Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 107
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    In neither Germany, S. Korea, or Japan were we engaged in a counter insurgency.

    Nor are we involved in a counter insurgency in Bosnia or Kosovo.
    Are you trying to make a point?

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    We are getting into one in Afghanistan -- though we need not have had we not been diverted by the Iraq catastrophe.

    The more culturally sensitive, the smaller the foreign footprint, the less provocative you become.


    Iron fist solutions to counter insurgency seldom works -- but nearly never by foreigners.
    I will grant you that counter-insurgency is difficult but what does that have to do with Iraq? While we may have to engage in it, that is not why we are there. Whatever you or I may think about it, we are in Iraq for the oil. We are in Iraq to project power in the Middle East. Both the insurgency and the counter-insurgency are incidental to our national purposes.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    (you guys should attempt to use Cuba and the Phillippines -- but then I'm not on your side )
    "You guys?" Our "side?" And just how do you plan to keep the water out of your end of the boat?
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Clairegrrl -- here's a CNN transcript of what Max Cleland said.

    I'm not disagreeing with you -- but its also possible that Cleland had a more direct contact with Shinseki (I understand that they are friends).


    (its about 2/3 of the way down the CNN page)


    BLITZER: Let's talk specifics, Senator. And before we do, I want to read to you what your former colleague Gary Hart wrote in the Washington Post this past week.

    He wrote, "What will history say about an opposition party," referring to Democrats, "that stands silent while all this goes on? My generation of Democrats jumped on the hot stove of Vietnam and now, with its members in positions of responsibility, it is afraid of jumping at any political stove. To stay silent during such a crisis and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration's misfortune is the Democrat's fortune is cowardly."

    Let's talk about specifics. What do you want the United States government to do right now in Iraq?

    CLELAND: First of all, in terms of Gary Hart's comments, this is not about parties, not about party politics. I was in Vietnam in '67, wounded in '68, lay there in Walter Reed, seeing my country come apart. I never want to see that again. Which is why it's time now for us to ask as a country of our government, what are you going to do?

    We can't just stay the course and be patient. Our young men and women are getting killed and blown up. And at the same time we're evacuating Walter Reed and the government says close Walter Reed. That doesn't make any sense at all. So what do we have to do?

    First of all, we should have taken the advice of the top brass in the military like General Rick Shinseki, the chief of staff in the Army, and put in the 500,000 troops that the Pentagon plan called for in terms of securing Iraq. Iraq is not secure. And it is so difficult that to operate with 130,000 troops there. That's one reason why the Pentagon has gone up to 160,000. We're going the wrong way.

    We need to have an exit strategy that we control, not one that's forced upon us. I went to Vietnam, I saw that exit strategy. It was forced upon us. We can't allow that to happen again. We need to control this situation, which is why we need an exit strategy now.
    Instead of searching Cleland, why not search Shinseki. After all, you attributed those numbers to him. Cleland is just a democrat mouthpiece, and besides, there is enough press about Shinseki and what happened between him and Wolfowitz. Your facts are wrong, yet you keep pushing this story.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  3.    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Instead of searching Cleland, why not search Shinseki. After all, you attributed those numbers to him. Cleland is just a democrat mouthpiece, and besides, there is enough press about Shinseki and what happened between him and Wolfowitz. Your facts are wrong, yet you keep pushing this story.

    no not really "pushing" that story -- just wanted to cite where my reference originated --

    but I'm also glad that you made me look for it --- both cause I liked what Cleland had to say -- and the reference to former Senator Gary Hart, who I a long time ago tried to help get elected President ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    no not really "pushing" that story -- just wanted to cite where my reference originated --

    but I'm also glad that you made me look for it --- both cause I liked what Cleland had to say -- and the reference to former Senator Gary Hart, who I a long time ago tried to help get elected President ...
    Hart...Gary Hart from Colorado. He was a whoremonger...sheesh. You musta really liked clinton.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  5.    #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Hart...Gary Hart from Colorado. He was a whoremonger...sheesh. You musta really liked clinton.

    whoremonger ?!! Whoremonger gets through the net-nanny filter ?? I'm shocked shocked !!

    Bill admired Gary and JFK -- brilliant democrats who proved that brainy men can successfully think simultaneuosly with both their small and big heads ...
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/29/2005 at 09:26 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    whoremonger ?!! Whoremonger gets throught net-nanny filter ?? I'm shocked shocked !!

    Bill admired Gary and JFK -- brilliant democrats who proved that brainy men can successfully think simultaneuosly with both their small and big heads ...
    At least Gary Hart had better taste in women than Pres. Clinton, I'll give him that much.
    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..."
  7.    #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    At least Gary Hart had better taste in women than Pres. Clinton, I'll give him that much.

    HEY !!!

    Donna Rice -- anti-porn crusader-- did not have an affair with that man, -- Mr. Hart ...

    Donna Rice discusses her work against smut (on the internet)
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/29/2005 at 10:10 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    whoremonger ?!! Whoremonger gets through the net-nanny filter ?? I'm shocked shocked !!

    Bill admired Gary and JFK -- brilliant democrats who proved that brainy men can successfully think simultaneuosly with both their small and big heads ...
    Yep. They thought so good that one of them got impeached and the other ruined his presidential bid.
  9.    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Yep. They thought so good that one of them got impeached and the other ruined his presidential bid.

    behind my usual flippantcy -- I was serious -- he REALLY did not have an affair with her.

    That picture -- that ridiculous picture -- was nothing more than a playful pose on that absurdly named boat.

    The Florida paper who had its reporter hiding (literally) in the bushes -- established NOTHING.

    He had had lots of other affairs-- just not that one with Donna Rice -- and probably none during the presidential run.

    And I learned alot from him -- and his military aide, -- a right winger who nonetheless greatly admired Gary
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/29/2005 at 11:32 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    behind my usual flippantcy -- I was serious -- he REALLY did not have an affair with her.

    That picture -- that ridiculous picture -- was nothing more than a playful pose on that absurdly named boat.

    The Florida paper who had its reporter hiding (literally) in the bushes -- established NOTHING.

    He had had lots of other affairs-- just not that one with Donna Rice -- and probably none during the presidential run.

    And I learned alot from him -- and his military aide, -- a right winger who nonetheless greatly admired Gary
    It all depends on your definition of "an affair"
  11. #91  
    Barye
    While I agree with you that the Iraq war was a dumba$$ idea in the first place - I think your analysis is off-base on several respects:
    At the strategic level it appears that the war was poorly planned - but it's not so simple. A lot of the planning was based on poor intel - you cannot blame the military strategists for that. They were genuinely led to believe that once they dismantled Saddam and his army they would be welcomed with open arms and that led to decisions to minimize the number of troops on the ground. Furthermore the military always needs to have troops in reserve in case another conflict arises somewhere else - and in spite of the escalation in Iraq we still have the capability today to do just that.

    A second point is that the military is traditionally geared for engaging a military counterforce (such as Saddam's army) and is not trained for peace-keeping missions - if you look at any similar situation (Somalia being one painful example) it has always been in a quagmire. That being said - I still believe that nobody can get the job done better than the us - though winning the peace will be a lot more tougher.

    As for dismantling the Iraqi army - it probably made sense at the time to provide reassurance to the Iraqi civilians. Imagine if after liberating Europe and invading Germany, we had captured/killed Hitler and a few of his top brass, but we still kept most of the Nazi army officers still in charge?

    As for the micro-level analysis - again, as Insertion points out, hind-sight is always 20-20. We could have the best possible armor and the insurgents would have adapted. For example they are now using "shaped-charge" explosives capable of penetrating most modern armor, as well triple-piling anti-tank mines on top of each other - these can easily blow most armored vehicles off the ground. But that is what happens in war - the enemy adapts their tactics and you have to move quickly to counter them. Pointing fingers does not help.

    Comparing the situation in Iraq with other situations like Japan is rather disingenous - Iraq does not have a homogenous ethnic population as in those cases. Left to themselves, the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds would happily slaughter each other for decades. Either you brutally supress these ethnic hatreds (as Saddam did) or teach them how to live together without killing each other (or us). This will not be easy since they have no concept about modern democratic principles - and it does not help that they also direct some of their hatred towards the West, and are suspicious of us.

    The biggest problem going forward is actually the American public. There is a very unfortunate and real possibility that the President may decide to bow to fickle public opinion and start to pull out the troops before stabilizing the region. And even though the Prez himself has nothing to lose, the other Repugnicans will start to get nervous around mid-term elections, and will most likely try to distance themselves from the war and start to buckle to public opinion and also pressure the Prez to withdraw. If we do that, then we will leave Iraq in a major mess, with all the three factions fighting each other, and also making the biggest breeding ground for all terrorist organizations. Not to mention that one of the world's top oil producing regions would be pretty much shut down.

