Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 92
  1.    #1  
    I hear from so many Liberals....or at least far left Liberals....that we should never had evaded Iraq, there are no valid reasons for invading Iraq, we need to pull out now...etc... Here is a really good article that analyzes several different threats tied to Saddam against the US, but mostly focuses on the threat from Saddam against our allies, mainly Israel. He brings up several very good points that many from the Left can pick out and claim to support their point of view (and even might add some new points of views that fits their philosophy or claims), as well as several points that the right would claim as support for going to war against Iraq. (I can probably guess who will pick up on certain points) He also brings up several points that may have been additional reasons we decided to go to war that Bush did on expound on.

    But when you look at WHOLE picture, I found it very enlightening.

    What I found most intriguing about this article is he lists 7 war game scenarios of what would have happened if.....i.e. mainly that we did NOT go into Iraq when we did.

    This is what I want to focus on in this thread.....NOT the same old question of why we went into Iraq but to help answer the follow up position of so many hard Left wingers screaming we should never have gone in to begin with “Okay, if we take your opinion and set it in a real world scenario, what really would have been the realistic consequences if we had NOT gone into Iraq?”. They say it would be better if we would not have, but don’t offer any consequences of us not establishing a democracy in Iraq and ousting Saddam, besides maybe that our troops would not have suffered the loses they have. But is that really true and realistic given our not acting against Saddam when we did given the political climate after 9/11 in the Middle East?

    Here is a sampling of the scenarios (the full scenarios are in the article linked below):

    Wise policy makers will anticipate the effects of the actions that they direct the nation to take. They must simulate all reasonable courses of action, find the results of each course, and judge which is best for the national interest; i.e. they must war-game them.

    Let us do a very brief sketch of what the war-game results may be of possible actions that the U.S. may take or choose not to take in the Middle East.
    Scenario 1: 2010. About seven years has passed since America decided not to invade Iraq. Four years ago in 2006 the international community put so much pressure on America to agree to end sanctions on Iraq, which were hurting the Iraqi people, that America yields. Weapons inspectors have been periodically in Iraq since 2002 but are yet to be allowed to see key sites. America knows that the region is unstable, but does not intervene to overthrow the Ba’athist regime. Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria, and even Pakistan continue programs developing WMDs. Israel, fearing that....
    Scenario 2: 2008. The events in scenario 1 are occurring, but in this scenario Israel decides to pre-emptively strike before......
    Scenario 3: In 2003, America decides to invade Iraq to prevent the destruction of Israel and to stabilize the region for the sake of preventing a resurgence of the Arab-Israeli Wars. American elites use.....
    Scenario 4: All of scenario 3 occurs except that Iran is more resilient. America wages war with Iran....
    Scenario 5: America does not invade Iraq, but continues to aid Israel economically and militarily. Sanctions on "rogue regimes" prevent Libya, Iran, and Iraq from becoming powers that can compete with Israel militarily. Israel initiates a few pre-emptive strikes on Libya, Iran, and Iraq, which do not result in outright war because of the comparative weakness of their militaries due to the sanctions. The Arab-Israeli conflict remains a cold war, but Al Qaida has been receiving nuclear technology from .....
    Scenario 6: America decides to make a 180 degree turnaround in its Middle East policy. It cuts off all aid to Israel and removes all of its troops from the region.....
    Scenario 7: America decides to get tough on Israel. America gives Israel an ultimatum:.....
    Here is the article, including the 7 FULL scenarios:

    The Rationale for the Iraq War: Stability of the Region and American Interests Explained

    http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m13005&l=i&size=1&hd=0



    2
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/30/2005 at 07:35 PM.
  2. #2  
    Look, someone can make up scenarios till the cows come home. The administration came to the American people with their scenarios for invasion, none of which turned out to hold any water, AND they executed the whole damn thing extremely poorly! That's where we're at. Not in 'what if' fantasy land.
  3. #3  
    Looks like Howard Dean is not speaking for daThomas any longer
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. #4  
    I noticed
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I hear from so many Liberals....or at least far left Liberals....that we should never had evaded Iraq, there are no valid reasons for invading Iraq, we need to pull out now...etc... Here is a really good article that analyzes several different threats tied to Saddam against the US, but mostly focuses on the threat from Saddam against our allies, mainly Israel. He brings up several very good points that many from the Left can pick out and claim to support their point of view (and even might add some new points of views that fits their philosophy or claims), as well as several points that the right would claim as support for going to war against Iraq. (I can probably guess who will pick up on certain points) He also brings up several points that may have been additional reasons we decided to go to war that Bush did on expound on.

    But when you look at WHOLE picture, I found it very enlightening.

    What I found most intriguing about this article is he lists 7 war game scenarios of what would have happened if.....i.e. mainly that we did NOT go into Iraq when we did.

