Wake Up America!

It May Not Be Too Late.

from JoeUser Forums
It's clear the US line of success in Iraq is nothing more than mere political rhetoric. CNN is busy reporting that al-Sadr's private army has taken over the entire administration in Najaf. And for the firm believers in the White House's words you can explain how it is that the US trained US armed police force is in negotiations with al-Sadr for their re-taking their own police station. It's borderline anarchy and we're suposed to believe Iraqi's will be taking over the administration of Iraq in mere weeks? Something is not right in iraq and the reality still isn't known or understood by the majority of Americans. Sadly, I can't say 'vote Kerry' because he's not going to be withdrawing from Iraq if he wins. Of course not. So what can be done? The first thing to be done is to demand the full truth out of the government. Good luck with that. If I were really religious I would say you can pray, but really, we're told Bush and his cronies mock God by 'praying' before meetings and the like. So that won't help. All that is needed is the attitude that you're not willing to take the lies anymore and finally do something about it. Don't be a fence-walker. These are real lives at stake here. If you're against the war speak out loudly. If you're all for the war you better brush up on the fine art of the spin, because the s**t is really hitting the fan and it's splatter will touch everyone.
politics
8,015 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
unfortunately it is too late for many US Marines. CNN is now reporting that insurgents have mounted a large-scale strike against the Marines and as many as 12 are feared dead. What a total 100% shame. All over lies.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reason we have problems in Iraq is because we have not been brutal enough to win. War is not a game. You can't fight a limited war and win. You must utterly destroy the head of the beast not just a limb or two. The Democrats are the ones who have not allowed the war to be fought in a winning manner. Our soldiers must be protected over Iraqi civilians. If that means thousands of iraqi deaths--tough. We must totally crush all opposition or Iran will end up controlling iraq for a prize.

THIS IS NO TIME FOR WEAK, DEMOCRATIC APPEASEMENT. AMERICA EITHER DOES WHATS NECESSARY TO WIN THIS WAR OR IT IS THE END OF OUR WORLD DOMINANCE. AND THAT WOULD BE A TRAGEDY FOR HUMANITY.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
that's what made the Vietnam War unwinnable. But more firepower sucks the US in even further. Why does the necesary action have to be so hawkish all the time? Firepower won't win this war in Iraq. Not anymore. And I think the tragegy for humanity is 'more firepower' don't you think?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
So are you suggesting we just pull out? Bush is trying his best to get out but without letting Iraq crumble after we believe. You can try and argue this, but why would it be any different? The longer he stays in the less support he gets, and if the new Iraq is not a democracy it again hurts him and this country. If we pull out now we break promises we made to the Iraqi people and probably end up making the world hate us more. Not only did we invade Iraq but we then abandoned the people we claim we went in to free, is that how we should let it be?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the Bush administration were playing the NBC reality TV show 'The Apprentice', Donald Trump would have wasted no time in saying 'you're fired' and trying someone new in office before they screw up again and send troops to Pakistan or something. It amazes me to see how tolerant some Americans are for presidents who screw up big time and lie about it.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you really think we will invade anymore countries anytime soon after the outcry of the Iraq war? Presidents make decisions based on public opinion, even Bush. I think all world leaders screw up and lie about it....its called being in politics.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

In Vietnam we lost nearly 70,000 soldiers in combat (even more in non-combat related deaths). In Iraq it's been a few hundred. So try to have a little pespective. The reason why there is fighting now is that much of the fighting was deferred until after Saddam had been taken down. If you had been listening to Bush, you would have heard him say, countless times, that the road in Iraq was just beginning.  We're doing to be there many many years. If you act surprised by this then you must not have been listening.

We're STILL in Japan and Germany, btw. 60 years later.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Very few Americans die in Japan and Germany, and we're there because part of our treaty with them stated that they couldn't have an army over a certain number and the US would provide basic protection.

Cheers
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

Very few Americans die in Japan and Germany today -- 60 years later.

The United States arrived in Germany in 1944. How many Americans died in Germany? 200,000?  The US began occupying Japanese territory also around 1944 (not the home islands). How many Americans died there.

Major ground operations in Iraq ended quickly. But the occupation of Iraq and low level warfare WILL gone on for many years.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
thanks for the comments folks. Someone said the US wouldn't be invading any other countries after the Iraq fiasco. I have to say that while it's possible, I find it unlikely. The neocons and the powers that be in Washington these days are good at one thing. Waging war and annihilating their military enemy. I think, to them, the payoff of another invasion would be good, unfortunately. I know the US can't leave Iraq now but it's a darn shame they were sent there to begin with. Talk about treating soldiers as pawns. And Brad, the major difference is that the new enemy in Iraq, the Shiites, are the ones who were the most repressed during Hussein's rule. They were the first in line to greet the US for truly liberating them from Hussein's tyranny. They embraced the US's commitments to democracy in Iraq UNTIL they discovered the new democracy wasn't going to be the kind they see in the US. It wasn't going to be a one person-one vote system. The Shiites assumed since they were the majority in Iraq then they would win in the election. But the US isn't doing the US style democracy over there. Far from it. So the Shiites were betrayed (in their minds) by the US. So now they're attacking the US. You all should pray the revolt doesn't draw in the other 'moderate' shiite leaders and all of their followers because if that happened, the US is 110% grade-a f***ed.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad, tell me the number of Americans who died of combat fatilites after the signing of the peace treaty with the Japanese in Japan? If that number exceeded 500ish, and the killings have actually escalated, so we'll see where the number ends, then I'll apologize.