    As for Insertions repeated question - one possible solution going forward could be to try and seriously engage the rest of Europe and Russia possibly. This would mean that the Prez would have to eat some crow (and possibly grovel) and allow the others to share in the oil revenues as well as rebuilding contracts. If it means that we could help pull back some of troops and put them out of harms way, then it may not be such a bad idea to grovel, especially considering it was a dumba$$ idea for getting us into this mess in the first place and trying to go it alone. Perhaps if enough European forces were engaged they could be involved in managing different regions of Iraq as it transitions towards a stable democracy. Of course the main motive for most of the Europeans and Russia would still be money.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Barye
    While I agree with you that the Iraq war was a dumba$$ idea in the first place - I think your analysis is off-base on several respects:
    At the strategic level it appears that the war was poorly planned - but it's not so simple. A lot of the planning was based on poor intel - you cannot blame the military strategists for that. They were genuinely led to believe that once they dismantled Saddam and his army they would be welcomed with open arms and that led to decisions to minimize the number of troops on the ground. Furthermore the military always needs to have troops in reserve in case another conflict arises somewhere else - and in spite of the escalation in Iraq we still have the capability today to do just that.

    A second point is that the military is traditionally geared for engaging a military counterforce (such as Saddam's army) and is not trained for peace-keeping missions - if you look at any similar situation (Somalia being one painful example) it has always been in a quagmire. That being said - I still believe that nobody can get the job done better than the us - though winning the peace will be a lot more tougher.

    As for dismantling the Iraqi army - it probably made sense at the time to provide reassurance to the Iraqi civilians. Imagine if after liberating Europe and invading Germany, we had captured/killed Hitler and a few of his top brass, but we still kept most of the Nazi army officers still in charge?

    As for the micro-level analysis - again, as Insertion points out, hind-sight is always 20-20. We could have the best possible armor and the insurgents would have adapted. For example they are now using "shaped-charge" explosives capable of penetrating most modern armor, as well triple-piling anti-tank mines on top of each other - these can easily blow most armored vehicles off the ground. But that is what happens in war - the enemy adapts their tactics and you have to move quickly to counter them. Pointing fingers does not help.

    Comparing the situation in Iraq with other situations like Japan is rather disingenous - Iraq does not have a homogenous ethnic population as in those cases. Left to themselves, the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds would happily slaughter each other for decades. Either you brutally supress these ethnic hatreds (as Saddam did) or teach them how to live together without killing each other (or us). This will not be easy since they have no concept about modern democratic principles - and it does not help that they also direct some of their hatred towards the West, and are suspicious of us.

    Very nicely put!

    The biggest problem going forward is actually the American public. There is a very unfortunate and real possibility that the President may decide to bow to fickle public opinion and start to pull out the troops before stabilizing the region. And even though the Prez himself has nothing to lose, the other Repugnicans will start to get nervous around mid-term elections, and will most likely try to distance themselves from the war and start to buckle to public opinion and also pressure the Prez to withdraw. If we do that, then we will leave Iraq in a major mess, with all the three factions fighting each other, and also making the biggest breeding ground for all terrorist organizations. Not to mention that one of the world's top oil producing regions would be pretty much shut down.
    I would also add the comment in the beginning of the thread with the media playing a huge part in this. I was watching a documentary on the New York Times channel about war time journalists. They said that if there would have been embedded journalists on D-Day like there currently is in Iraq, then there would have been a huge chance that we might have been forced to withdraw our troops from the already liberal demmands at the time swaying public opinion. How would that have turned out?

    I feel that the press has been hugely unbalanced and liable, with reporting every failure or challenge and flat out ignoring our successes. Prime example is recently when papers were headlining that we failed with recruiting, but failed to mention that we more than compensated with re-enlistments to actually exceed our quotas. Or the NYTs article about the the newly developed body armor the troops are going to get and twisted it to another lack of planning for not offering just developed body armor sooner.

