# The War is Over - We've Lost



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2005)

After a recent 10 day vacation away from all news input (remote fly-fishing camp in Northern Quebec, with no media access), I have had a chance to evaluate the current situation in Iraq with fresh eyes. 

The war is over. The United States has lost.

We are now involved in an Iraqi civil war. 

If we try to tell ourselves we are 'Nation Building', 'Spreading Democracy', or 'Bringing Peace to the Middle East' we are deceiving ourselves.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9084376/



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> Shiite officials said Thursday they believed talks were at a standstill and there was no legal requirement anyway to have parliament vote on a draft that was approved Monday by the Shiites and Kurds.
> Al-Adeeb said *Bush personally telephoned Shiite leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim* and asked *him to make compromises* on parts of the constitution that would purge former members of Saddams Sunni-dominated Baath Party from government jobs and political life and on federalism, which the Sunnis strongly oppose.


The Administration told us, before the invasion, that the Iraqi people could live in democracy and rule themselves. The current Constitutional process is destined to create an oppressed Sunni minority which will battle to destruction with the Shi'ite majority. Iraq is splintering into a 'Federation', which seems an awful lot like the three-state solution we were promised could be avoided (although I argued that will be the final result on these pages before). 

The draft constitution is based on Sharia law and if it ever is ratified, will succeed in creating a New Iran.


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 26, 2005)

Just my personal opinion here, but I'm having difficulty seeing Iraq as one nation in the next 10 years. I forsee either some form of civil war (which the US will likely try to quell), or hopefully the alternative peaceful seperation. The US has stated that they don't support a seperation of nations, but keeping a unified nation will be difficult I fear. I hope I'm proven wrong.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 26, 2005)

_The war is over. The United States has lost.

  We are now involved in an Iraqi civil war._

 Actually, if you want to break it into two sections; the war between the US and Iraq and now the internal civil war in Iraq that we are a part of, then you could say that yes, the first war is over, but I would say that the US won that war


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _The war is over. The United States has lost._
> 
> _We are now involved in an Iraqi civil war._
> 
> Actually, if you want to break it into two sections; the war between the US and Iraq and now the internal civil war in Iraq that we are a part of, then you could say that yes, the first war is over, but I would say that the US won that war


 It's just a case of another leftist trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  In the minds of leftists, a US defeat IS a victory.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's just a case of another leftist trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In the minds of leftists, a US defeat IS a victory.


 This kind of unilateral us v. them thinking is why people loathe the right and is just plain wrong - it's designed to incite an argument and is off topic, just like your other post in the Pat Robertson thread.  Are you feeling particularly insecure with your party affiliation or something?  I don't see any other reason to make these unilateral statements and disrupt conversation other than to do just that.


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> This kind of unilateral us v. them thinking is why people loathe the right and is just plain wrong - it's designed to incite an argument and is off topic, just like your other post in the Pat Robertson thread. Are you feeling particularly insecure with your party affiliation or something? I don't see any other reason to make these unilateral statements and disrupt conversation other than to do just that.


Not necessarily Shesulsa. I think it is on topic. It depends on how we define "victory". A person with a differing political view is quite likely to look at things differently. A leftist might look at this war in as negative a light as possible, based on a political agenda. The right did the same thing when Clinton was in office. Care to discuss Bosnia and Monica-gate? Would the news coverage and political speak be any different if a democrat was in office?

Back to topic... What is seen as the ultimate goal? how are we going to define "victory" or "defeat"? If our goal was to remove the Hussein regime and stabalize the region, we have partial success. I'm not going to proclaim defeat while we are still there. Its still a work in process. Proclaimations regarding success or defeat are premature.

Here would be -my- definition of "victory": Removal of the Hussein regime and creating a stable self-sufficient government supporting a free society. Are we there yet? No, but I believe on our way.

sgtmac: You sound awful Rush Limbaughesque hehehe


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> This kind of unilateral us v. them thinking is why people loathe the right and is just plain wrong - it's designed to incite an argument and is off topic, just like your other post in the Pat Robertson thread. Are you feeling particularly insecure with your party affiliation or something? I don't see any other reason to make these unilateral statements and disrupt conversation other than to do just that.


 I have a sneaking suspicion that any sort of articulated response defending my statement as being on topic would be dangerous, as the person I am arguing with is a moderator, especially one who has obviously taken a disliking to me today.  So I will choose the better part of valor and bow out of this discussion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> sgtmac: You sound awful Rush Limbaughesque hehehe


 Not really, but I have been known to play the devil from time to time.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 26, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Not necessarily Shesulsa. I think it is on topic. It depends on how we define "victory". A person with a differing political view is quite likely to look at things differently. A leftist might look at this war in as negative a light as possible, based on a political agenda. The right did the same thing when Clinton was in office. Care to discuss Bosnia and Monica-gate? Would the news coverage and political speak be any different if a democrat was in office?
> 
> Back to topic... What is seen as the ultimate goal? how are we going to define "victory" or "defeat"? If our goal was to remove the Hussein regime and stabalize the region, we have partial success. I'm not going to proclaim defeat while we are still there. Its still a work in process. Proclaimations regarding success or defeat are premature.
> 
> Here would be -my- definition of "victory": Removal of the Hussein regime and creating a stable self-sufficient government supporting a free society. Are we there yet? No, but I believe on our way.



very well said.  

we waged war on the saddam-regime and won.  we just happened to do it in the terrorist's backyard.  of course the rebuilding timeline will be hampered by this.  should we back away now?  of course not, that would be ignorant.

i seem to remember reading about a country that once waged a war against it's oppressors and didn't have a constitution in place for another 11 years afterward.  but perseverance paid off.  you might of heard about them; the United States of America.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

The enemy of my political enemy is my friend???

The War is Over-We've lost....HOORAY !!!!  ???