    This is what I want to focus on in this thread.....NOT the same old question of why we went into Iraq but to help answer the follow up position of so many hard Left wingers screaming we should never have gone in to begin with “Okay, if we take your opinion and set it in a real world scenario, what really would have been the realistic consequences if we had NOT gone into Iraq?”. They say it would be better if we would not have, but don’t offer any consequences of us not establishing a democracy in Iraq and ousting Saddam, besides maybe that our troops would not have suffered the loses they have. But is that really true and realistic given our not acting against Saddam when we did given the political climate after 9/11 in the Middle East?

    Here is a sampling of the scenarios:











    Here is the article:

    The Rationale for the Iraq War: Stability of the Region and American Interests Explained

    http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m13005&l=i&size=1&hd=0



    2
    I will take it with me in Docs2Go as it is a long read and I don't have time right now.

    I'll see if I can find my own scenario in here. If not I will suggest one to you.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Looks like Howard Dean is not speaking for daThomas any longer
    Petition it was linked to is now closed, thank you for noticing though Claire.
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Look, someone can make up scenarios till the cows come home. The administration came to the American people with their scenarios for invasion, none of which turned out to hold any water, AND they executed the whole damn thing extremely poorly! That's where we're at. Not in 'what if' fantasy land.
    Wow...you read and retained that whole post and really long article in little over 5 minutes! I am impressed!

    If the argument is being brought up that we should never have gone in, it is a valid question to ask. "Fair enough, but given the political situation at the time and the intel at that time, what would have been their alternatives and subsequent consequences?"

    This is a good non attacking question to help determine if it was right or not. I am looking at this from a constructive point of view. I think once everything in Iraq is settled, that it is going to be a long term positive for the region, for our allies, and for us.

    We are not talking execusion, but what were the other alternatives and consequences of those alternatives that may point to this being the best of the evils.

    But I am not closed to alternatives that might have proven to be better. You say we should never had gone. But what would have been the consequences of that vs the end result of where we are now?
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/30/2005 at 07:19 PM.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The administration came to the American people with their scenarios for invasion, none of which turned out to hold any water, AND they executed the whole damn thing extremely poorly! That's where we're at. Not in 'what if' fantasy land.
    Okay Tommy Franks, had you been in the planning stages, how would YOU have executed this?

    No talk of not going there to begin with, since you said it was executed poorly, I want to know your better plan.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Wow...you read and retained that whole article in little over 5 minutes! I am impressed!

    If the arguement is being brought up that we should never have gone in, it is a valid question to ask. "Fair enough, but given the political situation at the time and the intel at that time, what would have been their alternatives and subsiquent consequences?"

    This is a good non attacking question to help determine if it was right or not.
    It's like playing Monday morning president, "um, ok, our reasons for invading and occupying another country sucked. Let's think up some new reasonms why we invaded Iraq."

    What's more important than why is the how. Horrible planning and execution. Right now we need to be entertaining ideas of how to get our people out of there as soon as possible.
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's like playing Monday morning president, "um, ok, our reasons for invading and occupying another country sucked. Let's think up some new reasonms why we invaded Iraq."

    What's more important than why is the how. Horrible planning and execution. Right now we need to be entertaining ideas of how to get our people out of there as soon as possible.
    Sorry, I edited my post you replied to while you were replying. I think I addressed you question there.

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...64&postcount=7
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/30/2005 at 03:26 PM.
  11. #11  
    We invaded to uphold the multiple UN resolutions. We helped the UN stay legitimate.

    To leave now is simply impossible. We leave, the whole region turns gangrene.

    daThomas, I think my God has President Bush in power to keep out a weaker man with a weaker plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's like playing Monday morning president, "um, ok, our reasons for invading and occupying another country sucked. Let's think up some new reasonms why we invaded Iraq."

    What's more important than why is the how. Horrible planning and execution. Right now we need to be entertaining ideas of how to get our people out of there as soon as possible.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Okay Tommy Franks, had you been in the planning stages, how would YOU have executed this?

    No talk of not going there to begin with, since you said it was executed poorly, I want to know your better plan.
    Do I have to have a better plan to note how poorly executed this was? I believe this admiistration had plenty of advice and planning withinn and without itself which it chose to ignore.
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Do I have to have a better plan to note how poorly executed this was? I believe this admiistration had plenty of advice and planning withinn and without itself which it chose to ignore.
    .......
    If the argument is being brought up that we should never have gone in, it is a valid question to ask. "Fair enough, but given the political situation at the time and the intel at that time, what would have been their alternatives and subsequent consequences?"

    This is a good non attacking question to help determine if it was right or not. I am looking at this from a constructive point of view. I think once everything in Iraq is settled, that it is going to be a long term positive for the region, for our allies, and for us.

    We are not talking execusion, but what were the other alternatives and consequences of those alternatives that may point to this being the best of the evils.

    But I am not closed to alternatives that might have proven to be better. You say we should never had gone. But what would have been the consequences of that vs the end result of where we are now?
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Do I have to have a better plan to note how poorly executed this was? I believe this admiistration had plenty of advice and planning withinn and without itself which it chose to ignore.
    I happen to not agree that it ws poorly executed. This isn't a PS2 or X-Box. The initial phase of the operations (to topple the Regime) was near flawless. What has transpired with the next phase may or may have gone as planned, but progress has been made.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I happen to not agree that it ws poorly executed. This isn't a PS2 or X-Box. The initial phase of the operations (to topple the Regime) was near flawless. What has transpired with the next phase may or may have gone as planned, but progress has been made.
    Oh, don't misunderstand me. The invasion was fine as far as I can tell. It was the occupation which was not thought out. The three major factions vying for power which was not thought out. Foreign fighters pouring over the borders which was not thought out.

    And now, we're losing the goal in Afghanistan (login: seagoth/seagoth) due to the resources we're hemorrhaging in Iraq.
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Oh, don't misunderstand me. The invasion was fine as far as I can tell. It was the occupation which was not thought out. The three major factions vying for power which was not thought out. Foreign fighters pouring over the borders which was not thought out.

    And now, we're losing the goal in Afghanistan (login: seagoth/seagoth) due to the resources we're hemorrhaging in Iraq.
    Da....I agree with you for the most part. .... Off Topic...That there are lot of things that could have been laid out in more detail, of that I think anyone would be in denial if they totally 100% disagreed. The other point to add to that is possibly not anticipating the role that Iran may be playing in the current troubles in Iraq.

    Though on the flip side, this is a totally new type of situation that no one had faced before. Everyone must account for the unexpected and unpredictable. Then judge how those things that cannot be planned for was dealt with.

    ON Topic......But in this thread I am talking more about if we started on the right course. If we started with the best or at least an acceptable option to begin with when comparing the alternatives and the roads that would have led us down....then the argument for execution becomes even that much stronger in your favor.

    But I feel that many far left libs have taken hit and run cheap shots by simply stating "We should never of gone in" and running away immediately after saying that without any support as to what would have happened if we didn't, given the political environment, 9/11 inspired movements within terrorist orgs, and the intel that most of the world thought was true at that time, with after 12 years of trying with no foreseeable time frame to verify otherwise unless we able to verify it first hand due to Saddam lying about his lies.

    I think you feel that we should not have gone in and I really am sincerely interested in your point of view of this in a constructive format.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/30/2005 at 07:33 PM.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Oh, don't misunderstand me. The invasion was fine as far as I can tell. It was the occupation which was not thought out. The three major factions vying for power which was not thought out. Foreign fighters pouring over the borders which was not thought out.

    And now, we're losing the goal in Afghanistan (login: seagoth/seagoth) due to the resources we're hemorrhaging in Iraq.
    You may be right with your points on Iraq. However, rebuilding always takes time. How long did it take to rebuild Europe after Marshall Plan was enacted? How long did our troops remain in Germany? (well, we're still there...) Japan?

    Look at the remains of the former USSR. None of those newly formed countries are really a beacon of success at this moment.

    Having Islamic Extremist making this their playground doesn't help our effort to rebuild, but in the overall War On Terror, I'd much rather have them concentrated in a box, rather than scattered throughout the globe.

    It's unfortunate these "Holy Warriors" haven't a care at all for their fellow Muslims who want to rebuild.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Having Islamic Extremist making this their playground doesn't help our effort to rebuild, but in the overall War On Terror, I'd much rather have them concentrated in a box, rather than scattered throughout the globe.
    IMO, we're fooling ourselves if we think this was not part of the plan or one of the reasons why we invaded in the first place.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I happen to not agree that it ws poorly executed. This isn't a PS2 or X-Box. The initial phase of the operations (to topple the Regime) was near flawless. What has transpired with the next phase may or may have gone as planned, but progress has been made.
    Insertion .... I'm not sure about that. I agree that our military was excellent at execution of the initial phase - but I think that there were overly dependent on strategic planning and technology to carry them through the subsequent phases.

    I've been reading about JFCOM's 2002 Millenium Challenge (the biggest war game ever conducted by the US military) - and it seems that the pencil-necked "strategic planners" lost heavily against experienced and more tactical commanders. However the geeks then "reset" the war game and made sure that the subsequent games were heavily scripted, and sure enough they won.
    The irony of the whole exercise? It was a simulation of the invasion of Iraq in 2007. Presumably these same pencil-necks assured the White house that the invasion and subsequent occupation would be accomplished easily - since they had already successfully "simulated" these scenarios!

    Here's a couple of links:
    http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-1060102.php
    http://www.geocities.com/equipmentsh...mationlies.htm
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    IMO, we're fooling ourselves if we think this was not part of the plan or one of the reasons why we invaded in the first place.
    For the purpose of?
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions