billvon 3,120 #51 November 13, 2003 >The absolutely worst thing that can happen right now is that the US > pulls out before the job is done. Whether you supported the war or > not, this is true. >Early pullout will lead to civil war and a breeding ground for terrorists. >And a huge propaganda victory for terrorists. I agree there, but I'm not sure we can "finish the job." Can we bomb them back to the stone age? Absolutely. Can we set up and support a puppet government? Probably. But can we kill all the insurgents, restore peace, get a democratic government up and running, pull out and have it survive? That is a very, very tough objective; it's hard to simultaneously implement "operation iron hammer" to root out and kill an estimated 50,000 insurgents while winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis. Heck, we opened fire on one of the new government officials the other day! Can't really blame them; when every car could contain a bomb it's hard to ask questions first and shoot later. It's not an easy task we have set before us. What I fear most is that (once again) the war gets redefined. It was originally the war to stop Hussein's WMD program; after none turned up it became the war to liberate Iraq. I fear that in a few years it will morph into the war to set arab upon arab, or the war to "show the arabs we mean business." I hope we succeed before that happens. >And it would be helpful if other nations participated more actively in the rebuilding of Iraq. I agree there too. I think to make that happen the US will have to relinquish much of the control we currently have. I can see France sending troops to defend the new government; I can't see France putting their troops under US command. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #52 November 13, 2003 QuoteIraq is a mess, and I don't think America can clean it up by itself. What other countries do you think need to be involved, and what capabilities would they bring to the situation that America needs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #53 November 13, 2003 Quote That's the price for taking the war to the terrorists, and fighting them on their own turf. That's what soldiers do, they know that, and they do it voluntarily. Would you rather give the terrorists safe havens in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, so that they are free to organize and attack us at will here in America, as they did on 9-11-01? Quote Not even Bush claims that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The war on Iraq is a distraction from the war on terrorism.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,151 #54 November 13, 2003 QuoteQuoteIraq is a mess, and I don't think America can clean it up by itself. What other countries do you think need to be involved, and what capabilities would they bring to the situation that America needs? Any country that has credibility as even-handed, fair, and not in it for their own gain. Unfortunately that pretty much excludes any of the original coalition. US troops, although very well trained and equipped for combat, are not well trained for peacekeeping, conciliation or police type roles. Countries like Ireland, Norway, etc. have a better track record.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #55 November 13, 2003 QuoteUS troops... are not well trained for peacekeeping, conciliation or police type roles. Countries like Ireland, Norway, etc. have a better track record. Ireland and Norway would be able to accomplish in Iraq what you think America cannot? Ireland hasn't been able to end their own long-lasting religious strife, so I don't think they are exactly well-equipped to end violence from Muslims in a foreign land. And Norway has a tiny population of just 4 million people, and an Armed Forces of only 34,000. You better go study some more, professor... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,151 #56 November 14, 2003 QuoteQuoteUS troops... are not well trained for peacekeeping, conciliation or police type roles. Countries like Ireland, Norway, etc. have a better track record. Ireland and Norway would be able to accomplish in Iraq what you think America cannot? Ireland hasn't been able to end their own long-lasting religious strife, so I don't think they are exactly well-equipped to end violence from Muslims in a foreign land. And Norway has a tiny population of just 4 million people, and an Armed Forces of only 34,000. You better go study some more, professor... Why don't you read what I actually wrote. Do you need some remedial reading instruction?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #57 November 14, 2003 Okay, let's review. The question was: "What other countries do you think need to be involved, and what capabilities would they bring to the situation that America needs?" And your response was: "US troops, although very well trained and equipped for combat, are not well trained for peacekeeping, conciliation or police type roles. Countries like Ireland, Norway, etc. have a better track record." Now that certainly sounds like you were recommending Ireland and Norway to me. If you weren't, then why did you mention them? If you had some other countries in mind instead of Ireland and Norway, then why didn't you just come right out and name them? Perhaps it is because you really haven't thought through your argument. It's real easy to criticize the way things are being done now. But it's not so easy to actually come up with a credible alternative plan. That's where you seem to be stuck, if the "Ireland and Norway" argument is any indication. It is also odd that Mr. FliegendeWolf, who first suggested here that America needed help from other countries, hasn't bothered to offer any alternatives either. Perhaps he suffers from the same difficulty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #58 November 14, 2003 Quote Here is a current list of countries involved in UN Peacekeeping Operations around the world.. for OCT 03.... I see a few countires that are engaged. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/October2003Countrysummary.pdf Troops/Milob/Civpol totals Bangladesh 4,022 Ghana 2,295 Jordan 1,578 Kenya 1,812 Nepal 1,726 Nigeria 3,340 Pakistan 5,252 South Africa 1,416 Ukraine 1,062 Zambia 908 USA 464 But it is an interesting list of counties involved in Peacekeeping nonetheless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kiltboy 0 #59 November 14, 2003 The current administration has asked other countries to provide troops to assist in stabilizing Iraq. There are multinational divisions in Iraq at present so adding more would be a good thing. There is a suggestion in the news that the violence is being directed primarily against US forces so here's a thought. Have other troops from a different country take on a higher profile in major towns and cities and scale down the US presence as peace keepers. This would give the US forces more time to seal the borders and stop the influx of the jihad fighters. Allow the US forces the opportunity to secure the many arms dumps and dispose of the munitions that are being used in the attacks. Search for Saddam and "WMD" around the country. I also read an interesting bit about the restruction of a concrete factory (can't find the link anymore) where the local folks got the plant up and running for a couple of hundred thousand. The complaint of the Iraqi's involoved was that they couldn't get the money quickly and easily enough and that the Army Corps of Engineers estimate was way higher than it actually cost. The reason was that the engineers wanted to build it to US standards when the Iraqi's just wanted to get it going. I would suggest then that identifying a task group to get things going (to cut through the red tape BS) just now to produce goods and jobs would do wonders for getting the country on it's feet. The further rebuilding could be the responsibilty of the Iraqi government voted in. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,151 #60 November 14, 2003 QuoteOkay, let's review. The question was: "What other countries do you think need to be involved, and what capabilities would they bring to the situation that America needs?" And your response was: "US troops, although very well trained and equipped for combat, are not well trained for peacekeeping, conciliation or police type roles. Countries like Ireland, Norway, etc. have a better track record." Now that certainly sounds like you were recommending Ireland and Norway to me. If you weren't, then why did you mention them? If you had some other countries in mind instead of Ireland and Norway, then why didn't you just come right out and name them? Perhaps it is because you really haven't thought through your argument. It's real easy to criticize the way things are being done now. But it's not so easy to actually come up with a credible alternative plan. That's where you seem to be stuck, if the "Ireland and Norway" argument is any indication. You have a hard time telling the difference between an argument and a statement of fact. Many other countries, although apparently insignificant in your mind, have more experience and are better equipped and trained to deal with peacekeeping and policing type activities than the US Army. Do you understand that yet?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #61 November 14, 2003 QuoteMany other countries have more experience and are better equipped and trained to deal with peacekeeping and policing type activities than the US Army. I'm still waiting for you to name them. Back up your claim with some actual specific recommendations. If you don't have any, then your claim is hollow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #62 November 14, 2003 Quote...here's a thought.... Those are excellent thoughts. It's too bad everyone doesn't take the time to think and come up with good ideas like those. Too many are just interested in criticism for political gain. Thanks for that contribution to the discussion! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,151 #54 November 13, 2003 QuoteQuoteIraq is a mess, and I don't think America can clean it up by itself. What other countries do you think need to be involved, and what capabilities would they bring to the situation that America needs? Any country that has credibility as even-handed, fair, and not in it for their own gain. Unfortunately that pretty much excludes any of the original coalition. US troops, although very well trained and equipped for combat, are not well trained for peacekeeping, conciliation or police type roles. Countries like Ireland, Norway, etc. have a better track record.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #55 November 13, 2003 QuoteUS troops... are not well trained for peacekeeping, conciliation or police type roles. Countries like Ireland, Norway, etc. have a better track record. Ireland and Norway would be able to accomplish in Iraq what you think America cannot? Ireland hasn't been able to end their own long-lasting religious strife, so I don't think they are exactly well-equipped to end violence from Muslims in a foreign land. And Norway has a tiny population of just 4 million people, and an Armed Forces of only 34,000. You better go study some more, professor... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #56 November 14, 2003 QuoteQuoteUS troops... are not well trained for peacekeeping, conciliation or police type roles. Countries like Ireland, Norway, etc. have a better track record. Ireland and Norway would be able to accomplish in Iraq what you think America cannot? Ireland hasn't been able to end their own long-lasting religious strife, so I don't think they are exactly well-equipped to end violence from Muslims in a foreign land. And Norway has a tiny population of just 4 million people, and an Armed Forces of only 34,000. You better go study some more, professor... Why don't you read what I actually wrote. Do you need some remedial reading instruction?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #57 November 14, 2003 Okay, let's review. The question was: "What other countries do you think need to be involved, and what capabilities would they bring to the situation that America needs?" And your response was: "US troops, although very well trained and equipped for combat, are not well trained for peacekeeping, conciliation or police type roles. Countries like Ireland, Norway, etc. have a better track record." Now that certainly sounds like you were recommending Ireland and Norway to me. If you weren't, then why did you mention them? If you had some other countries in mind instead of Ireland and Norway, then why didn't you just come right out and name them? Perhaps it is because you really haven't thought through your argument. It's real easy to criticize the way things are being done now. But it's not so easy to actually come up with a credible alternative plan. That's where you seem to be stuck, if the "Ireland and Norway" argument is any indication. It is also odd that Mr. FliegendeWolf, who first suggested here that America needed help from other countries, hasn't bothered to offer any alternatives either. Perhaps he suffers from the same difficulty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #58 November 14, 2003 Quote Here is a current list of countries involved in UN Peacekeeping Operations around the world.. for OCT 03.... I see a few countires that are engaged. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/October2003Countrysummary.pdf Troops/Milob/Civpol totals Bangladesh 4,022 Ghana 2,295 Jordan 1,578 Kenya 1,812 Nepal 1,726 Nigeria 3,340 Pakistan 5,252 South Africa 1,416 Ukraine 1,062 Zambia 908 USA 464 But it is an interesting list of counties involved in Peacekeeping nonetheless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #59 November 14, 2003 The current administration has asked other countries to provide troops to assist in stabilizing Iraq. There are multinational divisions in Iraq at present so adding more would be a good thing. There is a suggestion in the news that the violence is being directed primarily against US forces so here's a thought. Have other troops from a different country take on a higher profile in major towns and cities and scale down the US presence as peace keepers. This would give the US forces more time to seal the borders and stop the influx of the jihad fighters. Allow the US forces the opportunity to secure the many arms dumps and dispose of the munitions that are being used in the attacks. Search for Saddam and "WMD" around the country. I also read an interesting bit about the restruction of a concrete factory (can't find the link anymore) where the local folks got the plant up and running for a couple of hundred thousand. The complaint of the Iraqi's involoved was that they couldn't get the money quickly and easily enough and that the Army Corps of Engineers estimate was way higher than it actually cost. The reason was that the engineers wanted to build it to US standards when the Iraqi's just wanted to get it going. I would suggest then that identifying a task group to get things going (to cut through the red tape BS) just now to produce goods and jobs would do wonders for getting the country on it's feet. The further rebuilding could be the responsibilty of the Iraqi government voted in. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #60 November 14, 2003 QuoteOkay, let's review. The question was: "What other countries do you think need to be involved, and what capabilities would they bring to the situation that America needs?" And your response was: "US troops, although very well trained and equipped for combat, are not well trained for peacekeeping, conciliation or police type roles. Countries like Ireland, Norway, etc. have a better track record." Now that certainly sounds like you were recommending Ireland and Norway to me. If you weren't, then why did you mention them? If you had some other countries in mind instead of Ireland and Norway, then why didn't you just come right out and name them? Perhaps it is because you really haven't thought through your argument. It's real easy to criticize the way things are being done now. But it's not so easy to actually come up with a credible alternative plan. That's where you seem to be stuck, if the "Ireland and Norway" argument is any indication. You have a hard time telling the difference between an argument and a statement of fact. Many other countries, although apparently insignificant in your mind, have more experience and are better equipped and trained to deal with peacekeeping and policing type activities than the US Army. Do you understand that yet?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #61 November 14, 2003 QuoteMany other countries have more experience and are better equipped and trained to deal with peacekeeping and policing type activities than the US Army. I'm still waiting for you to name them. Back up your claim with some actual specific recommendations. If you don't have any, then your claim is hollow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #62 November 14, 2003 Quote...here's a thought.... Those are excellent thoughts. It's too bad everyone doesn't take the time to think and come up with good ideas like those. Too many are just interested in criticism for political gain. Thanks for that contribution to the discussion! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