    As for Insertions repeated question - one possible solution going forward could be to try and seriously engage the rest of Europe and Russia possibly. This would mean that the Prez would have to eat some crow (and possibly grovel) and allow the others to share in the oil revenues as well as rebuilding contracts. If it means that we could help pull back some of troops and put them out of harms way, then it may not be such a bad idea to grovel
    Grovelling is always an option....but always with a price. I am not sure if even grovelling is necessary. The only question to ask is do they want a stable Mid East Region or not? If so, finally get on board and help, if not don't complain about terrorists or oil prices. If they would not have been more interested in their under the table handouts from Saddam lining their pockets, the investements they had into arms sales to Saddam, etc....they would have probably have been there to begin with.

    It is all about money.


    Perhaps if enough European forces were engaged they could be involved in managing different regions of Iraq as it transitions towards a stable democracy. Of course the main motive for most of the Europeans and Russia would still be money.
    Which is why many of them probably resisted in the first place......Oil for Food payoffs, oil contracts, business investments, etc....
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/30/2005 at 06:48 PM.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I would also add the comment in the beginning of the thread with the media playing a huge part in this. I was watching a documentary on the New York Times channel about war time journalists. They said that if there would have been embedded journalists on D-Day like there currently is in Iraq, then there would have been a huge chance that we might have been forced to withdraw our troops from the already liberal demmands at the time swaying public opinion. How would that have turned out?

    I feel that the press has been hugely unbalanced and liable, with reporting every failure or challenge and flat out ignoring our successes. Prime example is recently when papers were headlining that we failed with recruiting, but failed to mention that we more than compensated with re-enlistments to actually exceed our quotas. Or the NYTs article about the the newly developed body armor the troops are going to get and twisted it to another lack of planning for not offering just developed body armor sooner.
    I agree with you that the MSM press has been wretched - but they're not necessarily heavily tilted towards the left as you imply. The only thing that matters to MSM press is ratings (i.e. money) and it is an unfortunate fact of life that bad news always sells better. After all, if things were going smoothly in Iraq, then we would take it for granted that our troops over there were just doing their job - and then promptly tune out. For example, why doesn't anyone talk about Afganistan? Things are going quite well - but the american public doesn't seem interested, so the MSM doesn't cover it (and before you say it, no, it isn't the other way around!)

    I think the MSM failed us from the very beginning - there was no investigative journalism nor critical analysis about the case for the war in Iraq in 2002. All they did at that time was regurgitate the administration "findings" - and since you can always make more money selling fear, the MSM went along the WMD story. And of course they wanted a ringside seat at the "shock and awe" circus - and all of us lapped up the MSM coverage during the first few weeks of the war. The military made a decision to embed the press because they thought they could "control" them better - guess that didn't work out.

    Grovelling is always an option....but always with a price. I am not sure if even grovelling is necessary.
    would you rather pay the price in american blood? Or maybe if the Prez hadn't been so arrogant and dismissive of our european allies, we could have convinced them to help out in this situation?

    The only question to ask is do they want a stable Mid East Region or not? If so, finally get on board and help, if not don't complain about terrorists or oil prices.
    They (european allies) would probably point out that the mid-east is now more unstable as result of the Iraq war - and that terrorism has gotten worse as result of it. And they have no incentive to help since it could bring the terrorism to their homeland. After all the recent terrorist attacks have been on countries (England, Spain) that sent troops to Iraq.


    It is all about money.
    Which is why many of them probably resisted in the first place......Oil for Food payoffs, oil contracts, business investments, etc....
    Agreed - it is all about the money - but we are not entirely blameless either. There was a miscalculation about what this war would cost us in the beginning - and we thought that the oil revenues would help offset those costs. Reality is different - and we can use some help - even though it mean we have pay them for it. I would rather pay twice as much for gas (or anything else for that matter) if it means that less american blood is spilled.
    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."
  14. #94  
    Chill....whether I agree or not, I don't think I really find fault with any of your replies....if nothing else it offers the balance of the situation or clarifies more to the point some of my thoughts I was trying to say.

    Just a couple thoughts:

    would you rather pay the price in american blood? Or maybe if the Prez hadn't been so arrogant and dismissive of our european allies, we could have convinced them to help out in this situation?
    No. I also still think that a lot of resistance against Bush in the EU was due to pride (i.e. when the French UN Ambassador on the fight for the upcoming UN vote on Iraq Resolution states "It matters to France that France matters" says a lot and I am sure on our side as well), oil for food under the table pribes that can generate resistance due to wanting more under the table money, fear of records being found in Bagdad if we went in, etc..., as well as arms deals with Saddam and oil contracts with him. All of these added up to a lot of factors concerning many of the members of the EU's resistance.

    They (european allies) would probably point out that the mid-east is now more unstable as result of the Iraq war - and that terrorism has gotten worse as result of it. And they have no incentive to help since it could bring the terrorism to their homeland. After all the recent terrorist attacks have been on countries (England, Spain) that sent troops to Iraq.
    I agree that is what they would say...but they have traditionally been weak on their stance against terrorist and have shown that they give in to them...and even support them such as Italy playing both sides of the fence. Again the I think the money is the main issue, both legit deals, investments, arms supplying, etc. and under the table with the Oil for Food.



    Speaking of Italy....this is another example of Bush not following through with his "if you support the terrorist you are just as bad as the terrorist, no exceptions" rule. Italy has a policy of support BOTH sides, meaning the US and our allies in Iraq and the insurgents! Yet Bush is not calling them on it.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/30/2005 at 11:00 PM.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Chill....whether I agree or not, I don't think I really find fault with any of your replies....if nothing else it offers the balance of the situation or clarifies more to the point some of my thoughts I was trying to say.
    what can i say? I like to argue!

    but seriously - I was hoping to provide a more objective point of view on the situation.

    Take care
    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."
  16. #96  
    Hey...I was updating my response while you posted yours!
  17.    #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Hey...I was updating my response while you posted yours!
    geez -- neither of you addressed the major verbose points I made in that masters thesis ....

    Begging the Euro's and Ruskies to join us in that sewer ??

    That boat sailed long long ago.

    In truth even had Kerry won, it would have been tough to get anyone to send troops to assist us there.

    The French, the russians, and Millions of Americans and people from round the world who love america, pleaded for us to not cavilierly go to war.

    They warned us that it was the gravest of mistakes -- that it would be easy in and a nightmare getting out. Junior taunted them when he bragged that the Iraqi Pork Barrel was reserved only for Americans and our "allies". He would not talk with the german or French leaders who had attempted to warn him.

    The people of Europe vociferously opposed this war before it ignominiously began, and in the bloody streets and sectarian hatred the worst of their fears have come to be realized.

    NO DEMOCRATICALLY elected gov't can any longer send troops to the Iraqi nightmare.

    Even Blair will sooner or later withdraw. Though in truth the British have largely become irrelevant or worse -- as they have understandably watched their sector become in essence an Iranian Islamic sub-state.
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/31/2005 at 12:23 AM. Reason: many typos ...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    geez -- neither of you addressed the major verbose points I made in that masters thesis ....
    Chill....apparently you did not even come close addressing the points that Barye made.. ..in spite of addressing several of them one by one. I bet he meant to say you didn't answer it the way he wanted you to.
  19.    #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Chill....apparently you did not even come close addressing the points that Barye made.. ..in spite of addressing several of them one by one. I bet he meant to say you didn't answer it the way he wanted you to.
    bad enough to be teased and taunted by Hobbes -- but by chillig35 too -- et tu brute ??

    I just consummed another full carton of Starbucks coffee ice cream -- I'm well past a caffeine OD -- its 5am and I'm real awake !!!


    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Barye
    While I agree with you that the Iraq war was a dumba$$ idea in the first place - I think your analysis is off-base on several respects:
    At the strategic level it appears that the war was poorly planned - but it's not so simple. A lot of the planning was based on poor intel - you cannot blame the military strategists for that. They were genuinely led to believe that once they dismantled Saddam and his army they would be welcomed with open arms and that led to decisions to minimize the number of troops on the ground. Furthermore the military always needs to have troops in reserve in case another conflict arises somewhere else - and in spite of the escalation in Iraq we still have the capability today to do just that.

    Just not true -- there were many in the military who warned that we would not be welcomed for very long if at all as liberators -- particularly in the Sunni areas where deposing Saddam was NOT liberation.

    The experienced military -- the few who had the spine to stand up to Rumy, cheney, and the great generalissimo, cautioned about needing sufficient forces to occupy and STABILIZE AFTER the conquest.

    The neocons were drinking the lying propaganda KOOL-AID of the iraqi exiles who played to what the neocons were looking to hear.

    Both the State Dept. and the CIA repeatedly warned of lies coming from leeches like "Curveball" -- but the neocons DID NOT CARE IF THE INTEL WAS TRUE -- only that it supported the case that they made in the State of the Union address, and before the UN.

    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    A second point is that the military is traditionally geared for engaging a military counterforce (such as Saddam's army) and is not trained for peace-keeping missions - if you look at any similar situation (Somalia being one painful example) it has always been in a quagmire. That being said - I still believe that nobody can get the job done better than the us - though winning the peace will be a lot more tougher.
    Somalia is sui generis -- not something that can be used in an Iraq discussion.

    We have had peace keeping successes -- Bosnia, Kosovo, Germany, Japan, the Sinai desert, and the Clinton operation in a Haiti. (I don't want to hear anyone attack the Clinton Haiti deployment).

    That experience has made the military understand that LARGE numbers of troops are required so that DEADLY FORCE IS NOT NEEDED.

    Authority becomes established by quiet intimidation -- the absence of soldiers (as was the case in Iraq) -- creates a vacuum in the social order which invites chaos.

    When the righties proclaim that the bad awful events of Iraq: the anarchy, the widespread upheaval, the insurgency, the onslaught of foreign fighters -- was unanticapatable, they are lying to themselves at best -- to us at worse.

    Of course they also believe that 9-11 was unforeseeable, that there were no warning signs, that junior's endless summer vacations bears no responsibility for the lack of an organized distillation of the many startling pieces of intelligence (for example the training of Arab pilots who did not want to learn to land commercial airplanes.)


    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    As for dismantling the Iraqi army - it probably made sense at the time to provide reassurance to the Iraqi civilians. Imagine if after liberating Europe and invading Germany, we had captured/killed Hitler and a few of his top brass, but we still kept most of the Nazi army officers still in charge?

    The uniform military OPPOSED the wholesale dissolution of Iraq's armed services.

    This was an idea promulgated by the neocon civilians connected to Rumy and the CPA.

    The military understood that they did not have the troops to replace the MILLION MAN ARMY that the CPA was dissolving.

    If we were there to only satisfy the Shiite & Kurds who had been oppressed by the Bathiists maybe -- but if your plan was to do the IKEA version of war you DON"T DISMANTLE the EXISTING AUTHORITY WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING WITH WHICH TO REPLACE IT !!!

    I cannot sufficiently stress this -- I have tried repeatedly to say it -- but it seems to not be understood. (and I was not overly exaggerating the level of that argument that I had with one of the authors of that STUPID idea.)

    I don’t think the generalissimo intended to create the MOTHER OF ALL TERRORIST TRAINING SCHOOLS.

    I don’t think he intended to create an IRANIAN ALLIED fundamentalist ISLAMIC SHIITE STATE.

    I don’t think he intended to generously give to Iran the victory for free that it could not win in a decade of horrific war with Saddam. (After we had properly crushed the Taliban — who were also enemies of Iran.)

    I don’t think he intended to create a weak destabilizing “federation” of three states that are going to bring more violence and instability to the region. An instability that will eventually provoke the Turks, Iran, and the Syria against the Kurds. Eventually they are likely to attempt to take territorial advantage of the divided and weakened Iraqi military as well.

    But this is what ARROGANT STUPIDITY has borne.


    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    As for the micro-level analysis - again, as Insertion points out, hind-sight is always 20-20. We could have the best possible armor and the insurgents would have adapted. For example they are now using "shaped-charge" explosives capable of penetrating most modern armor, as well triple-piling anti-tank mines on top of each other - these can easily blow most armored vehicles off the ground. But that is what happens in war - the enemy adapts their tactics and you have to move quickly to counter them. Pointing fingers does not help.

    Many can’t point fingers because they lost the limbs on which they attached. How can ANYONE make excuses for not doing the most obvious work to protect our people after 2 years – ESPECIALLY reservists and National Guard and Ready Reserve who had effectively been drafted into this stupid escapade.

    Within 6 months of entering WW2 our arsenal of democracy was producing hundreds of thousands of trucks, ships, and planes (and bad sherman tanks). We not only supplied ourselves but gave to the english and the russians too.

    We could not find the money to pay for the crash production of an existing robust vehicle like the Mamba ??? As NRG said, we could have licensed the design and produced it ourselves.

    Truckers who are in the main lines of non-conventional warfare are still being protected with “hillbilly armour”.

    HMVs were never intended to be frontline “armoured” vehicles.

    One of the reasons I listed all those unneeded weapon programs is to remove the idiots excuse of how we hadn’t the money to pay for an emergecy "crash" program.

    Had they truly cared for the soldiers that they put into that maw of hell, had THEY been doing THEIR job, we would not have heard nearly 2 years into the war "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time...." !!!


    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Comparing the situation in Iraq with other situations like Japan is rather disingenous - Iraq does not have a homogenous ethnic population as in those cases. Left to themselves, the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds would happily slaughter each other for decades. Either you brutally supress these ethnic hatreds (as Saddam did) or teach them how to live together without killing each other (or us). This will not be easy since they have no concept about modern democratic principles - and it does not help that they also direct some of their hatred towards the West, and are suspicious of us.

    I actually want the moon to be made of Scottish goat cheese.

    We all need to have a dream ...

    To suppose that we were going to invade and arbitrate all of that “hatred” after having pushed over the applecart – ??!!!!

    I can’t respond ....


    Regarding Japan –- the point of the analogy is to help everyone understand why IT IS EASIER TO REDIRECT AN AUTHORITARIAN ARMY AND POLICE FORCE – THAT ROBOTICALLY TOOK COMMAND. We COULD have USED that army for our purposes – most just wanted a paycheck and some honor. Shiites were a part of that army along with Sunnis. It would not have been easy to hold that institution together –- we would have had to overlook a lot of abuse and corruption. But a lot easier than creating a new army and police force almost from scratch while engaged in a full scale insurgency.


    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    The biggest problem going forward is actually the American public. There is a very unfortunate and real possibility that the President may decide to bow to fickle public opinion and start to pull out the troops before stabilizing the region. And even though the Prez himself has nothing to lose, the other Repugnicans will start to get nervous around mid-term elections, and will most likely try to distance themselves from the war and start to buckle to public opinion and also pressure the Prez to withdraw. If we do that, then we will leave Iraq in a major mess, with all the three factions fighting each other, and also making the biggest breeding ground for all terrorist organizations. Not to mention that one of the world's top oil producing regions would be pretty much shut down.

    As for Insertions repeated question - one possible solution going forward could be to try and seriously engage the rest of Europe and Russia possibly. This would mean that the Prez would have to eat some crow (and possibly grovel) and allow the others to share in the oil revenues as well as rebuilding contracts. If it means that we could help pull back some of troops and put them out of harms way, then it may not be such a bad idea to grovel, especially considering it was a dumba$$ idea for getting us into this mess in the first place and trying to go it alone. Perhaps if enough European forces were engaged they could be involved in managing different regions of Iraq as it transitions towards a stable democracy. Of course the main motive for most of the Europeans and Russia would still be money.

    The dates to pay attention to are November 2006 and 2008. Our troops will be gone before November 2008 no matter what chaos prevails in Iraq.

    This “constitution” would be voted down (vetoed) by the Sunnis in a truly fair election (with their majority control of 3 provinces.)

    This will not be allowed –- junior cannot allow anything to obstruct the fig leaf that we are creating for our departure.


    There are many many possible scenarios -– but this is what I think is most probable:

    I expect a big build up of troops sometime during the next 1-3 years leading to a large scale “offensive” against the insurgents –- and then a rapid draw down to bases in Kuwait and smaller garrisons in the Iraqi interior.

    Soon after November 2008 a wholesale collapse of the semi-secular American sponsored regime –- and the rise of a pure islamic republic under the leadership of Muqtada al-Sadr – who will attempt to reassert central control over the federated provinces. The Sunnis will grudgingly accept Muqtada al-Sadr, but the Kurds will resist. This will be the excuse that Turkey, Iran, and Syria will need to “protect” their countries from the instability caused by the Kurds. They will again be crushed and forgotten by us.
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/31/2005 at 11:21 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20.    #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Are you trying to make a point?



    I will grant you that counter-insurgency is difficult but what does that have to do with Iraq? While we may have to engage in it, that is not why we are there. Whatever you or I may think about it, we are in Iraq for the oil. We are in Iraq to project power in the Middle East. Both the insurgency and the counter-insurgency are incidental to our national purposes.

    Please name for us a single successful coercive counterinsurgency, conducted by FOREIGN troops

    I don't know of any -- perhaps you do
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions