Paladin you gotta give me a chance to catch up man hehe.
"We did not have to stay to stablize the country but given that our enemy is adept at taking over countries that have weak leadership it is prudent to stay for our own protection."
The enemy if you are talking about is Al Qaeida (I can never spell it right), they didn't have political control of Afghanistan, The Taliban did, When we went terrorist hunting they were given the option of handing them over or being taken out of power. Since then the real threat in Afghanistan is lack of economic developement, because of infastructure, and an insurrection-like resurgence of Taliban, Al Qaeda has no interest in basing in Afghanistan or any country in which we plan to invade or currently occupy. Simply because they cannot operate freely.
Now as for Iraq, the insurgent movement is largely divisive between the political groups in the country not Al Qaeda, foreign fighters from the neighboring region also have irregular freedom fighters, and covert ops working there subverting the new government as you would expect them to. Again not Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda's modus operandum is to lay low inside the country of basing and use remote areas for training and planning, the rural areas where they can easily bribe their way in and out with no questions asked.
When a shepard is offered a months' or half years salary to house someone for one night no questions asked they do it.
Regarding WMD...
"I know except for the New York Times reports of chemical weapons shells discovered last year"
"If we can't find that then what else is hidden in the country? This is stuff that we know they had, they admitted they had not stuff that intelligence community from many nations speculated they might have."
The whole issue is cloudy, Saddam has maintained since before the invasion that they destroyed the stockpiles, prewar weapons inspectors, that guy on the UN team form the USA, not Hans Blix but the other guy maintained before Operation Infinite Justice/Iraqi Freedom, that there was nothing there.
To date since the invasion there have been over 125,000 troops in country at any time, "weapons inspectors" as Rush Limbo called them, that haven't found massive stockpiles of chemical weapons, not even the stuff we gave them/the knowledge to build back in the 80's, mostly traces of stuff, but nothing there. Certainly no nuclear stockpiles, the "centrifuges" were supposedly indicative of nuclear weapon manufacture. All the while North Korea has developed and tested a bomb, and Iran is actively seeking one, of the three Iraq has turned out to be the nation without one.
The bottom line here, within a month of the invasion Tommy Franks was lighting a cigar in every palace Saddam had, within 6 months it was pretty clear Iraq didn't have a massive stock pile of WMD, the semi-trucks supposed mobile weapons labs, turned out to be well read it...
"They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons."
observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html
So now we are 150,00 troops into the depth of Iraq 6 months down the line, setting up a government, capture of Saddam less then a year away, insurgency attacks basically where they are today in November 2006, bacl to 2003-04 the leadership is putting on the face that the attacks are subsiding and the country is largely in our control. Militia control of Fallujah is a "concern", so we level the city, ah but war is hell, in this case major combat ops over, so we can declare anybody caught as an unlawful combatant. How am I doing so far in recapping this for ya?
Fast forward to today, the government of Iraq is democratically elected by the people. Security inside Iraq is still largely sh*t because the police are corrupt because we didn't have the number of troops to secure a country of this size evidently. The leadership has mismanaged the war, because all they could do was keep one of those sh*t eating smiles on their face the entire time, and only now is the extent of the nightmare being realized because there is no acceptable way out, nobody to turn the reigns over to. Sound like Vietnam to you?
Three years after the war is declared over, troops are still dying and being mauled as rapidly as before the combat operations ceased.
"Will you get people wounded that will bitch about it? Sure but until they raise above the 10% factor I won't worry about it."
What do you mean here I fail to understand what that statement means.
"The cost you mention is one the people in the military know about. If you did not notice it until the war started then shame on you! These people put their lives on the line for you and me you should KNOW what price freedom."
Hey I took military history in highschool, and I was alive during Desert Shield and Storm, all through the 90's, I'm a huge fan of the Navy and Air Force, and would say I know quite a bit about both. My neighbor is a Marine.
To say I didn't notice the price of the war until it started, I should be shamed, well that is an disrespectful and insulting remark.
I wasn't in congress, I didn't vote to approve a war, I also supported it in spirit because I believed that it would be a quick operation similar to the one in Afghanistan, estimates in the six month range were quoted, in my mind a year or perhaps two at most worst case. I also expected that military planners would have a plan to leave and that the civillian leadership would know when the hell to leave. It's not my fault that the war has gone this way.
I did and do support the original reasons for invasion, regime change and securing the hunt of WMD, once those were achieved, all we should have been obligated to do was get the country turned over to an Iraqi elected government. Let them figure this out.
"you should KNOW what price freedom"
I am quite well aware of the price of freedom but it is not our freedom that is being fought for in Iraq it is their freedom. Twelve to eighteen month deployments with extensions on top of that, lying politicians embroilling us into messes that sow seeds of hate world wide against us, 3100+ dead American GI's to date, ten thousand more critical injured, missing limbs, eyesight, hearing, is this the price you are speaking of because it's the price I am no longer willing to bear for a war we now know was wrong to initiate.
When the hell did we get sold into the business of fighting for other people's of the world freedom anyway? Helping sure, but exclusively fighting, acting as a police force. It wasn't a part of the pre-war speeches I recall listening to, and beyond that, isn't it the Iraqi people who should be standing up for themselves not us, putting down their own rebellion, fighting their own damn battles? Are we to believe there is some new domino theory of countries turning to radical Islam? I mean when does the line between reality and unproven fantasy become straight and clearly delinated?
"Unlike in Vietnam the troops want to win."
So you are saying that the troops in Vietnam didn't want to win the war? But troops in Iraq do and that is going to make the difference?
"Why can't we just accept that we are losing?"
We aren't truely losing but we sure as hell aren't winning, with the current process of staying the course, measure 2 months ago, 3, 6, 12. What has changed in country in the last year? Nothing we've just occupied the territory, spent more money, wasted more lives. This is an Iraqi problem, We can offer aid, as I'm sure we will for a long long long long time, but troops in country, that is their responsibility, staying another year, two, five, ten, won't change the fact, that it is the Iraqi's themselves that have to fight the insurgency in order to have peace and order.
Would you expect Canadians to police our city streets in New York City if cops there were having a difficult time of it? I mean come on. The time has come to go and take care of other interests.
"You are welcome, but I was not wounded in Vietnam, I was wounded in the Republic of the Philippines in 1977 just after my birthday."
Sorry about getting that wrong, I thought I had read it, and since you were talking about Vietnam it just stuck in my mind. Again let me thank you for your service, you are part of what has made our country a greater good in the world, and official or not, you deserve recognition for your sacrifices.
"I disagree with you here. It does apply, after WWII the New York Times said it was a desaster and that there was no plan to get our troops home. In Germany our troops were attacked for the first two years of the occupation by loyalist to Hitler, the same was true in Japan but not as bad, my father was in Japan during that time. It is part of war, you will have people that will not give up the ghost. In this war that happened because it was planned. Most of them have been killed and the majority being killed and captured now are from out of the country meaning that they are enemy forces from another aspect of the war on terror. It is better to deal with them there. Those people are coming from Iran for the most part but people fear we will go to war with Iran. I believe we will if we have to just like in Korea but when we are ready instead of just jumping into another conflict without preperation."
I wanted to make sure I got your whole statement quoted correctly. In Germany during WW2 it was a total war, the German people were beaten both economically, but psychologically, they had nothing left, obviously you've seen the pictures of post war cities in Germany, nothing left but burned out hulks, then they were forced to bury the Jews of the concentration camps and basically have memory blocked the entire period out. Not only were they beaten down during WW2, but suffered the same defeat in WW1, the difference was the post war period was the UN treated the people with dignity and respect, not just the people but the nation. It was the same in Japan, where they had the mentality that they could not be beaten on home soil.
In Iraq, the war was over so quick, the hardships were not brought about by us but by Saddam, you saw them running through the streets stepping on his face in Baghdad, or Mosul where-ever that statue was, they hated him, and were relatively happy regarding us. But not everyone was, because it became clear that we were occupiers rather then liberators, at first the insurgency wasn't as big a reported threat as the supposed terrorists, and though they both were rampant at one time, the vast majority of violence is of these death squads and insurgent violence. Al Qaeda is not a major presence in the country, foreign fighters and insurgents make up the vast majority.
Both of those wars you've mentioned were defensive, Germany declared war on us, Japan obviously made the first move, and so did North Korea when they attacked South Korea, in Iraq we were re-invaders and agressors more so then in any other conflict in history save Afghanistan. This is part of the pre-emptive strike Bush doctrine, though the premise is solid, the intel has to be there, and not just ours but independently collaborated, which it really wasn't.
It was molded to fit the policy which is where we went wrong. Not only that but the excuse was to get us into Iraq the idea, to establish and support a second democracy in the region.
"As long as it looks like we are winning they will support us and fight them. Their mentality says if we pull out we have lost."
To hell with the mentality of anybody else, what matters when it comes to our country, our troops is our mentality, this is the wrong war at this time to be pursuing in Iraq. I'd love for the Iraqi's to have freedom, but they need to fight for it on their own. Just like we did in 1776. Only this time the enemy isn't colonialism, but terrorism and an insurgency of rebels. Be it Iraq to determine how best to fight their battles.
"The reason you don't set those goals is because war is fluid."
B.S. The goals were stated before the war, regime change, and hunt for WMD, give the Iraqis a chance to govern themselves, because peace loving people don't attack their neighbors.
The've morphed into security, and staying the course as long as necessary, nation building.
You set goals, and measurable milestones in anything you do in life, business, government so you know if you are coming or going. Bush was supposed to be the "accountablity" president. We've seen just how well that accountability trait has worked out for the nation, with Rumsfeld at DOD and Brown at FEMA.
"Those people are coming from Iran for the most part but people fear we will go to war with Iran. I believe we will if we have to just like in Korea but when we are ready instead of just jumping into another conflict without preperation."
As well they should, Iran has a credible as well as very modern military in certain areas, and sizable too. The terrain is not Iraq like but much more like Afghanistan, there also is no great place to base an airforce and provide air support unless you consider Iraq your base. hmmmmm.
Not only that but Iran hasn't had the mortal defeat Saddam's forces took back in 91, so they've had almost 20 years since the Iran-Iraq war to build up a capable and credible force both in the air, under the water, and on the ground. War with Iran would be very very serious for the United States. A war in Korea would be over in a few weeks, maybe a month or two, they would be won or lost in the first 72 hours, depending on how much momentum the North could generate, as well as if they use tactical nuclear weapons or not. Either way neither war would be pretty, neat or clean, nothing like Operation Desert Storm. Korean penisula war also would open up the can of worm of Chinese involvement which would not be a great thing for the United States unless they were allied or neutral.
"The insurgency is a local problem and not much of one."
This is where you me and the generals differ, I along with the generals believe that the majority of the violence in Iraq right now is largely from foreign fighters fighting on either side of the insurgency, against the government, Al Qaeda is a minor player if involved at this point in any meaninful way at all. Certainly whoever comes to power in Iraq should the government not survive, likely they wont be inviting Al Qaeda to stay, because their aims are totally different. Iraqi's want stability in their region and nation. Al Qaeda wants our destruction. Any time Al Qaeda had a success we come knocking with warplanes, cruise missiles, and lately ground forces. So it would be in every Iraqi's interest to rid their country of Al Qaeda which is what they have largely done.
Are you telling me you think Al Qaeda is wholly or in large part responsible for the violence in Iraq and that you also buy into the argument that we are confronting them on the streets of Baghdad rather then insurgents. Explain how that makes sense when their stated goal and method of operation is targeting of civillians inside the United States?
It doesn't make sense and anybody who isn't inside the influence of the Bush administration can see that.
Again that argument is twisting the facts and evidence to support the policy which is staying in Iraq at all costs, for as long as it take to pump out the oil and establish a nation that isn't going to ever attack us or their neighbors again. In the years since human civillization sprang from mesopotamia, i.e. modern day Iraq, we have been at war with each other and, the United States, sticking around for a few more months/years/decades isn't going to do a damn thing to change that. I would love to believe that we could just magically exert our influence on a people and make it so, but Vietnam is an example where staying longer has cost nothing but lives and money and the benefits were reaped after we left.
I think very similar things of Iraq. If the nation is to survive they will do it by working together against their common problems, with or without our help. If they are to decide to seperate into several smaller countries, well that's their choice. Kuwait has already done so, it has worked out quiet well for them.
A unity government isn't the end all be all of how to live in the middle east.
JoeUser Forums
