SkyChimp 0 #1 February 3, 2007 The consequences would be horrible. I am a Reagan conservative for most of my life, meaning I don't believe in big government and I believe that we should never try to erase or forget the principles that this country was founded on. Objectively speaking I believe that this current administration made mistakes in the Iraq war, but the current "peace" rallies are far from peace. An immediate withdraw from Iraq would only lead to an influx of massive murder against innocent Iraqis who want a democratic free form of government by the Islamic radicalists who believe in oppression and tyrany. I encourage responses to this topic as I think we need to hold both parties in Washington accountable to find a SOLUTION, not continuous "finger pointing" Never forget the government is accountable to us "we the people" not the people accountable to the government. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
white_falcon 0 #2 February 3, 2007 Well Said "chimp". My belief is that we need to finish what was started at this point. We failed to do that in the Round I and I am sad to say I was there to witness the failure. To pull out now would cause a void of power in the region and would propel Iran to the forefront. This is a VERY bad Idea. The Govt. needs to allow the military to "take the gloves off" and finish this war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #3 February 3, 2007 Quote An immediate withdraw from Iraq would only lead to who is advocating this? The current options in the discussion are - modest*) increases of troop levels. - approx steady state of troop level without time limit or well defined withdrawl conditions (other than "victory") - plans that give time tables or other markers for successive troop reduction or relocation over the course of months or years. - some combination of the above The pros and cons have been and are still being beaten to death both on SC and in DC. Cheers, T *) modest in comparison with what the Powell doctrine would have demanded (which was completely scrapped at the beginning of the war) or modest in comparison with the vacuum created by disbandment of the Iraqi army in 2003. ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #4 February 4, 2007 I wonder if Jane Fonda remembers what happened when we packed and left Vietnam in a flash?? I believe the death count after the US left was over 3,000,000 Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #5 February 4, 2007 QuoteThe Govt. needs to allow the military to "take the gloves off" and finish this war. what do you mean exactly by "take the glvoes off?" More troops, or what? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #6 February 4, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe Govt. needs to allow the military to "take the gloves off" and finish this war. what do you mean exactly by "take the glvoes off?" More troops, or what? I was active in the US Navy for 8 years and was part of Operation Allied Force in Kosovo in 1999. What he means is that Elected Officials in Washington (most who do not possess a previous military service record) seem to lack the understanding that you cannot troubleshoot or solve a problem from behind the desk. It's similar to you dropping your car off at the dealership and the service advisor telling the technician how to fix the car whild he sits at his desk. It's the technician that tells the service advisor what he needs to do in order to fix the car. The problem in this case with the Iraq war is that too many politicans are telling the Admirals and Generals what they can and can't do when they do not have the onsite day to day experience in the field. This is what killed us in Vietnam (in addition to the anti-war protestors), our Air Force was restricted to "no fly zones" established by our suits in Washington. In order for a chain of command to work properly, every person must trust that the other person involved knows what they are talking about. I warn you that if Congress continues to play Milton Bradley's "Battleship" from the comfort of their highrise leather chairs, we will see an increase of US troops die then what may have been prevented by allowing the Military to do their job. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #7 February 4, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe Govt. needs to allow the military to "take the gloves off" and finish this war. what do you mean exactly by "take the glvoes off?" More troops, or what? I assume he means to start dropping nukes. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #8 February 4, 2007 QuoteI assume he means to start dropping nukes. Nukes are not the answer in my opinion, but you only have two choices to find a current solution. #1 Carpet bomb (which kills everyone and is NOT a good idea in my opinion) #2 Allow the military to carry out strategic operations to preserve as many civilian lives as possible. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #9 February 4, 2007 QuoteThe problem in this case with the Iraq war is that too many politicans are telling the Admirals and Generals what they can and can't do when they do not have the onsite day to day experience in the field. This is what killed us in Vietnam (in addition to the anti-war protestors), our Air Force was restricted to "no fly zones" established by our suits in Washington. OK but weren't there other problems contributing to our leaving Vietnam?? Such as the fact that we were fighting to support a government that sucked (The Diem regime) and was not supported by the vast majority of the Vietnamese people?? It was afterall, the Vietnamese civil war. You can drop as many bombs as you like, but until you get a government in there that is supported by the people nothing will change, even if you drop 10X as many bombs & drop them anywhere and everywhere you like. It seems to me that that is what the problem was in Vietnam, not "Oh, if only we could have stayed just a little longer & dropped just a few more bombs, then everything would have been fine!" Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #10 February 4, 2007 QuoteI wonder if Jane Fonda remembers what happened when we packed and left Vietnam in a flash?? since when has Fonda become a policy maker in the mainstream Iraq discussion. Quote I believe the death count after the US left was over 3,000,000 that what the FOX reporter interviewing her claimed ... you can believe him if you wish .... The suggestion threaded into the question is of course that 100K or whatever more US troop to stay indefinitely would have convinced the the VietCong, despite several military successes against US forces, to lay down their arms , and become democratic peaceful citizen content with a divided country at least half of which is occupied/protected by a foreign force ... and everyone lived happily thereafter. That's one of the silliest suggestion I've heard about Vietnam in a while. And what about the 2-4 Mio civilian plus 2+ Mio military deaths during and as a direct cause of the war? (Now these are numbers you can actually look up). A war that undoubtedly became far more violent and lethal through the continued infusion US troops than it would have been without. Extrapolating from there it is more plausible that a continued US engagement would have prolonged and expanded the war with WWII-like costs in lives and money, and a good chance of escalating into open war with other countries such as Cambodia, Laos, and China. There were several lessons from this conflict which were totally ignored in Iraq. Some of the highlicghts: - one was the trap of continous escalation - trying to do something on the cheap in the beginning then adding on 20K troops here and 40K there. - having no answer to the basic question "how does it end" (Petraeus) - confusing ideology with resenting occupation as the main driving force of the opposition. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #11 February 4, 2007 Well no one ever stated she was a policy maker but yet any public figure who carries weight with the American people should not be ignored. Regarding the 3,000,000. The numbers are very close regardless of what any reporter said. I will agree with you as I stated in my first post that the current administration made mistakes in this war. However, we are in it now and I hope that Washington can come up with the correct solution. More troops? Less troops? Pull troops out? Carpet bomb? Apologize to the world? Which is the best Avenue???? Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #12 February 4, 2007 Quote Which is the best Avenue???? "And therein," as the bard would say, "lies the rub." ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #13 February 4, 2007 QuoteQuote I warn you that if Congress continues to play Milton Bradley's "Battleship" from the comfort of their highrise leather chairs, we will see an increase of US troops die then what may have been prevented by allowing the Military to do their job. What exactly do you call what the White House and GOP controlled Congress was doing from 2003 - 2006 that took us into this MESS in the first place, and then just let it get worse and worse? Just to recap: Bush took us to war under false pretenses. Bush and Rumsfeld ignored the advice of their generals. Bush and Rumsfeld presided over a decline into chaos all the while telling the American people that things were getting better and we just needed "another six months". The Iraq fiasco distracted attention from the campaign against REAL terrorists in Afghanistan. The number or terrorist attacks has INCREASED during the Iraq fiasco. We have strengthened Iran's position in the middle east by the ineptitude of Rumsfeld and Bush.... 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 2,107 #14 February 4, 2007 QuoteWell no one ever stated she was a policy maker but yet any public figure who carries weight with the American people should not be ignored. Regarding the 3,000,000. The numbers are very close regardless of what any reporter said. I will agree with you as I stated in my first post that the current administration made mistakes in this war. However, we are in it now and I hope that Washington can come up with the correct solution. More troops? Less troops? Pull troops out? Carpet bomb? Apologize to the world? Which is the best Avenue???? Bush should apologize to the world, and have the common decency to resign.... 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 Trae 1 #15 February 5, 2007 in reply to "An immediate withdraw from Iraq would only lead to an influx of massive murder against innocent Iraqis who want a democratic free form of government by the Islamic radicalists who believe in oppression and tyrany. I encourage responses to this topic as I think we need to hold both parties in Washington accountable to find a SOLUTION, not continuous "finger pointing"" ................................................ Have a look what happened in Vietnam when the pull-out ,ahem, strategic withdrawal occurred. The purge that followed in Vietnam and neighbouring Cambodia is conveniently shielded from the general population. A bit of research will expose the millions who died. We can all visit both places in peace now that the natural order reasserted itself. At the time it must have been beyond horrific. Holding back the tide has never been a good idea unless you have say the tolerance and engineering wisdom of the Dutch. It seems careless to just run away after such a caring visit to Iraq to help it so much but the only solution here is going to find itself. Hey it is their country isn't it.? Let em have it.! You can always go back and pick up the pieces after the dust settles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,076 #16 February 5, 2007 > I wonder if Jane Fonda remembers what happened when we packed and > left Vietnam in a flash?? I remember what happened. As I recall, we stopped the US death toll at 58,000. I sure hope we don't have to get to that number before we get out of Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #17 February 5, 2007 Quotein reply to "An immediate withdraw from Iraq would only lead to an influx of massive murder against innocent Iraqis who want a democratic free form of government by the Islamic radicalists who believe in oppression and tyrany. I encourage responses to this topic as I think we need to hold both parties in Washington accountable to find a SOLUTION, not continuous "finger pointing"" ................................................ Have a look what happened in Vietnam when the pull-out ,ahem, strategic withdrawal occurred. The purge that followed in Vietnam and neighbouring Cambodia is conveniently shielded from the general population. A bit of research will expose the millions who died. We can all visit both places in peace now that the natural order reasserted itself. At the time it must have been beyond horrific. Holding back the tide has never been a good idea unless you have say the tolerance and engineering wisdom of the Dutch. It seems careless to just run away after such a caring visit to Iraq to help it so much but the only solution here is going to find itself. Hey it is their country isn't it.? Let em have it.! You can always go back and pick up the pieces after the dust settles. A most excellent response! Pulling out of Iraq is gonna hurt. We can do it now and it's gonna hurt. We can stay at the cost of thousands more American lives and then pull out ...it's gonna hurt! To me it comes down to making a really bad decision now and a god awful bad decision later.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites white_falcon 0 #18 February 6, 2007 OH good GOD. Where would you ever come up withe the idea that "taking the gloves off" = Nukes??? Jeesh. By "taking the gloves off" I mean simply: Allow NO safe havens to the insurgents, reduce the insane restrictions on rules of engagement, allow our troops to decimante ANY structure in which the enemy is hiding and generally allow our troops to do that which they are trained to do. We (our troops) are in a war, not a frigin' croquet match. People (sometimes innocent people) get hurt in a war. Things get blown up. War is not won by politicians who constantly second guess and make up the rules from 3000 miles away. When we finally realize that, we will be able to win the war and get our troops home. If we don't realize this, the sad reality is that more will die, and it will all have been in vain. Just one old grunt's opinion, take it --- or don't. Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,107 #19 February 6, 2007 QuoteOH good GOD. Where would you ever come up withe the idea that "taking the gloves off" = Nukes??? Jeesh. By "taking the gloves off" I mean simply: Allow NO safe havens to the insurgents, reduce the insane restrictions on rules of engagement, allow our troops to decimante ANY structure in which the enemy is hiding and generally allow our troops to do that which they are trained to do. We (our troops) are in a war, not a frigin' croquet match. People (sometimes innocent people) get hurt in a war. Things get blown up. War is not won by politicians who constantly second guess and make up the rules from 3000 miles away. When we finally realize that, we will be able to win the war and get our troops home. If we don't realize this, the sad reality is that more will die, and it will all have been in vain. Just one old grunt's opinion, take it --- or don't. Scott Well, the general goal of this war was (after the WMDs didn't materialize) to liberate the Iraqis from tyranny (although no-one bothered to ask them if that was OK with them). So your approach doesn't seem very likely to help achieve the objective. Quite the contrary.... 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 white_falcon 0 #20 February 6, 2007 So, umm does is removing a Tyrant from power not the first step in liberating a country from tyranny?? Or did I miss something? Oh, and BTW -- The average Iraqi was happy, very happy, to see us in the 1st Gulf War, and they are Happy to see us now. We have a bit of a trust issue to overcome (and we are doing that aby continuing our support now) in that when we left last time, we did not provide the arms and intelligence suport to the Kurds in the North that we promised. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnnyD 0 #21 February 6, 2007 Quote We (our troops) are in a war, not a frigin' croquet match. People (sometimes innocent people) get hurt in a war. Things get blown up. War is not won by politicians who constantly second guess and make up the rules from 3000 miles away. It is important to realize exactly who, or more precisely, what we're at war with here. Its not the Iraq War - its the War on Terror. This creates a whole bunch of problems. 1. It is utterly impossible to win a war against an inanimate opponent. 2. There is an unavoidable diplomatic nightmare when you decide to fight the previously mentioned opponent in someone elses country. 3. Increasing troop strength to fight an inanimate opponent is absurd. 4. The finest fighting machine the world has ever known (the US military - yes, I'm biased) is being misused. Marines are NOT peace keepers. They went, they saw, they conquered. Time to leave. 5. There is a difference between a diplomatic failure and a military failure. For some reason, US citizens are being successfully convinced that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. The military has done exactly what it was supposed to. The decisions that followed are where the failure has occurred and our military, our taxpayers, and our next generation are paying the price now and in the future. 6. The reality is we have taken a bad situation in Iraq and made it absolutely terrible. We have taken an area we didn't want terrorists and accomplished the incredible feat of getting them there in droves. There is no doubt we may have to go back if we leave now, but I think the only prayer we have now is to embrace the reality of the situation. We can not now and we have never been able to force democracy on a nation that doesn't want it. We should leave immediately and let the people of Iraq sort it out. We have enough of our own problems. If the time comes when we have to return, we should do it with the full force of our military and with a clear objective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites white_falcon 0 #22 February 6, 2007 Johnny, You make good points, but the problem as I see it is, If we dont take it to them in Iraq, They will bring it to us here at home. I would much rather we be turning buildings to ruble in Baghdad than in Baltimore (or Atlanta, or Chicago or .....) Yes, we are in a mess in the Middle East, I don't believe you will find many to dispute that, but the solution (in the war on Terror) is to fight it abroad, not here at home. Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,107 #23 February 6, 2007 QuoteSo, umm does is removing a Tyrant from power not the first step in liberating a country from tyranny?? Or did I miss something? Oh, and BTW -- The average Iraqi was happy, very happy, to see us in the 1st Gulf War, and they are Happy to see us now. We have a bit of a trust issue to overcome (and we are doing that aby continuing our support now) in that when we left last time, we did not provide the arms and intelligence suport to the Kurds in the North that we promised. Your "gloves off, never mind if innocent civilians get inthe way" method is NOT liberating anyone from tyranny, it is simply replacing a home-grown tyrant with a foreign tyrant. In fact, that is EXACTLY what we are right now, a foreign tyrant throwing its weight about in a country whose inhabitants we really care fuck-all about but which has strategic value to us. We are worse than the colonial powers because they weren't hypocrites about what they were doing, and we are.... 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 JohnnyD 0 #24 February 6, 2007 QuoteJohnny, You make good points, but the problem as I see it is, If we dont take it to them in Iraq, They will bring it to us here at home. I would much rather we be turning buildings to ruble in Baghdad than in Baltimore (or Atlanta, or Chicago or .....) Yes, we are in a mess in the Middle East, I don't believe you will find many to dispute that, but the solution (in the war on Terror) is to fight it abroad, not here at home. Scott The distinction is between diplomacy and military. Our military mission in Iraq is over and has been for some time (mission accomplished?). Our only hope at avoiding more major military action is pulling out and attempting to repair the diplomatic disaster we've created there. It may not be possible. If we have to return with a military solution in the future, so be it. The situation will not improve until we take the military out of it. Even if we can't remain out, there is no sense at all in remaining once the mission is over. We are stuck in the quicksand that is a military success precipitated by diplomatic failure. IMO, there can be only one use for the military. That is to defeat a given enemy. In the "war on terror", it is an impossibility. We should leave now and let the situation work itself out. If we have to go back, it will be to face a clear enemy, not something we conjured up to save face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyChimp 0 #25 February 6, 2007 QuoteWell, the general goal of this war was (after the WMDs didn't materialize) to liberate the Iraqis from tyranny (although no-one bothered to ask them if that was OK with them). I'm curious, what is a continuous enlistment of Iraqi young men to the Iraqi National Army and police forces working side by side with coalition forces?? What too I ask would we call millions of Iraqi citizens with purple fingers (many of them women) on more than one occasion, VOTING for the first time in their life??? I would call it Iraqi people wanting to be liberated from tyranny! Give these people a chance John, it's not like they've had much practice with the luxury of Democracy and a Representative Republic. I think they deserve it. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 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
kallend 2,107 #14 February 4, 2007 QuoteWell no one ever stated she was a policy maker but yet any public figure who carries weight with the American people should not be ignored. Regarding the 3,000,000. The numbers are very close regardless of what any reporter said. I will agree with you as I stated in my first post that the current administration made mistakes in this war. However, we are in it now and I hope that Washington can come up with the correct solution. More troops? Less troops? Pull troops out? Carpet bomb? Apologize to the world? Which is the best Avenue???? Bush should apologize to the world, and have the common decency to resign.... 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
Trae 1 #15 February 5, 2007 in reply to "An immediate withdraw from Iraq would only lead to an influx of massive murder against innocent Iraqis who want a democratic free form of government by the Islamic radicalists who believe in oppression and tyrany. I encourage responses to this topic as I think we need to hold both parties in Washington accountable to find a SOLUTION, not continuous "finger pointing"" ................................................ Have a look what happened in Vietnam when the pull-out ,ahem, strategic withdrawal occurred. The purge that followed in Vietnam and neighbouring Cambodia is conveniently shielded from the general population. A bit of research will expose the millions who died. We can all visit both places in peace now that the natural order reasserted itself. At the time it must have been beyond horrific. Holding back the tide has never been a good idea unless you have say the tolerance and engineering wisdom of the Dutch. It seems careless to just run away after such a caring visit to Iraq to help it so much but the only solution here is going to find itself. Hey it is their country isn't it.? Let em have it.! You can always go back and pick up the pieces after the dust settles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #16 February 5, 2007 > I wonder if Jane Fonda remembers what happened when we packed and > left Vietnam in a flash?? I remember what happened. As I recall, we stopped the US death toll at 58,000. I sure hope we don't have to get to that number before we get out of Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #17 February 5, 2007 Quotein reply to "An immediate withdraw from Iraq would only lead to an influx of massive murder against innocent Iraqis who want a democratic free form of government by the Islamic radicalists who believe in oppression and tyrany. I encourage responses to this topic as I think we need to hold both parties in Washington accountable to find a SOLUTION, not continuous "finger pointing"" ................................................ Have a look what happened in Vietnam when the pull-out ,ahem, strategic withdrawal occurred. The purge that followed in Vietnam and neighbouring Cambodia is conveniently shielded from the general population. A bit of research will expose the millions who died. We can all visit both places in peace now that the natural order reasserted itself. At the time it must have been beyond horrific. Holding back the tide has never been a good idea unless you have say the tolerance and engineering wisdom of the Dutch. It seems careless to just run away after such a caring visit to Iraq to help it so much but the only solution here is going to find itself. Hey it is their country isn't it.? Let em have it.! You can always go back and pick up the pieces after the dust settles. A most excellent response! Pulling out of Iraq is gonna hurt. We can do it now and it's gonna hurt. We can stay at the cost of thousands more American lives and then pull out ...it's gonna hurt! To me it comes down to making a really bad decision now and a god awful bad decision later.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
white_falcon 0 #18 February 6, 2007 OH good GOD. Where would you ever come up withe the idea that "taking the gloves off" = Nukes??? Jeesh. By "taking the gloves off" I mean simply: Allow NO safe havens to the insurgents, reduce the insane restrictions on rules of engagement, allow our troops to decimante ANY structure in which the enemy is hiding and generally allow our troops to do that which they are trained to do. We (our troops) are in a war, not a frigin' croquet match. People (sometimes innocent people) get hurt in a war. Things get blown up. War is not won by politicians who constantly second guess and make up the rules from 3000 miles away. When we finally realize that, we will be able to win the war and get our troops home. If we don't realize this, the sad reality is that more will die, and it will all have been in vain. Just one old grunt's opinion, take it --- or don't. Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #19 February 6, 2007 QuoteOH good GOD. Where would you ever come up withe the idea that "taking the gloves off" = Nukes??? Jeesh. By "taking the gloves off" I mean simply: Allow NO safe havens to the insurgents, reduce the insane restrictions on rules of engagement, allow our troops to decimante ANY structure in which the enemy is hiding and generally allow our troops to do that which they are trained to do. We (our troops) are in a war, not a frigin' croquet match. People (sometimes innocent people) get hurt in a war. Things get blown up. War is not won by politicians who constantly second guess and make up the rules from 3000 miles away. When we finally realize that, we will be able to win the war and get our troops home. If we don't realize this, the sad reality is that more will die, and it will all have been in vain. Just one old grunt's opinion, take it --- or don't. Scott Well, the general goal of this war was (after the WMDs didn't materialize) to liberate the Iraqis from tyranny (although no-one bothered to ask them if that was OK with them). So your approach doesn't seem very likely to help achieve the objective. Quite the contrary.... 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