Cheers
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Jeb - in Iraq the casualties have been largely deferred until after major ground operations. That is because of the way the war was bought.

The United States lost 400,000 troops in World War II.  We've lost 500ish in the Iraq war. In the battle for Okanawa the United States lost 28,000 or so soldiers.

You can't have it both ways. The US had a peaceful occupation of Japan and Germany because it killed off several million Japanese during the war at a cost of 400,000 of its own soldiers.

Are you suggesting that we should have basically laid Iraq waste, killing a few million Iraqi's in the process? Because had we done that, I am quite sure that things would be more "peaceful" now.  You kill off enough of the miltiary aged male population of any country and it'll get pretty peaceful for an occupation.

Mikimouse: You don't seem to understand that those of us on the right want there to be an uprising in Iraq. If all the militants and terrorists attack while our combat troops are there, so much the better.  Better to do it then than when our forces are largely gone and it's some future Iraqi civilian government that is having to deal with Shiites theocratists and Sunni facists trying to topple the government.  Similarly, better that the terrorists go to Iraq to die than attack the United States.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad.........you explain the situation very well. you really know your history. today, young people are unaware of so many things. I wish the schools would teach some history rather then how to put a rubber on a banana.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not good thing that's going on there, but we have to toughen and stay there, unless requested by majority of Iraqi citizens, then we leave, regardless what will happen.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are you suggesting that we should have basically laid Iraq waste, killing a few million Iraqi's in the process? Because had we done that, I am quite sure that things would be more "peaceful" now. You kill off enough of the miltiary aged male population of any country and it'll get pretty peaceful for an occupation.


Absolutely true. Modern day warfare, with it's "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs" spare many lives when compared to massive carpet bombing, and not only the lives of the peaceloving civilians. It is indeed a choice that needs to be made and a good choice in my book.

You don't seem to understand that those of us on the right want there to be an uprising in Iraq. If all the militants and terrorists attack while our combat troops are there, so much the better. Better to do it then than when our forces are largely gone and it's some future Iraqi civilian government that is having to deal with Shiites theocratists and Sunni facists trying to topple the government. Similarly, better that the terrorists go to Iraq to die than attack the United States.


Again I agree that if America wants to fight a war against all it's major enemies of the moment, there is hardly a better scenario imaginable than doing it in a sandbox a long way away from the States, with the US military already in place and prepared. However I hardly think this is what Bush & co have been telling the American people and their allies. I vaguely remember things like "once we capture Sadam, there will be a short flare-up of violence, after that peace will be close". Not quite the reality of today. If the Shi'ites turn on America it means that the biggest part of the Iraqi population is turning on America.

I just wonder how America would go about it when it turns out that there is NOT a majority in the Iraqi population that wants American troops in Iraq, who reject the form of governement that is forced upon them by America and that basically want America to go p*ss off. I'm not saying the majority feel that way, but I do think it is clear that every day, resistance from the normal population is increasing. The increased fighting, the sheer number of people being killed every day, it will only make people more restless, more desperate, more longing for peace. It may be our view that America is there to bring that peace, but I find it very likely that in time, they will more and more see the Americans as the bringers of war and death, just as they have been taught all along. So what then? Will America be able to do the truly democratic thing and withdraw, not agreeing but respecting the wishes of the majority? Or will America stay because they simply know better and feel the need to see it through?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's a big difference in fighting a war of aggression and fighting a war against the aggressor. The mentality of the people will be different.

The US is not currently fighting a war in Iraq. It stated the War was over. It doesn't have an enemy to fight. It's trynig to fight the people themselves. That's the worst kind of fighting possible as it almost always escalates.

The Us messed up on it's plans for controlling Iraq. It believed it coould control the situation and hand over control to a puppet government. The Iraqi peopel just don't want this. The US needs to accept this and make changes.

Paul.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
what I find odd is that while the US proclaims they're bringing democracy to Iraq, it's not going to be a one-man-one-vote system. That's why the Shiites are pissed off. The democracy there isn't the same democracy as we have here. If it were, the Shiites would win the majority then turn Iraq into an Iran.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unfortunately Brad I can "have it both ways". If the US was not done fighting then Bush shouldn't have declared major combat operations complete. The fact that there is more fighting now then during the "war" makes Bush look out of touch and an idiot. I know the Bush team cringes everytime Kerry uses the words "Mission Accomplished".

Cheers
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just want to say that according to the one year later things ABC and the BBC did, most Iraqis want the US out, but don't want us to leave yet. They understand why we are still there and realize we are trying to provide some kind of security. Some Iraqis just don't seem to get past the wanting the US out part and unfortunately it is costing us lives.