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> very well said.
> 
> we waged war on the saddam-regime and won. we just happened to do it in the terrorist's backyard. of course the rebuilding timeline will be hampered by this. should we back away now? of course not, that would be ignorant.
> 
> i seem to remember reading about a country that once waged a war against it's oppressors and didn't have a constitution in place for another 11 years afterward. but perseverance paid off. you might of heard about them; the United States of America.


 Yeah, I heard about that place. It seems we've forgotten about it recently, however. 

As I commented on another thread, we in America have really lost our attention span. If a situation isn't resolved in 2 hours, a week long mini-series at most, then we think someone has failed. 

America today would have surrended in 1943 during WWII.  1,800 dead in Iraq since 2003?  How many did we lose on June 6, 1944?  Today's America would have been calling for all our troops out on June 7, 1944.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I have a sneaking suspicion that any sort of articulated response defending my statement as being on topic would be dangerous, as the person I am arguing with is a moderator, especially one who has obviously taken a disliking to me today. So I will choose the better part of valor and bow out of this discussion.


 When a moderator participates in the discussion actively, we recuse ourselves of moderator duties and the remaining staff moderate the discussion.  So my comments come from being another member, not as a moderator.  You also stated I have taken a disliking to you which is false.

 My comment was indicative of another member being tired of having the discussion always pulled off to weenie-wave between the politics of left and right, and then when called on it throwing hands up and going, "what'd I say? what'd I say? you're out to get me! what'd I say?"

 So rather than try to make this between you and me ... let's back on topic, shall we?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> When a moderator participates in the discussion actively, we recuse ourselves of moderator duties and the remaining staff moderate the discussion. So my comments come from being another member, not as a moderator. You also stated I have taken a disliking to you which is false.
> 
> My comment was indicative of another member being tired of having the discussion always pulled off to weenie-wave between the politics of left and right, and then when called on it throwing hands up and going, "what'd I say? what'd I say? you're out to get me! what'd I say?"
> 
> So rather than try to make this between you and me ... let's back on topic, shall we?


 Sure thing.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 26, 2005)

you're right.  dammit, i expect a war in microvable dinner speed.

so a guy pulls up at the drive thru window at McWars-R-Us.  yes, i'd like a large, regime-unseating, with a side of regional terrorism-wipeout, and a large coke...what's that you say...?  please pull forward...?  dammit i haven't the time to wait, i wanna speak with the manager....LOL...too funny.  that cracked me up. :ultracool


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> you're right. dammit, i expect a war in microvable dinner speed.
> 
> so a guy pulls up at the drive thru window at McWars-R-Us. yes, i'd like a large, regime-unseating, with a side of regional terrorism-wipeout, and a large coke...what's that you say...? please pull forward...? dammit i haven't the time to wait, i wanna speak with the manager....LOL...too funny. that cracked me up. :ultracool


 Window server: "Everything's ready but the post-war political stability and the functioning constitutional democracy, we're holding on that, please pull forward, we'll bring it out when it's ready."


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 26, 2005)

Explain your idea, please, on the purpose and effectiveness of a protracted war.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Explain your idea, please, on the purpose and effectiveness of a protracted war.


 First explain what you mean by "protracted war". Is that any war that lasts more than 5 minutes? By that definition, every war the US has been involved in of any importance was "Protracted".

By the yard stick of US history, 2 years and 1,800 casualties is FAR from "protracted". Heck, we still have troops in Germany and Japan.


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 26, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Explain your idea, please, on the purpose and effectiveness of a protracted war.


If there was a stable government installed, and the bombings stopped tommorow, I'd be the first to say "lets get out". Until there is a degree of stability in the region, our troops will be needed. We are also doing alot of good in the region that is not being oft reported. Rebuilding the infrastructure, supplying medical aid, food when needed, reopening schools. The "war" seems now just a ferreting out of insurectionist. Will that ever be done? Not any time soon, but the Iraqi military needs to be able to handle them before we head out. Hopefully the first step in doing that will be accomplished soon (A constitution).


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

Militarily, the "war" was over when the president declared it was. The standing military was defeated in short order. Insurgency falls more under Operations Other Than War. (OOTW) IMO....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Militarily, the "war" was over when the president declared it was. The standing military was defeated in short order. Insurgency falls more under Operations Other Than War. (OOTW) IMO....


 Don't go confusing me with the facts.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

YOU WANT FACTS? YOU CANT HANDLE THE FACTS! 

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm34-1/ch4.htm


> The second environment, conflict, is characterized by confrontation and hostilities short of war. Examples of conflict are peacekeeping, noncombatant evacuation operations (NEO), counterinsurgency, and support to insurgency.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 26, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i seem to remember reading about a country that once waged a war against it's oppressors and didn't have a constitution in place for another 11 years afterward.  but perseverance paid off.  you might of heard about them; the United States of America.


Yep. It's lucky for us that France invaded the British colonies and told our ancestors to get to work drafting that Constitution. Exactly the same situation. (If that history seems off, well, I guess I just souldn't try to rewrite history to fit crazy analogies now should I?)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Window server: "Everything's ready but the post-war political stability and the functioning constitutional democracy, we're holding on that, please pull forward, we'll bring it out when it's ready."


 Sarge, you and Sapper there owe me a new keyboard...I think I did a spittake there....those were priceless. :cheers:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Sarge, you and Sapper there owe me a new keyboard...I think I did a spittake there....those were priceless. :cheers:


 What kind ya' need, Bob, we'll try to find ya' a new one....you might have to pull up and wait until it's ready, though.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yep. It's lucky for us that France invaded the British colonies and told our ancestors to get to work drafting that Constitution. Exactly the same situation. (If that history seems off, well, I guess I just souldn't try to rewrite history to fit crazy analogies now should I?)


 Kind of belaboring a point, aren't you?  No analogy is absolutely applicable, though the time frame of 11 years to draft a Constitution seems fittingly apt when dealing with a former dictatorship that is trying to draft one in a little over 2 years.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> If there was a stable government installed, and the bombings stopped tommorow, I'd be the first to say "lets get out". Until there is a degree of stability in the region, our troops will be needed. We are also doing alot of good in the region that is not being oft reported. Rebuilding the infrastructure, supplying medical aid, food when needed, reopening schools. The "war" seems now just a ferreting out of insurectionist. Will that ever be done? Not any time soon, but the Iraqi military needs to be able to handle them before we head out. Hopefully the first step in doing that will be accomplished soon (A constitution).


By international law, if we invade a country, we are legally responsible for the stability of that country until such time as the indiginous people are able to assume responsibility. I believe Secretary Powell was mis-quoted with the 'Pottery-Barn-Rule', if you break it you own it. 

It takes at least 10 years to build a military from scratch (according to the late Colonel David Hackworth), which is what needs to be done because the occupying forces have disbanded the indiginous military and restricted those alum from serving in the new services.

'Ferretting out the insurrectionists' requires the will of the populace. As long as the local people are willing to shelter and hide those insurrectionists, the occupying power will be helpless.

As to how much good we are doing in the region, there is currently less electricity in Baghdad than prior to the invasion, there is currently less clean water than prior to the invasion (although the marsh land is coming back). 

Assuming the current Constitution is put to a vote without the participation of the Sunni Iraqi's (which is completely possible), and assuming that the vote passes (which is also completely possible as not many Sunni's have registered to vote), we have ended up with a country with a Theocratic governence program (just like Iran) with at least twenty percent of the population having been disenfranchised. Even with this Constitution, the region is situated for a prolonged civil war. 

What we should be preparing for is Genocide. The Shi'ite militia are going to exterminate the Sunni's. What strange bedfellows we are becoming. That we will be defending the former Baathists against the Mullah's of Iran. Wonderful.

And to think that these outcomes were somehow unpredictable is naive in the extreme. These possibilities had to be intentionally discounted by those in power, in the same manner they discounted intelligence that did not fit their designs.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 26, 2005)

Ok, looking at this in 3 phases Pre-War, War and Post-War....

Pre-War was all the UN stuff, the inspections, the posturing, etc.  We won, but we lost because it went to stage 2:

War.  The war we won.  Sadamn is gone, his government toppled, his country conquered. (Sorry, 'liberated'.  Only took 30 years but hey, we was busy.)

Post-War.  This is mop ups, clean ups, rebuilding stage.  This is still to be decided. In some areas, we are winning.  People are working, water and food and utilities flowing, public safety improving, and things are looking up.  In others, we are losing. People are still dying, bandits, insurgents, rebels, etc are running free, lawlessness, poverty and despair enmasse. The next year or 2 will be key to how it turns out.  It'll either stabilize, or it'll go 'namish'.  A real all out civil war would be a huge blow.

It's not as good as we think, and it's not as bad as we think.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> By international law, if we invade a country, we are legally responsible for the stability of that country until such time as the indiginous people are able to assume responsibility. I believe Secretary Powell was mis-quoted with the 'Pottery-Barn-Rule', if you break it you own it.
> 
> It takes at least 10 years to build a military from scratch (according to the late Colonel David Hackworth), which is what needs to be done because the occupying forces have disbanded the indiginous military and restricted those alum from serving in the new services.
> 
> ...


 But a disorganized, tribal civil war is less a threat to the international world than an organized, armed Dictator.  Worse case scenario, Iraq degenerates in to ethnic and religious internal conflict for a couple generations.  Still better than a nuclear armed Saddam in 10 years no matter how you spin it.  Sub-Saharan Africa for all it's evils and depravities, is zero threat to anyone but itself.

That having been said from a pragmatic position, we have a moral obligation to deal with the consequences of our actions.  We broke it, we fix it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 26, 2005)

The difference between Africa and Iraq though, is money.  Places like Somalia are pretty much zero cash places.  Iraq has oil, and more importantly, anger.  Oil wealth + anger + willingness to blow once self up is a greater threat than gangland somalia.  Regardless of things, there are weapons missing in Iraq that if properly deployed by an organized enemy, may be a risk.  

I agree with both of you. This was avoidable, intellegence was flawed or discounted, but now that we are there, we need to do our best to get them peacefully self-sufficient. Preferably with as few casulties as possible.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> But a disorganized, tribal civil war is less a threat to the international world than an organized, armed Dictator.


Not really. Just gives terrorist organizations more room to set up shop, train and then export terrorists. Lawlessness tends to be a handy breeding ground for such activities. 



> Still better than a nuclear armed Saddam in 10 years no matter how you spin it.


Execpt for the centrifugal force induced by that largely baseless supposition on your part of course. 



> That having been said from a pragmatic position, we have a moral obligation to deal with the consequences of our actions.  We broke it, we fix it.


Pragmatic would've been to box Saddam off indefinitely. A stable Iraq's better for national security.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

Trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle are we?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Aug 26, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The difference between Africa and Iraq though, is money. Places like Somalia are pretty much zero cash places. Iraq has oil, and more importantly, anger. Oil wealth + anger + willingness to blow once self up is a greater threat than gangland somalia. Regardless of things, there are weapons missing in Iraq that if properly deployed by an organized enemy, may be a risk.


 A point i've been pounding on for quite some time.  Without oil, the Arab world would be just like sub-saharan Africa. 

Though, the key analogy is this.  United Iraq under Saddam was a nation with a singular will ruling it toward a common goal, using oil revenue to reach that goal.  A divided Iraq is less of an international threat, though oil revenues can definitely cause quite a bit of internal harm.  



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I agree with both of you. This was avoidable, intellegence was flawed or discounted, but now that we are there, we need to do our best to get them peacefully self-sufficient. Preferably with as few casulties as possible.


 In essence, we are all in agreement on that important point.

Though I might add, though, just because something went wrong with a plan, didn't mean planning was poor.  Soldiers all over the world know even the best plan never survives first contact with the enemy.  I'm not sure there could have been a reasonable enough plan to have achieved this goal any better.  

If we don't like Bush, we can use this as an opportunity to blame his poor planning, but that doesn't mean it's objectively true that planning was poor.  Food for thought.  

But that's all academic.  We have to deal with the situation we have, not the one we could have had or wished we'd had.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 26, 2005)

.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I agree with both of you. This was avoidable, intellegence was flawed or discounted, but now that we are there, we need to do our best to get them peacefully self-sufficient. Preferably with as few casulties as possible.


Bob, Just for the record, my position is we need to get the hell out of there, as soon as possible. I find myself allied with the hyper conservative local radio commentator Jay Severin (a very offensive Boston talk-jock). It makes no sense to be shipping six billion dollars month, and 60 to 70 soldiers to their death each month, for the next 10 years while we train a minimally acceptable security force.

My position is an immediate withdrawl of all Coalition forces. Park three aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf and three more in the Mediterrainian. Set the nuclear attack submarines patrolling covertly in the area. 

Let the Shi'ite, Kurds and Sunni's civil war themselves out of existance is that is there desire. If they attempt to go beyond the artificially established boundaries of Iraq, we start levelling cities with the biggest bombs and missles in our arsenal. 

I believe first in peace. But, if the military needs to be engaged, they should kill people and capture territory. If the civil war stays within the Iraqi boundaries, we can peaceably observe. If the civil war threatens to spread to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Syria, we stop that spread by levelling Basra, Baghdad or Kirkuk. 

I am in no way think we need to fix something because we broke it ... especially when we shouldn't have broke in the first place.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

How humanitarian of you....


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 26, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Bob, Just for the record, my position is we need to get the hell out of there, as soon as possible. I find myself allied with the hyper conservative local radio commentator Jay Severin (a very offensive Boston talk-jock). It makes no sense to be shipping six billion dollars month, and 60 to 70 soldiers to their death each month, for the next 10 years while we train a minimally acceptable security force.
> 
> My position is an immediate withdrawl of all Coalition forces. Park three aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf and three more in the Mediterrainian. Set the nuclear attack submarines patrolling covertly in the area.
> 
> ...



of course we _could_ do all that but it just isn't PC... :ultracool   a great plan, a plan i even agree with.  (holy crap, did i just say that out loud?)

nobody wants to be there.  but when are we gonna stop bitching about why we are there?  i'd like to see us withdraw too, but dammit, i just wanna win the damn thing.



> Set the nuclear attack submarines patrolling covertly in the area.



...and how the hell we gonna succeed with you letting the entire world in on our plan...?  so much for covert... :uhyeah: 

outstanding discussion, the thread title could use some work, but what the hell...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Militarily, the "war" was over when the president declared it was. The standing military was defeated in short order. Insurgency falls more under Operations Other Than War. (OOTW) IMO....


Did someone say facts...

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=19rt8mhpkbs5j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Conspiracy+theory&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc01b&linktext=conspiracy%20theories



> In the 2003 Iraq War, Iraqi resistance was strong at first and then collapsed suddenly. A conspiracy theory emerged in Iraq and elsewhere that there had been a _safqah_Arabic for "secret deal"between the U.S. and the Iraqi military elite, wherein the elite were bribed to stand down. This conspiracy theory was ignored or ridiculed in the U.S. media. In late May 2003, General Tommy Franks, who had been the head of the US forces in the conflict, confirmed in an interview with Defense News that the US government had paid off high-level Iraqi military officials and that they had stated that "I am working for you now". How important this was to the course of the conflict was not entirely clear at the time of this writing (May 24, 2003).


And incidentally, we aren't through yet.  Iraq is the second stop for this bus.  Among the folks who edit the Weekly Standard it is said, "everyone wants to go to Bagdhad.  Real men want to go to Tehran."


----------



## mrhnau (Aug 26, 2005)

Imagine you smoke marijuana or something. someone tips off the authorities. you go into negotiations regarding the right to inspect your house. They give you a list of rooms they check on different days and the order in which they will be checked. Simple solution, you move the joints from room to room. no problem there (satellite images of trucks coming and going from inspection sites days before inspections occured).

authorities get upset, and say they will take over your house unless you give up the dope. They give you MONTHS of warning, saying "you better do this or else!". Simple solution, get it out of your house, give it to a friend before they come and do anything (tons of anthrax found in Syria by the border. anyone think they made it there?)

Could we have done it better? It would have been difficult. unannounced inspections, forced entry into the palaces would have been a start... I try to mention these things when I hear "there were no weapons". They also had long range missiles which were "illegal" by UN sanctions, but I'm hearing nothing of that. No, they are not nuclear or biological, but still against sanctions. I think things could have been handled a bit differently, but I prefer to discuss these presuppositions before drawing out the discussion of "why did we go in".

On the concept of "faulty intel", would you rather we get the best info we can and act on it? could this have in fact prevented 9/11? If all info says "they have this stuff", what should we have done? disbelieve it?


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 26, 2005)

> Did someone say facts...
> 
> http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery...racy theories
> 
> ...



that's too funny.  a bribe...?  oh yes.

"stand-down and we'll be cool, keep fighting and i'll put a bullet in your ***."

that's more like it...

and for more theories, please see _you'refullofshit.com_...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

The guy is a conspiracy theory Encyclopedia Britianica.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The guy is a conspiracy theory Encyclopedia Britianica.



i just tried the link upnorthkyosa posted.  it was a broken link, says page not found.  i bet an alien UFO stole it and put it in the box that Hoffa and Elvis have been living in all this time.

in all seriousness, please check the link, i'm really interested to read it...


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 26, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Imagine you smoke marijuana or something. someone tips off the authorities. you go into negotiations regarding the right to inspect your house. They give you a list of rooms they check on different days and the order in which they will be checked. Simple solution, you move the joints from room to room. no problem there (satellite images of trucks coming and going from inspection sites days before inspections occured).
> 
> authorities get upset, and say they will take over your house unless you give up the dope. They give you MONTHS of warning, saying "you better do this or else!". Simple solution, get it out of your house, give it to a friend before they come and do anything (tons of anthrax found in Syria by the border. anyone think they made it there?)
> 
> ...


Or ... 

It's 1998 .. President Clinton Authorizes an protectred strike against suspected targets .. in combination with the UNSCOM inspectors work from 1991 through 1998, all dangerous weapons and facilities were destroyed and not rebuilt.

Which is more likely? Hmmm.

And for the record, the United Nations inspectors, in 2002 and 2003 did have the ability to go where ever they wanted, unannounced.

Long range missles ...  missles were acceptable to 150 kilometers. Iraq's missles that violated that statute had a range of 157 kilometers. That extra four miles certainly justifies $300,000,000,000.00. Oh, and don't forget, those missles were being destroyed by the inspectors.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The guy is a conspiracy theory Encyclopedia Britianica.



more great drug induced paranoia...  http://www.alternet.org/story/14873/


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 26, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i just tried the link upnorthkyosa posted.  it was a broken link, says page not found.  i bet an alien UFO stole it and put it in the box that Hoffa and Elvis have been living in all this time.
> 
> in all seriousness, please check the link, i'm really interested to read it...


 Sapper,
  UpNorths link works for me.  Goes to a Wiki on consp. theories.


----------



## Sapper6 (Aug 26, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Sapper,
> UpNorths link works for me.  Goes to a Wiki on consp. theories.



that's weird, i get answers.com page not found... :idunno:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 26, 2005)

me too


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The guy is a conspiracy theory Encyclopedia Britianica.


Actually, I posted a link that you posted in another thread...there was some great stuff in there worth recycling.  It would be interesting to find the actual interview in Defense News that was cited.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 6, 2005)

Who is Dr. Peter Feaver, and why is he writing the Plan for Victory in Iraq? 

I love the irony in that document title.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Who is Dr. Peter Feaver, and why is he writing the Plan for Victory in Iraq?
> 
> I love the irony in that document title.




Got to love the Information Security of this age.....


----------



## bustr (Dec 6, 2005)

> If we try to tell ourselves we are 'Nation Building', 'Spreading Democracy', or 'Bringing Peace to the Middle East' we are deceiving ourselves.



That's just how the republicans sold this war. Winning was never their objective. As long as the oil fields are secure and Halliburton and Carlyle are making money they've achieved their true objective.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 6, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Sapper,
> UpNorths link works for me. Goes to a Wiki on consp. theories.


 
Same here, some dictionary diatribe on conspiracy theories.  My theory is that Sapper's lying about the broken link just to throw in another insult.  

Just to be PC on the matter,


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 7, 2005)

Firstly: A comparison between the American Revolution and the Iraq situation is inapplicable. The colonies declared independence from the British.  No uninvolved country--not even France--invaded, deposed the British monarch and governors, and then attempted to set up a new government on its own terms, forcing a new Constitution.  Did we get help from France?  Was France pleased as punch to cause trouble for Britain?  Sure, but the comparison simply isn't there.

Last month, for the first time, a coalition of Iraqi Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders, at a conference in Cairo under the auspices of the Arab Leaque, presented a closing memorandum demanding that foreign troops be withdrawn _on a specified timetable, _dependent on an immediate plan for restoring Iraqi security forces.  Yet our government refuses to even consider any timetable for withdrawal or to discuss it's "plan" for Iraqi security forces (other than to prevaricate about how many forces have already been trained).

The problem in Iraq is that we broke it, and we just keep on breaking it.  Who are we fighting and killing after all?  Iraqis. Win, lose or draw, at this point, we ARE the problem.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2006)

Didn't really want to start a new thread on this .... 

The War in Iraq was originally launched to prevent Saddam Hussein from using his massive stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction; or at least preventing him from giving them to al Qaeda.

When it turned out that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, we were bringing self-deterimination, through democracy to a region of the world where it is in short supply.

Yesterday, the Palestinian Territories held an election (Yea Democracy!). They elected, by an apparent large majority, the Hamas organization to leadership positions in their legislature. Hamas provides a great deal of humanitarian and cultural assistance to the Palestinians. They also sponsor aggressive terrorist attacks on Isreal.

Washington DC is trying to reconcile a democratically elected terrorist organization; hoping that now there is true leadership power for Hamas, they *may *moderate their hardline position.

Could the outcome of this election have been the result of an aggressive policy by the United States? 

Is this the Democracy President Bush is hoping to bring to the Middle East?


----------



## jdinca (Jan 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Could the outcome of this election have been the result of an aggressive policy by the United States?
> 
> Is this the Democracy President Bush is hoping to bring to the Middle East?



I would say it has more to do with the rampant corruption of Fatah, thanks to their deceased leader, Yasser Arafat, who was the most corrupt of them all.

I think this is a case of "be careful what you wish for". BTW, the idea of bringing democracy did not originate with Bush, he's just been more agressive about it. Either way, the free world is scratching its head right now.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 26, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> I would say it has more to do with the rampant corruption of Fatah, thanks to their deceased leader, Yasser Arafat, who was the most corrupt of them all.
> 
> I think this is a case of "be careful what you wish for". BTW, the idea of bringing democracy did not originate with Bush, he's just been more agressive about it. Either way, the free world is scratching its head right now.


 
Except for the free world of the Palestinian Territories, you mean.

They got what the voted for, right?


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 26, 2006)

I don't know if the Hamas victory is as much a fault of US mideast policy as it is a commentary on the failure of Fatah.  Either way, I don't see how a softer mideast policy would have necessarily changed the general Palestinian mindset (Israel is, after all, their primary concern).  Given that, I'm not terribly surprised that Hamas has attained legitimate power there.  These people want action.

With that in mind, I'm not so sure that the "war is over", in reference to the thread title.  It may be still quite underway.  The war, be it the war on terror, or the war on violence, or the war on mid-east conflict, or what ever this ongoing unrest can properly be named, will take much more that the overthrow of Hussein and the democratization of Iraq, and Afghanistan.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 26, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Except for the free world of the Palestinian Territories, you mean.
> 
> They got what the voted for, right?



Very true. I wonder if they truly know what it is they've voted for? Hamas provides so much humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, I think they overlook, or minimize what most of the world considers Hamas to be, a terrorist organization. One that is bent on the destruction of Israel, and supported by a country who feels that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth and who feels that the holocaust never happened. Scary stuff. Especially since they have the same feelings toward just about everyone who's not a muslim.

Whatever your viewpoint, there is a certain irony in the fact that the religious conservatives in this country are very concerned (as are we all) about the actions of religious conservatives. We are in the middle of a modern day version of the Crusades. Radical muslim fundamentalists are attempting to spread their view of Islam throughout the world, with no concern about killing infidels (us), and the Judeo/Christian world is fighting back.


----------



## tradrockrat (Jan 27, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> We are in the middle of a modern day version of the Crusades. Radical muslim fundamentalists are attempting to spread their view of Islam throughout the world, with no concern about killing infidels (us), and the Judeo/Christian world is fighting back.



The crusades never ended - at least for the muslim world.  I'm not trying to cast aspersion upon all muslims, but the preceeding statement isn't mine, it's from my aide at work - an Armenian from Iran.  She is very knowledgable about the culture and we have spent many hours in conversation about current world events.  I've come to understand from her that the muslim culture of the middle east take a long term veiw of history.  By that I mean that culturally, 1000 years ago is as relevent as yesterday.  So in a very real sense the war we are currently fighting began in the 1100's.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 27, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Radical muslim fundamentalists are attempting to spread their view of Islam throughout the world, with no concern about killing infidels (us), and the Judeo/Christian world is fighting back.


 
That description could very easily, and legitimately, invert the Subject and Object and still be correct.

"Radical Christian Fundamentalists are attempt to spread their view of Christianity througout the world, with no concern about killing infidels (them), and the Muslim world is fighting back."

You could also substitute, 'Radical Democratic Capitalists' for 'Radical Christian Fundamentalists'. Until one is able to recognize the truth in this inverse statement, progress will be inhibited.

Flatlander ... concerning my statement 'The War is Over' ...  The United States certainly is has not stopped paying for the war. But in the last few weeks, we have seen the election of a government supported by someone whose name begins with 'Grand Ayatollah' in Iraq, and the election of a government that sponsors Terrorism in the Palestinian Territories.

We may very well have 'spread democracy', but, I can't imagine the architects of this war envisioned that result.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 27, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> That description could very easily, and legitimately, invert the Subject and Object and still be correct.



I disagree. Christians don't think it's perfectly okay to kill non-Christians, just because they're not Christian. The radical muslims the world is now dealing with think that this is perfectly legitimate and, in the truly extreme ranks, feel it is their duty.

I also disagree that the architects of this war didn't envision this result. It's been discussed since the beginning that this was a possibility, it just wasn't what they hoped would happen. 

As for the Palestinian Authority, I think the world is going to watch it implode as a result of this election. Yes, this was a democratic election but the rest of the world has a right to disagree with the outcome and not deal with the resulting government.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 27, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> I disagree. Christians don't think it's perfectly okay to kill non-Christians, just because they're not Christian. The radical muslims the world is now dealing with think that this is perfectly legitimate and, in the truly extreme ranks, feel it is their duty.
> 
> I also disagree that the architects of this war didn't envision this result. It's been discussed since the beginning that this was a possibility, it just wasn't what they hoped would happen.
> 
> As for the Palestinian Authority, I think the world is going to watch it implode as a result of this election. Yes, this was a democratic election but the rest of the world has a right to disagree with the outcome and not deal with the resulting government.


 
Even if Christians don't 'think' its okay to kill non-Christians, non-religious observers would note the actions, rather than the thoughts. If one is curious about the 'actions', I would direct you to www.iraqbodycount.net 

I am not certain that I made a claim about what the 'architects' envisioned. Although we do know that they felt the war would be short, and the Iraqi's would greet us with 'chocolate' and 'flowers'.

We have a right to disagree with the outcome? He said incredulously ... except the cases of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, eh? 

So much for 'Supporting Democracy', only if its 'our democracy'.


----------



## ginshun (Jan 27, 2006)

I wasn't aware that our goal in Iraq was to kill Muslims and spread Christianity, or that that is what our actions thus far show.

Huh, you learn something new everyday.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 27, 2006)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that our goal in Iraq was to kill Muslims and spread Christianity, or that that is what our actions thus far show.
> 
> Huh, you learn something new everyday.


 
Again, regardless of our 'goal' or 'goals'. 

The realpolitik on the ground is somewhere between 28,000 and 32,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Last week, several Pakistani children were killed. Those killings have been by a government and country that is seen as 'Christian'.

www.iraqbodycount.net

And, if you want to remain informed, make a donation. I have.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 27, 2006)

_Even if Christians don't 'think' its okay to kill non-Christians, non-religious observers would note the actions, rather than the thoughts.
_
So your point is that death is death, regardless of whether it is an adopted doctrine or unintentional. You're allowed to have your point of view. I choose to differentiate.

_Flatlander ... concerning my statement 'The War is Over' ... The United States certainly is has not stopped paying for the war. But in the last few weeks, we have seen the election of a government supported by someone whose name begins with 'Grand Ayatollah' in Iraq, and the election of a government that sponsors Terrorism in the Palestinian Territories.

 We may very well have 'spread democracy', but, I can't imagine the architects of this war envisioned that result._ 

Did I misunderstand this statement?

_We have a right to disagree with the outcome? He said incredulously ... except the cases of Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, eh?
_
Let's see, the left has disagreed with the 2000, and 2004 elections since the day the results were released and have fought against the resulting adminstration since that time. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I don't think anybody has ever said you don't have the right to disagree.

_So much for 'Supporting Democracy', only if its 'our democracy'.

_I haven't seen any comments slamming democracy in these countries, only unhappiness over the election results. I wasn't aware that that was somehow not supporting democracy. If that's the case, then I guess the left doesn't support democracy in our own country, since it didn't get it's way in 2000, and 2004 and is unhappy with the results. This is like saying I don't support the right to free speech because I disagree with your opinion and choose to distance myself from you.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2006)

jdinca, 

If you have not seen the bevy of articles expressing regret about the election and demanding action from Hamas, then nothing I say here will convince you that it is occuring. Goverments around the world expressed misgivings about the election.

Find any news article with the word HAMAS in the title, and review the 'Related Articles' at the bottom or side of the page. I have not seen a single article that 'celebrates democracy' in the Palestinian Territories. 

Do you think the President is going to have a Palestinian with a purple finger in the review booth Tuesday night?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2006)

The irony in this article amazes me.

Like Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, you don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you have.

Well, to change the spin of the news cycle; if we can't field the army we are paying for, we will pay for the army we have.

The President has requested cuts in the size of the Army Reserve and the National Guard. Because recruitment numbers are off, and the military has been unable to fill positions it forcasted, the Administration is going to cut the size of the Army Reserve and National Guard to the actual size serving at the end of 2005. (Recommended cuts of 34,000 soldiers) 
See ... our military is 'fully staffed'. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11080817/

That's like my kid's 10 page school report suddenly becoming a 6 page report the day before it's due, because she only has 6 pages complete.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2006)

And ... 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060129/pl_nm/iraq_usa_stoploss_dc

While the Administraiton is cutting the numbers of soldiers in the Reserves and Guard, because they can't find people to fill them.

They are preventing soldiers at the end of the contract term from leaving. 



> Hilferty said there are about 12,500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve, currently serving involuntarily under the policy, and that about 50,000 have had their service extended since the program began in 2002. An initial limited use of stop-loss was expanded in subsequent years to affect many more.


 
So, 12,500 soldiers serving after there enlistment has ended, via the stop loss program ..... and 37,000 cut so the Administration can claim 'fully staffed'. 

It seems this Iraq war is also destroying our military. Representative Murtha may have been correct. eh?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 29, 2006)

Listen, I was as opposed to the Iraq war as anybody; however I understand the efect a declaration of defeat would have upon our soldiers and I, for one, am not willing to go there.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 29, 2006)

I was hesitant to post on this thread and have a feeling I'll probably regret it, but..................

No offense, but that's quite a defeatest attitude you have there not to mention very negative. I'm not going to get into a debate over the legitimacy of the war, but rather your general attitude. I've always beleived and been taught that martial artists should keep a positive attitude and try to influence others to do the same. I hope you don't approach the other aspects of your life in such a negative manner.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2006)

What you call a defeatist attitude, I call seeing the world as it is. Martial arts teach us to be cognizant of situational awareness; what is actually going on around us rather than what our 'positive attitude' might suggest.

Also, Newsweek headlines show that the United States Military is engaged in high-level negotiations with the Iraqi Insurgents. That's quite a change from our former position, isn't it?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 29, 2006)

Consider your sources of information. You can be a "realist" and still maintain a positive attitude. Most sources you've cited are known to put a "liberal" (I hate using that term because they're really not liberal by the true definition, but that's how people relate to them today...sigh) spin on the "news" they report. Keep in mind, good news doesn't sell in the U.S. which in itself says a lot about our general character...I'm ashamed to say. 

If you want a more "realistic" picture of what is going on, use as many sources as possible. I watch both CNN and FOX for instance. My best friend was a registered Democrat and Kerry supporter (I've since converted him into a Libertarian, lol) and I still have many friends serving in the military. They all have their takes on the situation. The "reality" usually lies between all the rhetoric. You just have to be able to sort through it all.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 29, 2006)

I am wondering what 'liberal sources' can do to manipulate facts.

Fact ... the number of Army Reserves and National Guard are being cut from current level on the books, to the actual staffed level at the end of 2005. It really doesn't matter who reports that fact. 

Fact ... the United States Armed Services 'Stop Loss' program currently has 12,500 soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond their enlistment contract expiration date. Again, who reports this fact is irrelevant.

Fact ... U.S. Backed Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi faired very poorly in the recent Iraqi elections. The minority Kurdish candidate received one million more votes that the Shi'ite Allawi. The Shi'ite Majority in Iraq elected a slate of candidate that has the backing of Grand Ayatollah Sistani. It is difficult to even be aware of those results in American Media, liberal or otherwise. But, if you can find the news, the results don't change. 

That you are implying I am repeating 'rhetoric' is neglect of the facts. While I am very liberal ... Big D Democrat, Big Government kind of guy ... the facts are the facts. 

Which fact would you like further to discuss?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If you have not seen the bevy of articles expressing regret about the election and demanding action from Hamas, then nothing I say here will convince you that it is occuring. Goverments around the world expressed misgivings about the election.


 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_re_eu/rice



> LONDON - The United States wants other nations to cut off aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian government, Secretary of State *Condoleezza Rice* said ahead of an international strategy session on Mideast peace prospects.
> 
> Rice ruled out any U.S. financial assistance to a Hamas government.
> 
> Humanitarian help to the Palestinians, many of whom are poor and unemployed, is likely on a "case-by-case basis," Rice said Sunday. She indicated that the administration would follow through on aid promised to the current, U.S.-backed Palestinian government led by President Mahmoud Abbas.



So much for 'Democracy', eh?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> What you call a defeatist attitude, I call seeing the world as it is. Martial arts teach us to be cognizant of situational awareness; what is actually going on around us rather than what our 'positive attitude' might suggest.
> 
> Also, Newsweek headlines show that the United States Military is engaged in high-level negotiations with the Iraqi Insurgents. That's quite a change from our former position, isn't it?


  I don't think you're being defeatist at all.  I think you're trying to declare victory.  I think in your own way, this is a 'positive attitude'.  I think you believe all this is 'good news'.  

I would hope I was wrong, but I certainly doubt it.  You're far too smug and eager about the prospect of declaring 'defeat'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I am wondering what 'liberal sources' can do to manipulate facts.
> 
> Fact ... the number of Army Reserves and National Guard are being cut from current level on the books, to the actual staffed level at the end of 2005. It really doesn't matter who reports that fact.
> 
> ...


  'Facts' do not speak for themselves.  When 'facts' are manipulated, distorted, and hand-selected, solely for the express purposes for engendering an emotional response, it's propaganda.

In the news business, there are a lot of 'facts' to choose from.  How and why you choose a given set of 'facts' to report often times has a lot to do with bias.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060130/ap_on_re_eu/rice
> 
> 
> 
> So much for 'Democracy', eh?


 Democracy?! This has nothing to do with Democracy.  The Palestinians can elect who they want....It does NOT mean we have to pay for it! 
Claiming that we are being 'undemocratic' because we won't pay for Hamas to run, is absurd.  We are under no obligation to fund a government we deem dangerous, that would be asinine.  They have the right to vote in Hamas, but we, again, are under ZERO obligation to fund Hamas.  

We can take our money and go home, and be NO LESS democratic, thank you very much.


----------



## michaeledward (May 23, 2006)

Unfortunately, the time has come to resurrect this thread ... 

Today, we read in Newsweek .. 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12920385/site/newsweek



> Containment, says one Army officer involved in training in Iraq, is at least "doable." He adds: "The only real question is: How do we keep Iraq from becoming a permissive environment for terrorists."
> 
> *The U.S. military is already gearing up for this outcome, but not for victory any longer.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Bigshadow (May 23, 2006)

"A fine pickle we have got ourselves into, Mr. Frodo."


----------



## Monadnock (May 23, 2006)

Newsweek...isn't that the one they found a few issues of in Hamas military leader's room?  

*Israelis Capture West Bank Hamas Commander*
5/23/2006

"The two apartments were sparsely furnished with bamboo chairs and mattresses. A reporter touring the hideout saw two copies of Newsweek magazine on the floor."


----------



## Bigshadow (May 23, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Newsweek...isn't that the one they found a few issues of in Hamas military leader's room?
> 
> *Israelis Capture West Bank Hamas Commander*
> 5/23/2006
> ...



Ahhhh the Irony!  Coincidence or planned?


----------



## monkey (May 23, 2006)

As an Army vet I will ask the question a lot of vet do (Whywar we shouldnt play wargames & who wins gets peace or what ever they claim-put your self in a higher state of mind & create your dreams.Dont let others dictate & move you as a pawn in chess but calm & peace.Sure there are some who have violent ways-(but peaceful chi can heal-stop attackers-drain of all their powers ect.I quote Yoda use the force-let it fill you & calm you.Dont give into anger & hate.


----------



## michaeledward (May 23, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> Newsweek...isn't that the one they found a few issues of in Hamas military leader's room?
> 
> *Israelis Capture West Bank Hamas Commander*
> 5/23/2006
> ...


 
Damn Free Trade.
Damn Globalization.
Damn World Economy.

So the military is no longer planning for 'Victory' in Iraq. 
Do you suppose any generals have told Rumsfeld yet?


----------



## crushing (May 23, 2006)

Were the allied forces to careful in the war against Sadam Hussein?  Look at the war against Milosevic.  Bombed the living daylights out of people and infrastructure with massive destruction.  Maybe if Bush and his generals were more like Clinton and his, the Iraqis would have no choice but to tap out.

Well, at least software piracy and other copyright violations in the former Yugoslavia are no longer as rampant as they were in the Milosevic era.  Hollywood is getting paid and can rest easier.  Oh, did you think our involvement in the war was about ethnic cleansing?  Here's a hint from the 90s:  They weren't making copies of CDs in Rwanda.

After 16 years of Clinton/Bush, we sure could use some positive change.


----------



## michaeledward (May 24, 2006)

crushing said:
			
		

> Were the allied forces to careful in the war against Sadam Hussein? Look at the war against Milosevic. Bombed the living daylights out of people and infrastructure with massive destruction. Maybe if Bush and his generals were more like Clinton and his, the Iraqis would have no choice but to tap out.


 
www.iraqbodycount.org

.... There is less power in Iraq now than there was pre-invasion; more than three years after the United States ended Major Combat Operations. 

.... The United States is spending between 6 and 8 billion dollars a week to secure Iraq.

.... With well over 35,000 Iraqi collateral damage casualties from American fire, not to mention the 50 or so daily Iraqi deaths by insurgency.

I'm wondering if you want to re-consider your suppostion that the American Military is somehow 'Kinder and Gentler' under President Bush.

2457 U.S. Deaths confirmed by the Department of Defense.


----------



## crushing (May 24, 2006)

I don't doubt those numbers.  Very sad indeed.  Please don't read my post as justifying mass deaths as others have tried to do:

"We have heard that a half million children have died," said "60 Minutes" reporter Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq. "I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?" Her guest, Madeleine Albright, responded: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

I sure wouldn't call any death and destruction as 'kinder and gentler' than another.  I was just pointing out that there are more 'efficient' ways of winning a war.  For example, the US resorted to a very efficient way against Japan in WWII.  Some say it may have saved thousands of American lives and perhaps it even saved money in that war and I'm sure it knocked out power too.  While it may meet most of the criteria you have put forth, I'm very glad that no president has used it.


----------

