Then and now

[billvon 3,131]

Veterans Administration

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Veterans Association

Veterans Administration... and it is actually the Department of Veterans Affairs now.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 3,131]

oops, you're right - fixed it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

GHWB was far smarter than his son ever will be and knew not to venture into an unwinnable conflict.

1991 was NOT about marching into Iraq, but saving Kuwait.

GWB screwed up by not studiing his own father's history.

Or read differently, GHWB was too afraid to do it then, and as a result we frequently bombed Iraq for the next decade (which included a Democrat in the WH), and then had to engage in full scale war again.

He settled for the easy gains and then quit. Clinton settled for the easy 'gains' from cruise missiles and then quit. The current Bush was stuck with the inevitable war to settle it. He, unlike the others, had the political capital not to worry about the Vietnam fears, but it seemed pretty clear that at some point Iraq II was going to occur. Only forming a nuclear plan as NKorea did would prevent it.

But I put out the same question as I did more than a year ago. Why is it the US responsibility to stay the course now (as Bill has articulated)? We wanted Saddam out and he is. Iraq has had elections. Isn't past time to get the fuck out?

Comparing this to Vietnam in the early 60s, or the later 60s, is inane. Iraq is better off without Saddam, and the majority of the people want it. This has little comparison to the cold war pawns that the Vietnamese played. Or that the US draftees played.

[quade 4]

Quote

(edited for brevity)

He (GWB), unlike the others, had the political capital not to worry about the Vietnam fears, but it seemed pretty clear that at some point Iraq II was going to occur. Only forming a nuclear plan as NKorea did would prevent it.

But I put out the same question as I did more than a year ago. Why is it the US responsibility to stay the course now (as Bill has articulated)? We wanted Saddam out and he is. Iraq has had elections. Isn't past time to get the fuck out?

I disagree with your assumtion that this was inevitable. The previous 10 years had shown that it was possible to "manage" the Iraq problem without substantial loss of American lives or treasure.

Remember that it was NOT Iraq that attacked us on September 11, 2001, but citizens of Saudi Arabia under the ultimate command of another citizen of Saudi Arabia in Afganistan.

I completely agree that it is time for us to get out, but then again, I still don't see the reason we went in to begin with. "We" didn't want Saddam out; GWB did. "We" wanted to get the terrorists. Unfortunately, we've only created more.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zenister 0]

Quote

2. Increase pay to the military overall. This will both help the military folks and increase the incentive to get new people into the military; we are seeing big problems recruiting new people.

a-fuckin-men...

one thing that is certainly criminal is the amount of money service members are paid for risking their lives when compared to those who order them to do so......

all politicians paychecks should be suspended anytime american soldiers are deployed anywhere... doing so means that the politicians have FAILED to do their job and the military is left to fix the mess the hard way.....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I disagree with your assumtion that this was inevitable. The previous 10 years had shown that it was possible to "manage" the Iraq problem without substantial loss of American lives or treasure.

"manage" is the right word. As opposed to "solving."

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

(edited for brevity)

He (GWB), unlike the others, had the political capital not to worry about the Vietnam fears, but it seemed pretty clear that at some point Iraq II was going to occur. Only forming a nuclear plan as NKorea did would prevent it.

But I put out the same question as I did more than a year ago. Why is it the US responsibility to stay the course now (as Bill has articulated)? We wanted Saddam out and he is. Iraq has had elections. Isn't past time to get the fuck out?

I disagree with your assumtion that this was inevitable. The previous 10 years had shown that it was possible to "manage" the Iraq problem without substantial loss of American lives or treasure.

Remember that it was NOT Iraq that attacked us on September 11, 2001, but citizens of Saudi Arabia under the ultimate command of another citizen of Saudi Arabia in Afganistan.

I completely agree that it is time for us to get out, but then again, I still don't see the reason we went in to begin with. "We" didn't want Saddam out; GWB did. "We" wanted to get the terrorists. Unfortunately, we've only created more.

If we had not gone into Iraq, these Saudi citizens would be doing the same thing in Afganistan only more than they are doing today. If we had not gone into Afganistan there was a possibility they would have overthrown their own government and be using their total resources for a bigger 9/11 style attack on our country. Sure we created more terrorists, but it was just a matter of time for them to come on the scene for the giant jihad against the great satan's homeland. Better to stop them in their tracks over there. As for Vietnam: they never attacked our homeland like these people. My 2cents.....

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,131]

>If we had not gone into Iraq, these Saudi citizens would be doing the
> same thing in Afganistan only more than they are doing today.

We had a different war for that. Are you really saying that we went into Iraq to get the _Saudis_? We missed our target if that's the case.

>If we had not gone into Afganistan there was a possibility they would
> have overthrown their own government and be using their total
> resources for a bigger 9/11 style attack on our country.

?? Who would have overthrown what government? We overthrew the Taliban. Have people forgotten that we're currently fighting two separate wars here?

>Sure we created more terrorists, but it was just a matter of time for
>them to come on the scene for the giant jihad against the great
> satan's homeland. Better to stop them in their tracks over there.

Strange as it seems, you create more enemies when you kill someone's children than when you don't. They don't hate us because we are the great satan, they hate us for the same reason we hate Al Qaeda.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

>If we had not gone into Iraq, these Saudi citizens would be doing the
> same thing in Afganistan only more than they are doing today.

We had a different war for that. Are you really saying that we went into Iraq to get the _Saudis_? We missed our target if that's the case
___________________________________________________
No, but that is what has happened.
___________________________________________________
>If we had not gone into Afganistan there was a possibility they would
> have overthrown their own government and be using their total
> resources for a bigger 9/11 style attack on our country.

?? Who would have overthrown what government? We overthrew the Taliban. Have people forgotten that we're currently fighting two separate wars here?
__________________________________________________
I remember over a year ago reading how the internal overthrow of Saudi Arabia was very close to happening. I think this two front war probably bought more time for the current government.
__________________________________________________
>Sure we created more terrorists, but it was just a matter of time for
>them to come on the scene for the giant jihad against the great
> satan's homeland. Better to stop them in their tracks over there.

Strange as it seems, you create more enemies when you kill someone's children than when you don't. They don't hate us because we are the great satan, they hate us for the same reason we hate Al Qaeda.
__________________________________________________
No civilized person gets a charge watching children die, but it happens. Remember Al Qaeda attacking us around the world and finally in New York? That's the reason we are at war with them.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

• Quote

[happythoughts 0]

Sometimes 200 people show up to be trained in the army or police force, then one person car bombs them.

From those types of scenarios, it is difficult to say that the insurgent groups have the support of the general populace or whether they are just better financed.

There are areas in the country that are politically polarized. It happens everywhere. Areas of concentration of support for either side.

Violence always grabs the media. In a country of 26 million, the actions of 500 are not a majority. It is hard to get a feel for the desires of the overall Iraqi population based on the television coverage.

[billvon 3,131]

>Sometimes 200 people show up to be trained in the army or police
>force, then one person car bombs them.

True. But if that's common - the insurgents will win. If they can take out 200 military with one suicide bomber, they are going to win out in the long run. I hope that's not what's happening.

>Violence always grabs the media. In a country of 26 million, the
>actions of 500 are not a majority.

Of course! Yet a lot of americans feel differently. Look at how much coverage the 19 hijackers on 9/11 got. From them, a lot of americans extrapolate that all arabs, or all muslims, are homicidal maniacs.

Most people are pretty much like us. They want to be left alone to raise families, get jobs they like, hang out with their friends etc. That's true no matter where you are. It's the 1% of extremists that are causing all the trouble.

Problem is, those normal people may not have the allegiances you want them to have. Before we invaded Iraq, a lot of people hated Hussein's government. Not because of anything ideological, but because he tortured and killed them, which is understandable, I think. Now we are there torturing and killing people. We are much better than Hussein, of course, but tell that to an Iraqi who just lost his son. You can tell him that he should be grateful that his son was killed by an american bullet and not a Republican Guard thug, but he may not listen.

Nowadays there are two groups killing people in Iraq - the americans and the insurgents. We're killing more innocent people than the insurgents are, per the Iraqi Health Ministry. Guess who is going to be seen as the enemy?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Operation Iraqi Freedom is a part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

"There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy."
George Orwell
1984

>We are fighting generations of hatred, it's going to take
>generations to fight it, and wear it down.

So you think eternal war is the solution to violence and hatred? Surely if we kill enough people, violence will end. War is, after all, peace.

Eternal war? Who the hell said that? Have we been in eternal war in Germany or Japan? US occupation of Europe and Japan was not simply about maintaining a military presence for purposes of military credibility. A military presence also lends credibility to political policy. In the case of post-war Europe, it was for the first few years, snuffing out remaining Nazis and Fascists, then it was to ensure political stability in the face of the USSR during the rebuilding effort and Marshall Plan. Our military presence saved Berlin more than once and ultimately won the cold war. Japan held similar circumstances. Germany and Japan were vulnerable after the war. Were it not for the US, the Soviets would have swallowed all of Germany for itself, and China would have slaughtered Japan in retaliation for Japanese occupation of Mongolia and parts of China.

Iraq is facing the same issues, only more "apparent" by a media bent on providing a slanted view of what's happening there. Iraq's political instability can be bolstered by US political support. US political policy in the region has credibility by our military presence. The military presence is being used, showing the likes of Syria and Iran (the latter of which would roll in to an unstable Iraq at the drop of a hat if we weren't there) that Iraq's rebuilding effort will be supported by the US, in the wake of a horrific, near-genocidal regime, responsible for the deaths of millions (history will show that it will be tens-of-millions in the end I think, just like Stalin and Mao and Hitler) through the use of various forms of death, including, but not limited to weapons of mass destruction.

You may claim to "know" what's happening there. About half of the men in my unit have been there. The claims that there have been no progress, we're in a quagmire etc. are 100% false.

With the exception of Haiti, Saudi Arabia and Grenada, can anyone tell me where we've gone in, and left? We're still in Croatia and the balkans, Germany, England, Japan, Korea, parts of central America, Guam, Saipan, Sri Lanka, parts of Africa, Kuwait...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Why are liberals so surprised by this? We are still in Germany, England, Japan...to name a few, over 60 years later.

There was virtually no "insurgency" in either Germany or Japan,
despite the fact that WWII was many, many magnitudes more
deadly, ferocious, and devastating.

At least Germany had functional state governments only
two years after the end of the war and a functional federal
government after four years.

The US could have easily pulled out 1948 or so if it had
been only about the stability and democracy Germany.

The only major reason US troops stayed in large numbers until
recently was the threat of the Sovient Union, Eastern Block, and
the "Cold War". Secondary and closely related were thing like
the Marshall plan and other support to create also an economically
strong ally at the iron curtain front as well as a useful trade partner.

The situation in Japan was not very different - just replace
"Soviet Union" with "Red China".

Finally, I don't think US troops are in England to suppress an
insurgency (like when they close the pubs too early)

Quote

We have taken our presence out of Saudi Arabia, does anyone really think we would do that without having a foothold somewhere else, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait?

Interestingly much of the US presence in the Arab reigion, that
ticked so many people off there, also had "Cold War" motivations -
that is, to secure a southern flank against the Warsaw pact.

So if you spin this a little you can eventually make Stalin resposible
for 9/11.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[Ron 10]

Quote

"We" didn't want Saddam out; GWB did.

And so did Congress when they voted to allow force.

Like it or not "We" did want Saddam out according to our elected officials.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[quade 4]

Quote

So if you spin this a little you can eventually make Stalin resposible
for 9/11.

Or possibly the Brits.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

And so did Congress when they voted to allow force.

Like it or not "We" did want Saddam out according to our elected officials.

Ron, when you say thing like this it's laughable.

Consider this, when the Constitution says you have the right to arms, does that mean that you have the right to preemptively shoot someone? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have to show your life was actually in danger and not mearly that you where paranoid.

Allowing force is not in anyway a mandate for a person to use it immediately.

And again, that vote was not precipitated based on getting Saddam out of power, but rather disabling tools of terrorism which were later shown to NOT even exist.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,131]

>Like it or not "We" did want Saddam out according to our elected officials.

No. "We" wanted to protect ourselves from the threat as described i.e. Saddam's WMD arsenal which could be used on 45 minutes warning. The country must be protected against another 9/11!

If you were a senator, and someone you trusted said "senator! We need your authorization to spend some money right now; we have solid evidence an epidemic is going to break out if we don't!" I suspect you would do it. If the money instead went to someone's (non-critical) medical project, that would not mean you endorsed the medical project. It would instead mean you were misled.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Allowing force is not in anyway a mandate for a person to use it immediately.

And only an idiot would try and make that distinction.

Thats silly that you would vote to ALLOW but not want it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[quade 4]

Quote

Thats silly that you would vote to ALLOW but not want it.

Is it silly for me to want for the US to have nuclear capabilities but never have to use them except as a deterrent?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 10]

Quote

No. "We" wanted to protect ourselves from the threat as described i.e. Saddam's WMD arsenal which could be used on 45 minutes warning. The country must be protected against another 9/11!

They voted to use force. Really simple. They allowed the use of force.

If they were mislead, that is a seperate issue to the fact that they are our representatives and they voted to use force to oust Saddam.

It kills me when people try to use the "I didn't vote for it" card.

Quote

If you were a senator, and someone you trusted said "senator! We need your authorization to spend some money right now; we have solid evidence an epidemic is going to break out if we don't!" I suspect you would do it. If the money instead went to someone's (non-critical) medical project, that would not mean you endorsed the medical project. It would instead mean you were misled.

Bill, if I give a cop a gun and permission to use it ....I can't later say he had no right.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Is it silly for me to want for the US to have nuclear capabilities but never have to use them except as a deterrent?

No it would be silly if you voted to *use* them, then when we did get all upset.

Edit...Quade if you took offense thinking I was calling you an idiot sorry...I meant the Senators.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelel01 1]

Eh, never mind. I made a very large mistake.

But I'm not sorry.

[Ron 10]

Quote

That's the perfect example of a "backdoor" personal attack.

Here's a proof to illustrate my point:

"ONLY an idiot would make that distinction".
YOU made that distinction.
Hence, since ONLY idiots would make that, YOU must be an idiot.

Nice try, but I am talking about the Senators that voted to use force....

Quote

Now quit getting onto others for doing the same thing. You're not green. I personally could give two shits if you continue to make these backhanded attacks, but I'm pointing out your hypocrisy. (So I'm saying, I'm not trying to be a greenie here.)

Yes you are trying to be green, and you are just flat out wrong.

Wow, I have my own personal stalker....Just can't stay away from me huh?

Keep fishing lady.

OH and last I checked while you are trying to be green....I don't give a shit what you think.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,600]

Quote

Bill, if I give a cop a gun and permission to use it ....I can't later say he had no right

Actually, boards make that kind of judgement in nearly every shooting where an officer is involved. Most of the time they say the shooting was justified. Sometimes they say it wasn't.

Bad analogy.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)