TonyStarks
Member
sorry about the duplicate post...Derek. Didn't see it after i posted....maybe i should have scrolled up...hmm
From a US Ranger in Irag
- Thread starter ravnew
- Start date
- Status
Titan6
member
The UN has no stomach for conflict. They were last in and first out of Iraq when things went poorly. This was a good move on the part of the Baathists to drive them out. (That is one of the many reasons I find it so amusing that the tin foil hat crowd are afraid the UN will invade the US). The wasted opportunity on the international effort is stunning. The other nations in Europe had a stake in a stable region. Iraq's neighbors have many incentives to keep the country unstable. Until the neighbors cooperate nothing will be accomplished.
True. And there is not a country in the Region South of Turkey that comes close to matching Turkey's Military power (except Maybe Isarel). Even the Iranians would be mincemeat in less than a month if they went against what Turkey wanted.
errrr- So which is it? Personally I believe a weak central government is needed with stronger state governments. Much like what we had 222 years ago. But if as you say the people are too "uneducated" to govern themselves this will not work.
Titan6
member
93% in English and 91% in Math
I have 11 1/2 inches you know... down there...
Diamondback
Member
To those that want to stay and fight it out in Iraq I say...ok, but no "half-assed" measures any longer. If it is that important that we succeed there then we re-institute the draft, send ALL of our sons and daughters off to win this conflict, and on the home front we all pay an additional fixed war tax to fund the effort. The one lesson I have learned from Vietnam is that we commit to total vitcory....or we commit to nothing. The "in between" is failing like it did in SE Asian in the 1970's. It's all or nothing now. Let the American citizenry decide if they they willing to make the sacrifice necessary to make a 25 year commitment to a plan that will put a permanent end to the sectarian conflict in Iraq. If the decision is ''yes'', then lets get to work expanding our military, VA facilities....and our cemeteries.
Since oil is the at the root of problem.....personal vehicles that are not fuel efficient and the gasoline that powers them should be taxed heavily ! Rationing needs to be the order of the day if we are to prevail. Personal sacrifice on a multitude of levels will be mandatory for many years.
- regards
Since oil is the at the root of problem.....personal vehicles that are not fuel efficient and the gasoline that powers them should be taxed heavily ! Rationing needs to be the order of the day if we are to prevail. Personal sacrifice on a multitude of levels will be mandatory for many years.
- regards
XD Fan
Member
I proudly stand in the minority of this country. I approve of President Bush! I Believe we need to stay the course in Iraq. The only thnig I beleive we should do differently is for the congress and the American people to fully support the actions of our troops over seas. By that I do not mean a much appreciated sentiment that we must support our troops even when we do not agree with their leaders. I mean we need to be willing to sacrifice and loudly say our soldiers can do the job. We must ignore the media that tels us they cannot.
I really appreciate the support of the troops but what they need is support of their actions.
I really appreciate the support of the troops but what they need is support of their actions.
XD Fan
Member
I do not entirely disagree with this! Our commitment must be total.
I think the eventual threat here is as great as our fathers faced in WWII. It is not as wide in scope yet, but, to use a perhaps tired catch phrase, we are at a fatal knife's edge with multitudes of islamofascists.
Titan6
member
I am opposed to indentured servitude to the state. The war tax is a great idea though. Nothing will get the BB generation moving on a problem like having their pocketbooks effected.
The funny thing here is that even if we were not dependent on oil all of our major trading partners are even more so than we are (except our NA neighbors).
You're seeing a conflict between two statements where there isn't one.
We could simply say "Kurdistan exists," and while we'd potentially lose an ally over it I think it's the best long-term solution.
I'd rather not have them associated at all. Why not make Iraq 3 separate nations, rather that trying to form a coalition of states?
No, actually I don't believe they'll "get" democratic ideas. Though education is a big part of that. Past experience trying to get a Palestinian through a government class in college -- bright girl (superb head for math, taught herself English by typing correspondence for US types after the first Iraq war) who simply couldn't get it. She understood dictators, and monarchies. The rest was mush. And I wouldn't doubt she'd easily be in the top tenth percentile on IQ. But she had no foundation to use to build on -- "government" as it exists in the middle east seems to be some yahoo or another telling you how it's going to be. Might be a king, or a tribal head, or a dictator, or an Imam, but it's some person who says how things are.
