shit, that means you guys have expanded the islamo-fascist homebase.

[quote]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.
[/quote] Are you looking to spread democracy? Or are you looking for steadfast supporters? You’re not implying Kuwait is a democracy, are you?

Sure doesn’t seem to work in Iran and North-Korea though.
You take credit for Libya?

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

effR
[/quote]

Well, now we only need to find a way HOW to make it work.

173

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
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.

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[/quote]

Saddam was the status quo. So it wouldn’t have been a move at all.

Now we moved towards the bigger of two evils.

174

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
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.

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
[/quote]

You’re not really comparing Bush with Lincoln are you?

175

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
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.

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

You’re not really comparing Bush with Lincoln are you?[/quote]

Sure, in that capacity I am. I am merely pointing out that neither seemed to care much as to what their generals had to say. I’m certainly not calling Bush a high caliber president, hell, as I said before, I don’t even like the guy nor do I think he is a good president. So what’s the big deal?

Mike

176

[quote]Jerffy somewhere said:

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.[/quote]

Yeah, hopefully some day these lessons will be applied in New Orleans.

178

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
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
[/quote]

Uhhmmm…yeah.
The military said it needed more troops, not armchair quarterbacks. Idiots like Gen. Franks did not listen and Rummy did not listen. They weren’t held accountable. Nobody has. (Part of the problem–no leadership).

As for strategic war fighting…it’s now fairly well documented we didn’t have a strategy, nor did Franks understand strategic thinking. How long did it take the admin to even admit an insurgency? Did our tactics help create it?(yes!). I guess you’re not getting what the uproar is about, these guys didn’t do their research(president didn’t even know about sunni, shia),presented the worst case scenario (wrong/lied), predicted the best case scenario (liberators,jeffersonian democracy,no cost to taxpayers), went to war without a strategy to win the peace, and were wrong every step of the way, while all along using horrible tactics.

And never held accountable.

180

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

You’re not really comparing Bush with Lincoln are you?

Sure, in that capacity I am. I am merely pointing out that neither seemed to care much as to what their generals had to say. I’m certainly not calling Bush a high caliber president, hell, as I said before, I don’t even like the guy nor do I think he is a good president. So what’s the big deal?

Mike

I just want to point out the ridiculousness of this.

Lincoln had completely inept generals who knew nothing of combat leading the greatest armies this continent had ever seen against a domestic rebellion.

If you read enough about it, it is clear that Lincoln knew more about strategy then any of his so called “generals”, and was the only one that wanted to fight the war that had to be fought. Lincoln wanted the war over, while his generals wished for Grand Reviews every four months. Hell, McClellan even ran against him in 1864 for the Presidency.

Bush is nothing like this, and neither are his circumstances.

To compare the two is insane[/quote]

little irish,

lumpy just got finished saying that Franks was inept.

If one accepts lumpy’s premise, doesn’t that make the comparision between the situations more accurate?

Please key me in on the latest ABB talking points. I do try to keep up.

I did want to point out that Lincoln did have at least one effective strategist from the get go. His name was Winfield Scott. He came up with the Anaconda plan. It was the strategy ultimately adopted. It’s too bad for the North that Winfield was twenty years past his prime. He would have made one hell of a field commander in that war.

Futher, you could make a rather compelling argument that what is happening in Iraq is a micro version of 1861. Think about it. We have a willful minority (Sunni’s) that are using violence to try to obtain what they couldn’t at the ballot box.

The difference is that there wasn’t a British Army (Americans in Iraq) trying to keep order.

Bush is facing the issue of sectional strife. He will ultimately have to back off and let them do what we did. Hopefully, they’ll work it out in a less bloody manner. I’m guessing it will get more bloody before it gets better.

JeffR

181

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Bush is facing the issue of sectional strife. He will ultimately have to back off and let them do what we did. Hopefully, they’ll work it out in a less bloody manner. I’m guessing it will get more bloody before it gets better.

JeffR

[/quote]
What’s enraging is that because the president isn’t a curious person–he didn’t know that the shia and sunni hated each other, nor did the rest of his admin (wolfowitz, etc.) This was totally predicted and planned for by highly educated military men, but ignored by Franks,Rummy, and Bush. It’s a damn shame that pure ignorance and utter incompetence led us to this point.

hey, but for laughs…

William Kristol :“There’s been a certain amount of pop sociology in America,” he told National Public Radio listeners in the war’s opening weeks, “that the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s been almost no evidence of that at all,” he continued. “Iraq’s always been very secular.”

And yet somehow the media pretends the admin and its supporters still have some credibility…dumb, just dumb.

182

Here’s another way of getting only good news from Iraq.

Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen?s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

183

Nice work to bump up this comedy thread.
Browsed through some pages and here are some jewels from our military masterminds:

Keep 'em coming!

184


!!!

185

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
How long do you think it will be before its over? I’m going to join the Marines as soon as I finish high school and I really hope to catch some action before its all over.

This war will go beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. As long as Islamic extremists are blowing up innocents our miltary will have targets.

Don’t be too anxious to see action. You will get your chance.[/quote]

What about the innocents our military blows up?

186

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Nice work to bump up this comedy thread.
Browsed through some pages and here are some jewels from our military masterminds:

“How long do you think it will be before its over? I’m going to join the Marines as soon as I finish high school and I really hope to catch some action before its all over.”

“It is amazing to me to see so many Americans seemingly rooting for the other side. How do I know this? Because if you were truly for America, then you would be saying (or writing) things like:
b Stay the course until the job is finished.[/b]
(2) We need to wipe out all of the leaders of these terrorist organizations and the people who harbor them.
(3) We must protect America and Americans first by staying on the offensive.”

“I’m not asking you to agree with me. I’m not asking you to stop talking. I AM asking you to refrain from your toxic exclamations of defeatism. Think before you type.”

“Well the way I see it is that the insurgents will eventually lose support because they are killing the very people they try to recruit. These insurgents blow up mosques and kill innocent people on a regular basis. Eventually they will lose all support and you cannot fight a guerilla war in an area where you don’t have the people’s support.”

Keep 'em coming!

[/quote]

Yes I guess this would be funny if it didn’t highlight the level of brainwashing the media has done.

187

[quote]100meters wrote:
Luckily though, this thing is only gonna cost us 1.5 billion when all said and done.

oh. damn.[/quote]

You mean 1.5 trillion total, not billion.

We spend 1.5 billion a week there, more or less. Hard to say exactly because nobody is keeping close track. It’s just money, and the Congress doesn’t want to bust anyone’s balls at the White House, about how money is getting spent. Congress just closed the office that was supposed to oversee spending, not that ever did anything anyway:

http://www.cq.com/public/20061103approps.html

But anyway, 6 billion tax dollars a month, for Bush’s Fabulous Disaster in Iraq. Comes out to be 1.5 billion a week. Don’t worry, your kids and grandkids will pay for it later. Small price to pay, in order to prop up Dear Leader’s ego, so he can brag that he didn’t back down. Let the next president clean up the mess.