white_falcon 0 #20 February 6, 2007 So, umm does is removing a Tyrant from power not the first step in liberating a country from tyranny?? Or did I miss something? Oh, and BTW -- The average Iraqi was happy, very happy, to see us in the 1st Gulf War, and they are Happy to see us now. We have a bit of a trust issue to overcome (and we are doing that aby continuing our support now) in that when we left last time, we did not provide the arms and intelligence suport to the Kurds in the North that we promised. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #21 February 6, 2007 Quote We (our troops) are in a war, not a frigin' croquet match. People (sometimes innocent people) get hurt in a war. Things get blown up. War is not won by politicians who constantly second guess and make up the rules from 3000 miles away. It is important to realize exactly who, or more precisely, what we're at war with here. Its not the Iraq War - its the War on Terror. This creates a whole bunch of problems. 1. It is utterly impossible to win a war against an inanimate opponent. 2. There is an unavoidable diplomatic nightmare when you decide to fight the previously mentioned opponent in someone elses country. 3. Increasing troop strength to fight an inanimate opponent is absurd. 4. The finest fighting machine the world has ever known (the US military - yes, I'm biased) is being misused. Marines are NOT peace keepers. They went, they saw, they conquered. Time to leave. 5. There is a difference between a diplomatic failure and a military failure. For some reason, US citizens are being successfully convinced that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. The military has done exactly what it was supposed to. The decisions that followed are where the failure has occurred and our military, our taxpayers, and our next generation are paying the price now and in the future. 6. The reality is we have taken a bad situation in Iraq and made it absolutely terrible. We have taken an area we didn't want terrorists and accomplished the incredible feat of getting them there in droves. There is no doubt we may have to go back if we leave now, but I think the only prayer we have now is to embrace the reality of the situation. We can not now and we have never been able to force democracy on a nation that doesn't want it. We should leave immediately and let the people of Iraq sort it out. We have enough of our own problems. If the time comes when we have to return, we should do it with the full force of our military and with a clear objective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
white_falcon 0 #22 February 6, 2007 Johnny, You make good points, but the problem as I see it is, If we dont take it to them in Iraq, They will bring it to us here at home. I would much rather we be turning buildings to ruble in Baghdad than in Baltimore (or Atlanta, or Chicago or .....) Yes, we are in a mess in the Middle East, I don't believe you will find many to dispute that, but the solution (in the war on Terror) is to fight it abroad, not here at home. Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #23 February 6, 2007 QuoteSo, umm does is removing a Tyrant from power not the first step in liberating a country from tyranny?? Or did I miss something? Oh, and BTW -- The average Iraqi was happy, very happy, to see us in the 1st Gulf War, and they are Happy to see us now. We have a bit of a trust issue to overcome (and we are doing that aby continuing our support now) in that when we left last time, we did not provide the arms and intelligence suport to the Kurds in the North that we promised. Your "gloves off, never mind if innocent civilians get inthe way" method is NOT liberating anyone from tyranny, it is simply replacing a home-grown tyrant with a foreign tyrant. In fact, that is EXACTLY what we are right now, a foreign tyrant throwing its weight about in a country whose inhabitants we really care fuck-all about but which has strategic value to us. We are worse than the colonial powers because they weren't hypocrites about what they were doing, and we are.... 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
JohnnyD 0 #24 February 6, 2007 QuoteJohnny, You make good points, but the problem as I see it is, If we dont take it to them in Iraq, They will bring it to us here at home. I would much rather we be turning buildings to ruble in Baghdad than in Baltimore (or Atlanta, or Chicago or .....) Yes, we are in a mess in the Middle East, I don't believe you will find many to dispute that, but the solution (in the war on Terror) is to fight it abroad, not here at home. Scott The distinction is between diplomacy and military. Our military mission in Iraq is over and has been for some time (mission accomplished?). Our only hope at avoiding more major military action is pulling out and attempting to repair the diplomatic disaster we've created there. It may not be possible. If we have to return with a military solution in the future, so be it. The situation will not improve until we take the military out of it. Even if we can't remain out, there is no sense at all in remaining once the mission is over. We are stuck in the quicksand that is a military success precipitated by diplomatic failure. IMO, there can be only one use for the military. That is to defeat a given enemy. In the "war on terror", it is an impossibility. We should leave now and let the situation work itself out. If we have to go back, it will be to face a clear enemy, not something we conjured up to save face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyChimp 0 #25 February 6, 2007 QuoteWell, the general goal of this war was (after the WMDs didn't materialize) to liberate the Iraqis from tyranny (although no-one bothered to ask them if that was OK with them). I'm curious, what is a continuous enlistment of Iraqi young men to the Iraqi National Army and police forces working side by side with coalition forces?? What too I ask would we call millions of Iraqi citizens with purple fingers (many of them women) on more than one occasion, VOTING for the first time in their life??? I would call it Iraqi people wanting to be liberated from tyranny! Give these people a chance John, it's not like they've had much practice with the luxury of Democracy and a Representative Republic. I think they deserve it. Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