Trying to explain democracy in general, and republicanism as a derivative, throwing in 2 houses, an executive, an independent judicial branch, and all the rest just didn't work. Hundreds of hours of honest effort later, she never got it.
Anecdotal I know, but there it is: my bias re: Democracy in the Middle East. (Ain't. Gonna. Happen.)
Diamondback
Member
Then if we are to continue in Iraq without a universal draft we are relegated to practice of voluntary paid troops and "hired mercenaries".
The Romans decided to go this route; as the Huns incessantly pushed the Germanic tribes eastward, invading the outlying Roman provinces, their citizens were incapable of sacrificing to protect the frontiers. The mounting debt necessary to pacify the barbarians became so overwhelming that eventually the crown precipitously slipped from the last Caesar's head in 476; the Empire crumbled.
But then...no one ever claimed a "golden age" will last forever.
- best regards
Titan6
member
I don't think saying it would make it so. I think it would last about as long as it would take for the Turks to read the headline and send order to several divisions of armor to the South East.
Let's see Kurdistan (see above), Baghdadistan (otherwise known as the land of perpetual civil war) and a Southern State to be named later (let us call it Richastan as they will have lots of oil and be the envy of their neighbors). What could go wrong here? Without a central government to unite them they will all be easily overwhelmed by their neighbors and after the best parts are partioned off will likely devolve into Somolia like states.
The US military leaving Iraq will not suddenly end all the problems in Iraq for anyone... except us of course. And even we will still have problems for years to come.
Probably so. They need to come up with their own ideas on how it should it work anyway. Is a civil war needed to let the strongest survive? Maybe, maybe not. We are trying to do something new in the region but not unheard of in the world. Could it work? Maybe. Don't know for sure, my crystal ball dosen't work as well as it used to. But without a plan I can tell you with 100% certainty nothing will work.
Titan6
member
Yes, yes the Empire of America. I admit I am not crazy about the high number of foreign mercenaires in Iraq but they do solve problems. But you are forgetting lots and lots of other things such as there are no Germanic tribes moving to seize the Gold in Ft. Knox. And the lack of Emperor, slaves, lead pots, rise of a new religion, geography, political system, and just about everything else.
Diamondback
Member
...yes, my analogy was cavalier at best; but there are some legitimate parallels as to which you allude.
- regards
Malone LaVeigh
Member
I don't doubt the Ranger's sincerity, but the maker of that vid deserves the Vladimir Lenin award for ham-fisted propaganda.
I doubt any minds were changed.
I doubt any minds were changed.
Here's how it should have played out.
George Bush senior should not have invaded Iraq the first time. Iraq should have been allowed to bulk up with wealth from Kuwait, then allowed to invade Saudi Arabia, and then wage a full on war against Iran using as much weapons purchased from the U S of A as they wanted.
Saddam would have done wonders in eliminating the Islamic fascists, as they represented the biggest threat to his power, and he would have done it in the most effective manner, which is by killing them in large numbers, something we are in no position to do due to our ethics.
He was secular, he was modern, and he was someone we could deal with (as George Bush senior did plenty of when he was VP). I have a nice pamphlet from the Bagdhad International Weapons show in the 1980's with a big full page glossy color photo and endorsement from vice president George Bush.
I think the Islamofascists represent an order of magnitude greater threat to our interests, and to the free world, than Saddam Hussein did. They cannot be reasoned with, bought off, or educated. They can only be killed. And it takes a middle easterner to do it.
George Bush senior should not have invaded Iraq the first time. Iraq should have been allowed to bulk up with wealth from Kuwait, then allowed to invade Saudi Arabia, and then wage a full on war against Iran using as much weapons purchased from the U S of A as they wanted.
Saddam would have done wonders in eliminating the Islamic fascists, as they represented the biggest threat to his power, and he would have done it in the most effective manner, which is by killing them in large numbers, something we are in no position to do due to our ethics.
He was secular, he was modern, and he was someone we could deal with (as George Bush senior did plenty of when he was VP). I have a nice pamphlet from the Bagdhad International Weapons show in the 1980's with a big full page glossy color photo and endorsement from vice president George Bush.
I think the Islamofascists represent an order of magnitude greater threat to our interests, and to the free world, than Saddam Hussein did. They cannot be reasoned with, bought off, or educated. They can only be killed. And it takes a middle easterner to do it.
marksman13
Member
Derek and wooderson, you both make claims about there being no civil war in Iraq before we invaded and I must concede. You are both right. Before our invasion there was genocide. 
Thanks for making this debate so easy for us. We have given the oppressed Shias a chance to fight back.
Thanks for making this debate so easy for us. We have given the oppressed Shias a chance to fight back.There was no definitive proof of genocide in Iraq. The UN has already claimed that there is no proof of Iraq gassing the Kurds, either. How so, you ask? Because the areas were being shelled by both Iraq and Iran.
The mass graves that were unearthed showed blast wounds - raggedly sheared long bones - not the way one would torture someone. Others had crushed skulls and some had both. I would assume that these would be massive graves for the 8 years of war with Iran/Persia.
The attack on the Kurds occurred way back in 1992. And let me ask you something. If Mexico and Central America were at war with the US and the Latino population along the border with Texas supported the Central Americans or, for the sake of complication, wished to secede after the US's stalemate with Central America WHAT course of action do you think WE would have with Latinos along the Texas border? I thought so.
You and I would disarm them by FORCE. Just as any other leader would.
We wish to control all known oil reserves and Iraq has a very large percentage of it. Our foreign policy also props up Israel as the most powerful nation in the region. It's in Israel, the US and the UK's best interest to topple Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Then our attention would be along the Caucasus - the oil is to be for the India, Japan and China's consumption so the ambitions of Russian steppes (beginning with Pakistan) must be curtailed, wooed or destroyed.
This is a simple game of "Risk".
Problem is that China and Russia are increasingly cooperating with many of the "stan" nations in the Caucasus and the US nuclear missile defense shield that has now advocated nuclear missiles in Europe has OFFICIALLY reinstated the Cold War.
Things will become "hotter" and "hotter" and it looks like if the neocons are successful with their nuclear plans then look for a US first strike attempt on Russia in the near future.
The mass graves that were unearthed showed blast wounds - raggedly sheared long bones - not the way one would torture someone. Others had crushed skulls and some had both. I would assume that these would be massive graves for the 8 years of war with Iran/Persia.
The attack on the Kurds occurred way back in 1992. And let me ask you something. If Mexico and Central America were at war with the US and the Latino population along the border with Texas supported the Central Americans or, for the sake of complication, wished to secede after the US's stalemate with Central America WHAT course of action do you think WE would have with Latinos along the Texas border? I thought so.
You and I would disarm them by FORCE. Just as any other leader would.
We wish to control all known oil reserves and Iraq has a very large percentage of it. Our foreign policy also props up Israel as the most powerful nation in the region. It's in Israel, the US and the UK's best interest to topple Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Then our attention would be along the Caucasus - the oil is to be for the India, Japan and China's consumption so the ambitions of Russian steppes (beginning with Pakistan) must be curtailed, wooed or destroyed.
This is a simple game of "Risk".
Problem is that China and Russia are increasingly cooperating with many of the "stan" nations in the Caucasus and the US nuclear missile defense shield that has now advocated nuclear missiles in Europe has OFFICIALLY reinstated the Cold War.
Things will become "hotter" and "hotter" and it looks like if the neocons are successful with their nuclear plans then look for a US first strike attempt on Russia in the near future.
Autolycus
Member
How about those in support of a war-tax just voluntarily pay it and those of us who do not feel that the troops should be sent to deaths for no purpose are exempt? I dont support blood for oil. I dont drive and ride my bike but either way I feel that it is not a good idea to send others to their deaths because Bush wants to make up for his dad's mistake.
Titan6
member
Most people refuse to take part in the political process unless money or personal comfort is involved.
Chui - Saddam apologist? Very sad I expected better.
Chui - Saddam apologist? Very sad I expected better.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
The more I think about that video, the madder I get. If you needed any proof that the supporters of this war have completely run out of rational, honest arguments, this is it. To use the anguish of that poor soldier to try to twang the heartstrings of the viewer while slugging you over the head with terms like "traitor" is more than reprehensible, it's pathetic. I feel sorry for the poor guy, but he can still be wrong about the war. The truth is he's been sent on a fool's errand by a bunch of venal, greedy liars who don't care two pins for his well-being or whether he's "allowed to do his job." This administration has done more to mis-manage and lose this war than anyone else. If Reid et al. happen to point out the obvious, it's not their fault.
But I expect scum like Boortz will use this to pound the sensible opponents of the war from now on out for "losing Iraq" when we all know who lost this war we never should have been in in the first place.
Don't mean to vent, but this thing has become a lot more personal to me lately, for reasons I don't wish to discuss.
But I expect scum like Boortz will use this to pound the sensible opponents of the war from now on out for "losing Iraq" when we all know who lost this war we never should have been in in the first place.
Don't mean to vent, but this thing has become a lot more personal to me lately, for reasons I don't wish to discuss.
Autolycus
Member
The supporters of this war are out of rational reasons for our involvement there. Its a pointless war and the soldiers did die in vain. The citizens of Iraq do not really seem to want us and the majority of Americans do not want to be there, so it makes sense we leave.
The whining loser in the video is furthering a pointless agenda. I really doubt that this person is a soldier at all and most likely a chickenhawk. What he fails to realize is that we failed. The war is lost. Both here and there. It was lost when we learned that Bush lied to us.
The whining loser in the video is furthering a pointless agenda. I really doubt that this person is a soldier at all and most likely a chickenhawk. What he fails to realize is that we failed. The war is lost. Both here and there. It was lost when we learned that Bush lied to us.
The terrorists aren't all dead yet. That's the only reason that matters.
If Derek is right and it's 600,000 to 2,000, we're still doing real well. And you guys will have to mourn the additional thousands of terrorist to die in the next few years. I'm feeling for you. I really am.
As much as your champions on capitol hill would like to pretend to be for pulling out, they won't force it. Even their "pullout" bills are just a draw down bill with a provision enabling the President to continue killing the terrorists. All they REALLY want is to make some noise and send some pork home. The lefties on capital hill won't pull out because they have folks on the intelligence committees so they know what's coming. And they don't want to be blamed for being a coward. After all, they campaign with rhetoric about "fighter the war smarter" and "chasing down al Quaida and Bin Ladin."
The war was over when we toppled Hussein. It's the peace that isn't going so well. Once Bush stops listening to his limpwristed advisors and either takes the throttles off the military OR decides to abandon the one Iraq plan and meddling in every neighborhood dispute, the US losses will decrease drastically. Once we let the Shia loose, they will kill most of Al Quaeda and the militant Sunnis. If there's a down side in that, I'm not seeing it.
That's a bad concession. There WAS a civil war, but Daddy Bush left the Shia's and Kurd's defenseless after encouraging them to rise up, and then William Jefferson Carter abandoned them totally. Hussein was just very efficient at killing the entire village that was in anyway connected with revolt. The civil war was there, but had been reduced to a mere smolder.
This is my last post on this thread. Have fun with it.
Autolycus
Member
Those are civilian casaulties, not soldiers.
So are we going after the terrorists in Saudi Arabia our ally? I do believe that the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian and not Iraqi. What about Pakistan? I believe that they have large refugee camps where Al Quaeda members are hiding? What about Al Quaeda groups in the South Pacific?
And other terror organizations like EZLN, IRA, the Basque Seperatists, Japanese Red Army, Shining Path, and numerous others?
No we seem to be in a country where they have not attacked us. Yet Bush insists on making this a priority.
Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11 and other terrorist attacks?
nobody_special
member
Yet according to this (thanks foob), the majority of Iraqis now think it's okay to attack US forces, and this number has steadily (and significantly) increased over the last 3 years. This is a perfect example of how the occupation of a foreign country can increase the ranks of the enemy. ("One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.")
So tell me again why "the terrorists aren't all dead yet" is a good reason to continue the occupation of Iraq. Do you really think we should just kill all the Iraqis? Because pretty soon, that's what we'd have to do in order to meet your criteria for withdrawal.
- Status
