What has Dubya Landed the US in?

[a_unique_person]

Fom Slate.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095671/

It all sounds spot on to me. My tip is he will lose the election, as the deep doo-doo he has landed the US becomes more and more apparent. With that many people in the armed forces, the word will already be spreading that they are taking on something that is not working.



In the March 2004 Atlantic, James Fallows writes that it's only "a slight exaggeration to say that the entire U.S. military is either in Iraq, returning from Iraq, or getting ready to go." More than one-third of the Army's active-duty troops are right now stationed in or near Iraq, and nearly half are "officially in the two lowest readiness categories." The National Guard and the Reserves are expected to provide close to 40 percent of our troops in Iraq this year. This commitment is more than most guardsmen and reservists bargained for. The Iraq deployment is probably the main reason the Guard and the Reserves are starting to experience some difficulty with recruiting and re-enlisting; if the economy continues to strengthen those trends will likely accelerate. Simply put, the Pentagon doesn't have enough bodies available to fight another major war.



Being able to blast the cr@p out of someone doesn't mean you can achieve something positive.

[Mr Manifesto]

So if a country like Pakistan did want to continue selling nuclear tech to rogue nations, or if a country like North Korea did want to build a nuclear arsenal, now would be a good time to do it because the US is to tied up with a country that wasn't a threat. Oh, and Al-Qaeda will have a bit more breathing room.

[corplinx]

Yes, we all know that if the US wants to fight a war it requires ground troops.

Stop thinking in WW2 terms. If we wanted to level North Korea, we could do it without a single infantrymen.

Now, if we wanted to sieze North Korea and turn it into the 51st state; that would be a pita with current troop deployments.

AUP, don't worry man, we can still just push a button and deal with most of the world. Thanks for thinking of us though.

[a_unique_person]

The point is not that the US doesn't have the biggest firepower, but that there is more to war and peace than just being the most powerful force.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The point is not that the US doesn't have the biggest firepower, but that there is more to war and peace than just being the most powerful force.

That makes no sense.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Grammatron


That makes no sense.

The failure of Americans to realise that there is more to war and peace than blowing stuff up is the reason you lost in Vietnam and the reason hundreds of your troops are coming home feet-first.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


The failure of Americans to realise that there is more to war and peace than blowing stuff up is the reason you lost in Vietnam and the reason hundreds of your troops are coming home feet-first.

That's not why we lost Vietnam.

The whole point of this thread is to be one giant flame-bate by AUP. First he says how USA doesn't have enough troops to fight another major war like he really wants to see us fight one. Then when a response is given to show that we do not need troops to defend ourselves or fight another war he responds with how Americans don't know what war and peace is about. To sum it up, he basically just wants to tell Americans how wrong they and their government is. I guess he wants to feel special or something.

[a_unique_person]

No, I wasn't after the US to start another war. I was just pointing out how wrong headed the strategists who started the war were. They didn't understand what a military occupation entails, although I would suggest they are learning now.

[shuize]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, I wasn't after the US to start another war. I was just pointing out how wrong headed the strategists who started the war were. They didn't understand what a military occupation entails, although I would suggest they are learning now.

I'll bet Saddam has had a few lessons by now himself....

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shuize


I'll bet Saddam has had a few lessons by now himself....

So....what has that got to do with what the US has landed in?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So....what has that got to do with what the US has landed in?

I suppose it may have to do with it, since the US landed in Iraq, which was run by Hussein.

Granted, I think it's a bit of a stretch, but maybe.

[a_unique_person]

As I pointed out earlier, overwhelming firepower gets you somethings, like Saddam out the way, but it doesn't seem to be much use with the current situation, the point of the thread.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As I pointed out earlier, overwhelming firepower gets you somethings, like Saddam out the way, but it doesn't seem to be much use with the current situation, the point of the thread.

What is the point of this thread a_u_p??

We've lost only what, fewer than 600 American lives, in Iraq so far?

Saddam and the Baathists are out of power (we just recently captured the Baathist party president).

The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces.

A democratically elected replacement government is expected to be in place some time this summer, which is supposed to be the signal for the removal of US and British forces from Iraq.

Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in??

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in??

That would be this thread.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak



We've lost only what, fewer than 600 American lives, in Iraq so far?

Saddam and the Baathists are out of power (we just recently captured the Baathist party president).

The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces.



ONLY 600!!!? How many troops did we lose in Germany this year? Japan? Afganistan even????

We took out Saddam n the army almost at the start. The "war" part was over, mission accomplished. So why is it that we have troops being killed every damn day considering we were suppsoed to be "welcomed as heros".

Its a clusterfudge. Dont kid yourself that the July change over is going to really change much.

back to the point. Are we spread too thin?? What if those canadadians get out of line?

[subgenius]

The old "we can push a button" theory doesn't hold up when your enemy is dispersed throughout the world as al Queda is.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tmy
back to the point. Are we spread too thin?? What if those canadadians get out of line?

Spread to thin for what? If you mean defense than no.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Fom Slate.

"The Iraq deployment is probably the main reason the Guard and the Reserves are starting to experience some difficulty with recruiting and re-enlisting;"



I would like to see evidence of that, please. The last available figures I can find on the net are from last September, and they show the armed services are meeting their reenlistment needs, and then some.

Just to be fair, in the future if you want to know how bad things are, look at how much reenlistment bonuses are. If they are going up, then things are getting tough for the armed services in the retention area.

Anyway, I can't find anything but predictions on the net that reenlistments will suffer as a result of Iraq.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Spread to thin for what? If you mean defense than no.

Explain. How do you arrive at such a black and white answer?


If North Korea starts to make rumblings about attacking Japan or the US West Coast with nuclear weapons, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em?
If Iran's nuclear power plants are found to be nuclear weapons facilities, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em?


In short, if most of our forces are tied up in Iraq, what capabilities do we have left to defend ourselves with? AND, after we employ those facilities, will we be in a better or worse long-term position in the world?

After you "push the button", there is an aftermath to deal with that may not be very pretty (and I am not talking about nuclear contamination).

:hit:

[Luke T.]

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan did his best to build up our armed forces. For those of us in the Navy, that meant pretty close to a 600 ship Navy. Life was good.

During the 1991 Gulf War, we were still hard pressed to meet our obligations. Many stateside bases were stripped of personnel to augment the troops in the Persian Gulf. Norfolk, Virginia was a ghost town during that period.

After the collapse of the USSR, a new phrase entered our vocabulary. "Peace dividend." This was a code-word used to gut the armed forces. By the time I retired in 2000, I think we were down to a less-than-300 ship Navy.

And that's just the Navy, folks.

I can't imagine the strain the armed services are experiencing right now. I'm just glad I ain't in it.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by dsm


Explain. How do you arrive at such a black and white answer?


If North Korea starts to make rumblings about attacking Japan or the US West Coast with nuclear weapons, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em?
If Iran's nuclear power plants are found to be nuclear weapons facilities, do we "preemptively" nuke 'em?


In short, if most of our forces are tied up in Iraq, what capabilities do we have left to defend ourselves with? AND, after we employ those facilities, will we be in a better or worse long-term position in the world?

After you "push the button", there is an aftermath to deal with that may not be very pretty (and I am not talking about nuclear contamination).

:hit:

Is that what nuclear war means, because I had no idea :rolleyes:

North Koreas has been rumbling for some time now and I would be more worried about them leveling Seoul with artillery than nuking Japan. We have a sizable amount of troops in South Korea that handle North if need be, but the location of the majority of US forces does not change that much if North Korea decided to attack the South.

Who else is there? What country is waiting to start some major conflict that we can't handle because our troops are in Iraq instead of USA? Why doesn't UN handle Iran if they have nukes? And why do you assume "blow stuff up" can only mean nukes?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Kodiak
The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces.

But how much of our available forces are currently required to "maintain the peace" in Iraq?

A democratically elected replacement government is expected to be in place some time this summer, which is supposed to be the signal for the removal of US and British forces from Iraq.

Really, says who? Bremer was specifically saying on the news shows over the weekend that implementation of the Iraqi gov't does not necessarily mean removal of US forces.

Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in??

We landed in it after the 2000 election... :(

[Luke T.]

Don't underestimate the patriotism and pride of our men and women in uniform. I'm sure they are all very tired right now, but feeling very good. And this kind of stuff really, really sucks while you are in it, but the memory fades quickly after you are out of it, and the pride of accomplishment remains.

Voice of experience.

[Luke T.]

Sorry. One more thing, then I'll shut up.

Wives. They don't get that feeling of accomplishment and pride. And they are the biggest threat to reenlistments. I could tell you a lot of sad stories.

[c0rbin]

So much easier to muster an army 100 years ago.

Every lad with his dad, bring your musket. Ride a horse? Join the cavalry.

No need to worry about armor, or aircraft.

[Tmy]

What of the unexpected? We should know by now that the dangers are not so obvious.

What if there was a terror attcak from south america? Could we handle that? What if Cuba went all crazy, woudl we stand by and do nothing.

What if there was a giant natural disaster? Earthquake, meteor whatever.


I coudlve sworn that I heard recruitemnt ads saying that you woudlnt be shipped to the mideast f you joined up. Anyone here this?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by subgenius
The old "we can push a button" theory doesn't hold up when your enemy is dispersed throughout the world as al Queda is.

The problem is, al Qaeda isn't an organization that is necessarily handled by military force. Better intelligence is what's needed to get rid of terrorist organizations. Using troops in a large scale military attack shouldn't be taking resources away from fighting al Qaeda.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Don't underestimate the patriotism and pride of our men and women in uniform. I'm sure they are all very tired right now, but feeling very good. And this kind of stuff really, really sucks while you are in it, but the memory fades quickly after you are out of it, and the pride of accomplishment remains. But accomplished what, exactly?

As pleased as I am that Hussein is out of the picture, not only are there lunatic dictators just as bad as he was all over the place, but Iraq itself doesn't seem to be doing all that well.

People have a hard time even considering that they made major sacrifices for nothing -- they'll convince themselves that they're victorious one way or another. That doesn't mean that they actually won, or that their sacrifices purchased anything of value.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Is that what nuclear war means, because I had no idea :rolleyes:

What he meant was with the troop committment to Iraq we lack other options other than nukes. If N. Korea does something now, we do not have the capability to reinforce quickly, and a nuclear option may be considered earlier in the game. During the 50's, when our troop strength was low after the De-Mob of WWII, the nuclear option was considered more than once.

We have a sizable amount of troops in South Korea that handle North if need be, but the location of the majority of US forces does not change that much if North Korea decided to attack the South.

I disagree. We have about 37,000 troops in Korea and may draw some of them down. N. Korea has approximately 1,000,000 men under arms, and can probably break though the initial line at the 38th Parallel, albeit with high casulties. We have no major ground forces near the area to reinforce, that would have to come from US Bases that are now concentrating on the Iraq mission.

Who else is there? What country is waiting to start some major conflict that we can't handle because our troops are in Iraq instead of USA?

I think the more proper question is what country would we consider invading next in our "self-interest" via the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

[TillEulenspiegel]

AUP I disagree with your apparent assessment of the condition of the US in the title.: "What has Dubya Landed the US in?"

The hard fact is that the consequences are so wide and far flung and the pieces haven't landed yet. So while your pessimism may be understandable it is not complete.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Kodiak


What is the point of this thread a_u_p??

We've lost only what, fewer than 600 American lives, in Iraq so far?

Saddam and the Baathists are out of power (we just recently captured the Baathist party president).

The only continuing conflict in Iraq is with Saddam loyalists (a huge minority) and foreign jihadists who are attacking Iraqi citizens more than occupation forces.

A democratically elected replacement government is expected to be in place some time this summer, which is supposed to be the signal for the removal of US and British forces from Iraq.

Where's the "deep doo-doo" we supposedly landed in??


Hmmmm....a species of Ursus postus dumbs***. Rare but not unknown in these parts ;)

AUP and the article he quoted made a valid point. It takes time to train, prepare and move troops, not to mention the logistics of relocating families, planning and support for the returning troops, changing command and support structures, it is a massive job and it is keeping the readiness of the remaining units at a low level (because critical parts and equipment needed by units in say, Germany or Ft. Campbell, are diverted to Iraq--thus less operational readiness, less training, less ready to go. So even if there is a clear threat (say, N. Korea masses troops at the border, launches missiles over Japan again) we do not have the manpower "on the bounce" that are completely ready to respond.

Now if...and that is a BIG If...the Iraqi Government settles in and we can pull out our troops and the death toll stops and all is sweetness and light, then you will be right. But I'd bet a tattered Egyptian Pound that either (1) we will still have a substantial-say 50,000+ troops--in Iraq by Jan 05 or (2) We'll be completely out and the provisional Government will be near collapse.

We shall see.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Hutch


What he meant was with the troop committment to Iraq we lack other options other than nukes. If N. Korea does something now, we do not have the capability to reinforce quickly, and a nuclear option may be considered earlier in the game. During the 50's, when our troop strength was low after the De-Mob of WWII, the nuclear option was considered more than once.

We can bomb them enough to stop anything they are doing militarily.

I disagree. We have about 37,000 troops in Korea and may draw some of them down. N. Korea has approximately 1,000,000 men under arms, and can probably break though the initial line at the 38th Parallel, albeit with high casulties. We have no major ground forces near the area to reinforce, that would have to come from US Bases that are now concentrating on the Iraq mission.

We have reinforcement, they are called South Koreans. I am sure they will fight for their country. If not, why the heck should we even bother?

I think the more proper question is what country would we consider invading next in our "self-interest" via the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Right...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
ONLY 600!!!? How many troops did we lose in Germany this year? Japan? Afganistan even????

Are you sure that is the intellectual yardstick you wish to use?

Are you seriously comparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq with peacetime Germany and Japan, and even Afganistan where the majority of the Afghani forces "in country" were our allies??

Try being a little less biased and instead compare Iraq to Vietnam or Korea.



Originally posted by Tmy
We took out Saddam n the army almost at the start. The "war" part was over, mission accomplished. So why is it that we have troops being killed every damn day considering we were suppsoed to be "welcomed as heros".

The vast majority of Iraqis are thankful for the ending of Saddam's regime, and the deaths occurring daily are due to a radical few.

Why is it that we have jews and palestinians being killed every damn day? A radical minority willing to use deadly force.



Originally posted by Tmy
Its a clusterfudge. Dont kid yourself that the July change over is going to really change much.

Is that a prediction, Silvia?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hutch



Hmmmm....a species of Ursus postus dumbs***. Rare but not unknown in these parts ;)

Attack the points I'm making and lose the petty name-calling... :(

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
The old "we can push a button" theory doesn't hold up when your enemy is dispersed throughout the world as al Queda is.

No one was proposing that technique for Al Queda...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by dsm
But how much of our available forces are currently required to "maintain the peace" in Iraq?

I don't pretend to know, but experts in the Pentagon answered that question long ago.



Originally posted by dsm
Really, says who? Bremer was specifically saying on the news shows over the weekend that implementation of the Iraqi gov't does not necessarily mean removal of US forces.

That's always been the administrations "exit strategy". Of course, being a strategy means that conditions change and thus methods and plans change with them. An inflexible strategy is a strategy doomed to failure.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan did his best to build up our armed forces. For those of us in the Navy, that meant pretty close to a 600 ship Navy. Life was good.

During the 1991 Gulf War, we were still hard pressed to meet our obligations. Many stateside bases were stripped of personnel to augment the troops in the Persian Gulf. Norfolk, Virginia was a ghost town during that period.

After the collapse of the USSR, a new phrase entered our vocabulary. "Peace dividend." This was a code-word used to gut the armed forces. By the time I retired in 2000, I think we were down to a less-than-300 ship Navy.

And that's just the Navy, folks.

I can't imagine the strain the armed services are experiencing right now. I'm just glad I ain't in it.

Now you only have enough military power to destroy the world ten times over instead of twenty. I feel for you.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
What of the unexpected? We should know by now that the dangers are not so obvious.

What if there was a terror attcak from south america? Could we handle that? What if Cuba went all crazy, woudl we stand by and do nothing.

What if there was a giant natural disaster? Earthquake, meteor whatever.


I coudlve sworn that I heard recruitemnt ads saying that you woudlnt be shipped to the mideast f you joined up. Anyone here this?

If I'm not mistaken, the Marine Q.R.F. is not in Iraq, and can be anywhere in the world in under 72 hours...

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Attack the points I'm making and lose the petty name-calling... :(

As a matter of fact, I did post two full paragraphs supporting AUP's thesis and considering the future based on the "deep doo-doo" we may or may not be in per your post. Guess you missed that.

And I put a ;) there deliberately, to let you know that I was picking up on the Latin species and giving you a little nudge but nothing personal (BTW, I can, if need be, nudge way harder than that). But you took it so seriously you didn't even respond to the rest of my comments.

My misinterpertation--I figured a big bear to have a thicker skin....

[hgc]

Grammatron:

We have reinforcement, they are called South Koreans. I am sure they will fight for their country. If not, why the heck should we even bother?[/b]It's more like we're their reinforcement. The main reason we have 37K troops there is symbolic -- a message to N.Korea that an invasion of S.Korea means war with U.S. The S.Korean military is plenty powerful, but what real deterrence does the U.S. offer against of N.Korea invasion of the south? If we don't have 2-500K men, with equipment, ready to land on the penninsula in a matter of days or weeks, they can do a lot of damage. Then there's nuclear...

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Now you only have enough military power to destroy the world ten times over instead of twenty. I feel for you.

You may be forgetting something, Manifesto.

Ask anyone who's had run-ins with the law: if you're being chased, which one is the cop you DON'T want to get chased by: the lean cop, or the fat cop?

The answer lies in the fat cop's disinclination to chase after you, but his inclination to bring you down, and his only method of doing so...

[WildCat]

If a real crises did appear, the armed forces could always be enlarged. It's not lack of recruits keeping the level of the armed forces low, it's the military budget.

Just anecdotal evidence, but a Navy recruiter I know told me that the war was good as far as attracting qualified applicants goes. It sure isn't the promise of free entrance to White Sox games. ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hutch


As a matter of fact, I did post two full paragraphs supporting AUP's thesis and considering the future based on the "deep doo-doo" we may or may not be in per your post. Guess you missed that.

And I put a ;) there deliberately, to let you know that I was picking up on the Latin species and giving you a little nudge but nothing personal (BTW, I can, if need be, nudge way harder than that). But you took it so seriously you didn't even respond to the rest of my comments.

My misinterpertation--I figured a big bear to have a thicker skin....

It's cool. After all, I did,'t go all :mad: :hit: :a2: :brk: on you! ;)

I just take my forum image very seriously and make a great effort to not post "dumb$h!+" and at the same time try to maintain a civilized discourse with even my most "hated" adversaries. :)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by hgc
It's more like we're their reinforcement. The main reason we have 37K troops there is symbolic -- a message to N.Korea that an invasion of S.Korea means war with U.S. The S.Korean military is plenty powerful, but what real deterrence does the U.S. offer against of N.Korea invasion of the south? If we don't have 2-500K men, with equipment, ready to land on the penninsula in a matter of days or weeks, they can do a lot of damage. Then there's nuclear...

You are correct, we are their reinforcements. However, N. Korea is not that powerful, they have rather outdated technology and we know the location of their forces which have pretty much remained stationary for fifty years.

[Hutch]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grammatron
We can bomb them enough to stop anything they are doing militarily.

Are you sure? We can probably hurt them considerably, cut off supply lines and reinforcements, but in the initial attack this won't count for all that much. And despite the Air Force's best intentions, completely stopping a attack force (especially if they get off the first shot) is probably not doable, given the limited aircraft we could deploy in a surprise attack.

We have reinforcement, they are called South Koreans. I am sure they will fight for their country. If not, why the heck should we even bother?

There are approximately 600,000 S. Koreans in their military and they man the vast majority of the border and would suffer the most casulities in an initial attack. The problem is that their defense posture means massing troops at the border rather than the more tactically sound defense in depth (because that would probably mean the loss of Seoul which is unacceptable to the S. Koreans). This could lead to a breakthough if the N. Koreans could mass enough troops/guns to overload one part of the line. There would not be sufficient forces behind the lines to flank the attack and the casulties would be very high on both sides. The reinforcements would have to be drawn from somewhere and if all S. Korean troops were tied down on the 38th, we would have to reinforce quickly.

And remember, the 37,000 include all US services, the number of Ground-Pounders is only a fraction of that number.

[bignickel]

Correct me if I'm wrong: but aren't we in a cease-fire with N Korea still?

IF that's the case: the President wouldn't really need any authorization from Congress to resume the War, since they've already given authorization, and have never rescinded it.

Or have they?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Now you only have enough military power to destroy the world ten times over instead of twenty. I feel for you.

There are probably enough bullets on this planet to kill everyone 100 times over. Can you spot the problem with this logic or why I am not afraid of all those bullets?

[Hutch]

Originally posted by bignickel
Correct me if I'm wrong: but aren't we in a cease-fire with N Korea still?

IF that's the case: the President wouldn't really need any authorization from Congress to resume the War, since they've already given authorization, and have never rescinded it.

Or have they?

I believe we have a negotiated Armistice between the United Nations and N. Korea, which is supposed to allow for negotiations for a permanent peace treaty (50 years and still going on)

So I think (and am willing to be corrected) that we would need the concurrence of the UN to resume military action under the terms of the Armistice.

Of course, we and the South could go off by ourselves and attack and ignore the UN, but I don't think that would be a good thing.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Luke T.

There are probably enough bullets on this planet to kill everyone 100 times over. Can you spot the problem with this logic or why I am not afraid of all those bullets?

Well... a bullet requires a gun. Someone to aim the gun. Close enough distance to hit the target. And the actual accurate aiming of the gun.

The nuclear missle only requires 2 things:
1. the missle
2. a target

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tmy
What of the unexpected? We should know by now that the dangers are not so obvious.

What if there was a terror attcak from south america? Could we handle that? What if Cuba went all crazy, woudl we stand by and do nothing.

What if there was a giant natural disaster? Earthquake, meteor whatever.


I coudlve sworn that I heard recruitemnt ads saying that you woudlnt be shipped to the mideast f you joined up. Anyone here this?

While you are winning about it the rest of us will pull up our bootstraps and deal with it. Don't forget about the inactive reserves. (when you join the military you sign up for 3 years active and 3 years inactive).

Anyway if smiting goes wrong we can always count on our friends in the UN to debate how to handle the problem for the next 12 years.

The reasons we went to war were not for the long term occupation of Iraq. We went there to get rid of Saddam, to dismantle his WMD's and or programs.

My feeling has always been that the inevitable fate of Iraq is civil war. And that civil war would happen wither we went in or not. The difference is with Saddam it would be a slaughter (with the Un and EU blaiming the US for not doing anything about it), without him it will most likely be a stalemate ending it the partitioning of the country.

[WildCat]

To keep the losses in Iraq in perspective, at this rate it would take over 100 years to approach the 58,000 lost in Viet Nam. 500 losses (and only about 350 have been due to combat) a year isn't a good thing by any means, but from a military perspective it is quite sustainable.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Hutch
...
There are approximately 600,000 S. Koreans in their military and they man the vast majority of the border and would suffer the most casulities in an initial attack. The problem is that their defense posture means massing troops at the border rather than the more tactically sound defense in depth (because that would probably mean the loss of Seoul which is unacceptable to the S. Koreans). ...This is what is so worrying. The defense of S.Korea means the defense of Seoul. The problem is that Seoul is on the border, within range of massive artillery in hardened bunkers, and those artillery are likely loaded with chemical shells. The cost of civilian life on both sides would be unimaginable. I have no doubt in the vastly superior capabilities of the S.Korean military, but with Seoul positioned where it is, they are in a practically undefensible position anyway.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by bignickel


Well... a bullet requires a gun. Someone to aim the gun. Close enough distance to hit the target. And the actual accurate aiming of the gun.

The nuclear missle only requires 2 things:
1. the missle
2. a target

But what I was talking about, to which Mr. Manifesto replied, was conventional war-making capability. And our services are much smaller than they were in 1991. And so the same limitations which you delineated for bullets applies.

Logistics and tactics.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by WildCat
To keep the losses in Iraq in perspective, at this rate it would take over 100 years to approach the 58,000 lost in Viet Nam. 500 losses (and only about 350 have been due to combat) a year isn't a good thing by any means, but from a military perspective it is quite sustainable.

Apples and oranges. Yeah but we lost Nam, we beat Saddam.

Woudl it be acceptable if 600 troops were killed every year from our bases in Germany? Japan? And 600 is the death toll, how about the injured.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Luke T.


But what I was talking about, to which Mr. Manifesto replied, was conventional war-making capability. And our services are much smaller than they were in 1991. And so the same limitations which you delineated for bullets applies.

Logistics and tactics.

Ah, but see my earlier above post about about lean cop vs fat cop.

Whether we have a smaller military or no, if we decide to 'bring someone down', we will do. Regardless of military.

The problem is: if our military is TOO small, then we're not just gonna shrug our shoulders and say "guess we can't do anything about them."

We will just use missles to accomplish what our limited military can not. Possibly even nuclear ones.

Thus: the world is a safer place with the USA possessing a strong military force, as opposed to a weak one.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by bignickel


Ah, but see my earlier above post about about lean cop vs fat cop.

Whether we have a smaller military or no, if we decide to 'bring someone down', we will do. Regardless of military.

The problem is: if our military is TOO small, then we're not just gonna shrug our shoulders and say "guess we can't do anything about them."

We will just use missles to accomplish what our limited military can not. Possibly even nuclear ones.

Thus: the world is a safer place with the USA possessing a strong military force, as opposed to a weak one.

I understand your thinking, but that seems like a pretty negative opinion of the U.S. That we will just nuke 'em. I think our history has shown we go the route of bombing a couple tents in the desert and calling it good. ;)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Tmy
Woudl it be acceptable if 600 troops were killed every year from our bases in Germany? Japan? And 600 is the death toll, how about the injured.
We were losing that many nearly every day when at war w/ those countries.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tmy


Apples and oranges. Yeah but we lost Nam, we beat Saddam.

Woudl it be acceptable if 600 troops were killed every year from our bases in Germany? Japan? And 600 is the death toll, how about the injured.

And what were the US death tolls in 1945-6 Germany and Japan? Do you really believe that every German and Japanese laid down his arms the second the war ended?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by SRW


And what were the US death tolls in 1945-6 Germany and Japan? Do you really believe that every German and Japanese laid down his arms the second the war ended?

No. Then agian we werent told that we'd be "greeted as heros" by the Germans and Japanese. More bad intelligence i guess.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tmy


No. Then agian we werent told that we'd be "greeted as heros" by the Germans and Japanese. More bad intelligence i guess.

So, what is your point? Greeted as heroes or attacks by die hard radicals.

In case you missed the real world, the army is made up of human beings and can never know exactly how an enemy will react. Sort of like everything else in life, Sylvia Browne cannot tell us what will happen.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by SRW


And what were the US death tolls in 1945-6 Germany and Japan? Do you really believe that every German and Japanese laid down his arms the second the war ended?

An old joke when I was a kid, in the 60s:

"The grass in his yard is so tall, there are Japanese in there who don't know the war is over."

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by subgenius
The old "we can push a button" theory doesn't hold up when your enemy is dispersed throughout the world as al Queda is.

Sure it does. Doesn't the US army have THOUSANDS of nuclear warheads? You could just blow up every conceivable hiding place.

(Sure, there might be a bit of collateral damage, but hey, at least you got those damned terrorists, right?)

[a_unique_person]

From Time Magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,591704,00.html?cnn=yes



Iraq: Anybody Got a Plan?
Bremer's caucus plan appears to be dead. Planning Iraq's political future may be back in the UN's hands



When Time and Newsweek agree on something going wrong with US policy, you know it has to be true. Both these magazines represent, for me, the view of the educated conservative.

Deep doo-doo.

[SRW]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
From Time Magazine.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,591704,00.html?cnn=yes



When Time and Newsweek agree on something going wrong with US policy, you know it has to be true. Both these magazines represent, for me, the view of the educated conservative.

Deep doo-doo.

Time and Newsweek are not conservative magazines.

I still say there is an inevitable civil war in Iraq. The result will be a partitioned Iraq with little influence on world events. The UN will be as helpfully as they are in the current civil war in Haiti.

Don't forget the US and Britain were fighting the "No Fly Zone" war with Iraq for the last 10 years. And would have been dragged into a civil war in Iraq regardless. The US has been in Iraq doo-doo for 12 years now, and we now have a way out.

[BTox]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

When Time and Newsweek agree on something going wrong with US policy, you know it has to be true. Both these magazines represent, for me, the view of the educated conservative.

Deep doo-doo.

Time represents the view of the conservative? Have you ever read this magazine? One of the funniest comments I've seen on this board! :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by BTox
Time represents the view of the conservative? Have you ever read this magazine? One of the funniest comments I've seen on this board! :D
Not all conservatives. Just educated ones. That thins the pack considerably. :p

But all of the major newsmagazines are middle-of-the-road. Newsweek tends to be more liberal, U.S. News and World Report tends to be more conservative. But the difference is barely noticable.

Of course Newsweek DID have consecutive "My Turns" by first, a self-declared psychic, and then by a "Born Again Christian for Dean." Hard to say where that puts them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by SRW


Time and Newsweek are not conservative magazines.



I don't normally use smileys, but :dl:



I still say there is an inevitable civil war in Iraq. The result will be a partitioned Iraq with little influence on world events. The UN will be as helpfully as they are in the current civil war in Haiti.

Don't forget the US and Britain were fighting the "No Fly Zone" war with Iraq for the last 10 years. And would have been dragged into a civil war in Iraq regardless. The US has been in Iraq doo-doo for 12 years now, and we now have a way out.

Will there be more killed in the war than deaths caused by Saddam? Good chance, I'd say.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Not to pry, a_unique_person, but where are you from?

I'm going to guess you're from one of the many countries whose citizens tend to view the two major American political parties are virtually-identical conversative groups. Am I right?

[a_unique_person]

I come from a land downunder.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Huh. So... that narrows it down to... Spain?

There ya go. Proves my point completely.

[SRW]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't normally use smileys, but :dl:



Will there be more killed in the war than deaths caused by Saddam? Good chance, I'd say.


You must be really far to the left if you call time or Newsweek Conservative.

Yes but if Saddam were in power when the inevitable war broke out where would the death toll be. Just think of Uday leading the republican guard against the Kurds. Civil war was and is unavoidable, it is very clear how Saddam and his group deal with insurrection.

Of course that would be fine with you you would still blame the US to not getting rid of him. Nothing we ever do would be right in your eyes so why don't you go complain about Borneo?

[shuize]

Originally posted by Luke T.


An old joke when I was a kid, in the 60s:

"The grass in his yard is so tall, there are Japanese in there who don't know the war is over."

You could have used that joke a bit longer. I think the last Japanese soldier surrendered on the Philipines in 1973. (That is from memory. I'll see if I can dig up a reference.)

I was close. The most famous "holdout" was Lt. Hiroo Onoda who surrendered in 1974. However, this reference link (http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html) describes a few other, possibly later cases, with which I was unfamiliar.

[Kodiak]

Tmy, you ignored this the first time I posted it. Care to respond?




Originally posted by Tmy
ONLY 600!!!? How many troops did we lose in Germany this year? Japan? Afganistan even????


Are you sure that is the intellectual yardstick you wish to use?

Are you seriously comparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq with peacetime Germany and Japan, and even Afganistan where the majority of the Afghani forces "in country" were our allies??

Try being a little less biased and instead compare Iraq to Vietnam or Korea.



Originally posted by Tmy
We took out Saddam n the army almost at the start. The "war" part was over, mission accomplished. So why is it that we have troops being killed every damn day considering we were suppsoed to be "welcomed as heros".


The vast majority of Iraqis are thankful for the ending of Saddam's regime, and the deaths occurring daily are due to a radical few.

Why is it that we have jews and palestinians being killed every damn day? A radical minority willing to use deadly force.



Originally posted by Tmy
Its a clusterfudge. Dont kid yourself that the July change over is going to really change much.


Is that a prediction, Silvia?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Tmy, you ignored this the first time I posted it. Care to respond?







Are you sure that is the intellectual yardstick you wish to use?

Are you seriously comparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq with peacetime Germany and Japan, and even Afganistan where the majority of the Afghani forces "in country" were our allies??

Try being a little less biased and instead compare Iraq to Vietnam or Korea.


The vast majority of Iraqis are thankful for the ending of Saddam's regime, and the deaths occurring daily are due to a radical few.

Why is it that we have jews and palestinians being killed every damn day? A radical minority willing to use deadly force.

Is that a prediction, Silvia?

Biased????? Rewind to last year. This is how the war was sold to us:
1)WMD that can be turned ovber to terrorists at any time.
2) The Iraqi people are begging for Saddams removal, they'll welcome the troops wh open arms. (remember all the feel good TV footage every time someone waved at a tank)
3) This would not be another Viet Nam.

Here we are a year later and you want to compare it to NAM!
Theres no WMD.
The Iraqi people are not so happy to see us. You can blame it on a few but I dont see the majority turning over these guys even when they are taking out Iraqis'.
We have troops being killed every day. This is way after "mission accomplished".

Do you think there wouldve been so much support to invade knowing this result?

O yeah, and I predict the govt change over will do little to stop the violence. Just as Saddams capture.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy


Biased????? Rewind to last year. This is how the war was sold to us:
1)WMD that can be turned ovber to terrorists at any time.
2) The Iraqi people are begging for Saddams removal, they'll welcome the troops wh open arms. (remember all the feel good TV footage every time someone waved at a tank)
3) This would not be another Viet Nam.



Don't forget the predictions that something on the order of 10,000 American troops would be killed in house to house fighting in Baghdad with the Republican Guard.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I think we're all glad that didn't turn out as we feared.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I think we're all glad that didn't turn out as we feared.

But somehow the doom and gloom predictions keep coming. :rolleyes:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy


Biased????? Rewind to last year. This is how the war was sold to us:
1)WMD that can be turned ovber to terrorists at any time.
2) The Iraqi people are begging for Saddams removal, they'll welcome the troops wh open arms. (remember all the feel good TV footage every time someone waved at a tank)
3) This would not be another Viet Nam.

Here we are a year later and you want to compare it to NAM!
Theres no WMD.
The Iraqi people are not so happy to see us. You can blame it on a few but I dont see the majority turning over these guys even when they are taking out Iraqis'.
We have troops being killed every day. This is way after "mission accomplished".

Do you think there wouldve been so much support to invade knowing this result?

O yeah, and I predict the govt change over will do little to stop the violence. Just as Saddams capture.

Nice attempt at obfuscation.

I in no way said that Iraq was like Vietnam. I asked you to overcome your obvious bias and instead of comparing Iraq to countries we currently are not occupying under martial law immediately after an invasion, to instead compare Iraq to specific historical cases where large number of US forces were in place. I suggested Vietnam of Korea because, like Iraq, they were significant but not "world wars".

Care to respond now?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
But somehow the doom and gloom predictions keep coming. :rolleyes: Nonsense. Sieges of cities tend to be massively unpleasant even in the modern era. Everyone is glad that it worked out as well as it did, but beforehand we had no reason to presume it would go well.

Excessive optimism is necessarily as much a mistake as excessive pessimism, but if we have to err, it's best to err on the side of caution.

If I remember correctly, the militaristic morons who expected everything to go swimmingly after we took over Iraq failed to create even basic contingency plans in case things didn't go so well. That failure to plan meant that our invasion failed to locate and protect possible arms storage facilities, document caches, infrastructure (except that closely relating to oil production), and cultural treasures.

And isn't it international law that a country occupying another must pay to repair the damage it does? (Not that we care very much about international law...)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by dsm
Really, says who? Bremer was specifically saying on the news shows over the weekend that implementation of the Iraqi gov't does not necessarily mean removal of US forces.

Actually, this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4312686/) is what Bremer is saying.

From the web article:

"Agreeing with the United States, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Thursday that he doesn't think Iraqi legislative elections are possible by the June 30 handover of power set by the Bush administration."

"U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer said earlier Thursday in Baghdad that the formula for establishing a new Iraqi government could be changed but the date for the U.S.-led coalition to hand over power remains firm."

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tmy


Biased????? Rewind to last year. This is how the war was sold to us:
1)WMD that can be turned ovber to terrorists at any time.
2) The Iraqi people are begging for Saddams removal, they'll welcome the troops wh open arms. (remember all the feel good TV footage every time someone waved at a tank)
3) This would not be another Viet Nam.

Here we are a year later and you want to compare it to NAM!
Theres no WMD.
The Iraqi people are not so happy to see us. You can blame it on a few but I dont see the majority turning over these guys even when they are taking out Iraqis'.
We have troops being killed every day. This is way after "mission accomplished".

Do you think there wouldve been so much support to invade knowing this result?

O yeah, and I predict the govt change over will do little to stop the violence. Just as Saddams capture.


So are you saying the Majority of Iraqis are not happy to be rid of Saddam? Where is your proof? Can you site a Poll taken of Iraqis that demonstrate this?

1) After 6 years of Inspections, and another 6 years of blatant defiance of the UN, the only way to know for sure was to overthrow the tyrant and find out. Now one in the world community believed that Saddam had given up or destroyed his WMD. And as long as he was in power he would use the threat of those weapons to intimidate his own people, and neighboring countries.

2) After 30 years of seeing the tongues cut out of their neighbors do you really think the majority of Iraqis were ready to celebrate with Saddam Still at large. Look up fear and intimidation.

3) Vietnam was a Major war fought over a period of some 12 Years, A war against a nation North Vietnam, supported at times by both China and the Ussr, it was also a civil war with the insurgent viet Cong fighting a gorilla war. However Both countries have an I in the spelling so they must be the same.

Iraq is a country of 25,000,000 people, anyone can purchase an AK 47 for $5.00 If the majority wanted to get rid of us I think the level of violence would be a little higher don't ya think?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

And isn't it international law that a country occupying another must pay to repair the damage it does? (Not that we care very much about international law...)

I forgot about the other pre war mantra. "We'll pay for this wh Iraqi Oil". Then we get a bill for $100 gazillion dollars! Whats up with that?


Ok lets see, we occupied Kuwait after expelling Saddam. I dont remeber troops being maimed and killed on a daily basis.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Nonsense. Sieges of cities tend to be massively unpleasant even in the modern era. Everyone is glad that it worked out as well as it did, but beforehand we had no reason to presume it would go well.

Excessive optimism is necessarily as much a mistake as excessive pessimism, but if we have to err, it's best to err on the side of caution.

If I remember correctly, the militaristic morons who expected everything to go swimmingly after we took over Iraq failed to create even basic contingency plans in case things didn't go so well. That failure to plan meant that our invasion failed to locate and protect possible arms storage facilities, document caches, infrastructure (except that closely relating to oil production), and cultural treasures.

And isn't it international law that a country occupying another must pay to repair the damage it does? (Not that we care very much about international law...)


So which is it they had no way of "knowing that It would go so well". Or they are Morons for not knowing that it would go so well.

Wars are a messy and unpredictable business, and so is nation building. Its not a friggen ATM, It is not going to spit out money on demand. You may want everything to be perfect from day one, but it will not be. History will tell if we are successfully or not.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Ok lets see, we occupied Kuwait after expelling Saddam. I dont remeber troops being maimed and killed on a daily basis.

Oh brother...

Are you serious?

We LIBERATED Kuwait from Iraqi occupation!

:teacher:

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by SRW
1) After 6 years of Inspections, and another 6 years of blatant defiance of the UN, the only way to know for sure was to overthrow the tyrant and find out. Now one in the world community believed that Saddam had given up or destroyed his WMD. And as long as he was in power he would use the threat of those weapons to intimidate his own people, and neighboring countries. All of the WMDs that we could confirm he had were destroyed. It was obvious that Saddam would claim that he still possessed them, so we needed a way to check to see if there was any evidence of such weapons.

What could we have done? Perhaps if we had sent some highly skilled individuals with the knowledge and technical ability to detect weapons programs into the country and had them look around...

Nah, let's just invade and let any person off the street sift through Saddam's stuff before we get a chance to look at it. That way, if there were any WMDs, we'll know exactly where they are: in the hands of terrorists!

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
What could we have done? Perhaps if we had sent some highly skilled individuals with the knowledge and technical ability to detect weapons programs into the country and had them look around...[/B]
Sure, that has a 100% chance of working. Just so long as you put the entire country on lockdown (no one allowed to leave their houses) for a few years until every nook and cranny was searched. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, it sometimes even works in prisons...

[SRW]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
All of the WMDs that we could confirm he had were destroyed. It was obvious that Saddam would claim that he still possessed them, so we needed a way to check to see if there was any evidence of such weapons.

What could we have done? Perhaps if we had sent some highly skilled individuals with the knowledge and technical ability to detect weapons programs into the country and had them look around...

Nah, let's just invade and let any person off the street sift through Saddam's stuff before we get a chance to look at it. That way, if there were any WMDs, we'll know exactly where they are: in the hands of terrorists! [/B]

And what in the 30 year history of Saddam gives you the slightest hint that that would work? It seems to me we tried that for 12 years, and Saddam got rich. The US continued to Contain him by the No Fly Zone War. and Iraq continued to purchase arms, and sell oil illegally.

Sure we should trust Saddam to do the right thing, after all he has such a wonderfull track record. Of couse we could have sent in international forces to fix things that always works.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by WildCat

Sure, that has a 100% chance of working.

But Wildcat, based on what we have discovered (and so far there has been nothing discovered), it (inspections) did in fact work and apparently at 100%! :id:

That Europe and other countries around the world beyond the U.S. thought he had WMD is irrelevant. Those countries (and the U.S. from 1991-2003 and earlier) felt the combination of inspectors and economic sanctions, along with US air patrols and security were sufficient to deter Saddam from developing and deploying WMD--and that is apparently what has occurred.

And yes, I know inspectors were out of Iraq for several years...that Saddam apparently did not use the time to re-establish his WMD programs is perhaps the most interesting development of all. :con2:

[SRW]

Originally posted by Hutch


:

That Europe and other countries around the world beyond the U.S. thought he had WMD is irrelevant. Those countries (and the U.S. from 1991-2003 and earlier) felt the combination of inspectors and economic sanctions, along with US air patrols and security were sufficient to deter Saddam from developing and deploying WMD--and that is apparently what has occurred.

:con2:

So Economic sanctions were working and should have been kept up indefinitely? Seems to me most of the world opposed the sanctions based on humanitarian concerns. And they were not after all hurting the Iraqi rulling party. And where was the rest of the world while American and British pilots were risking there lives in the no fly zone?

14 UN resolutions and no action, big success.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by SRW


So Economic sanctions were working and should have been kept up indefinitely? Seems to me most of the world opposed the sanctions based on humanitarian concerns. And they were not after all hurting the Iraqi rulling party. And where was the rest of the world while American and British pilots were risking there lives in the no fly zone?

14 UN resolutions and no action, big success.


No, they were not hurting Saddam and his cronies, I grant you. But they apparently did deter him from building WMD's and invading other countries, which was the original idea, wasn't it?

As for what the world was doing as we enforced the no-fly zone, they were supporting it at least tacitly (including several Arab countries, without which we never could have managed it) no matter what they might have been saying. It was only when we went for invasion that they dissented.

Which then reduces the argument for invading Iraq to getting rid of a very bad man who was very bad for his country...for which an excellent argument could be made (it could also have been made in 1991). However, that was not the argument the US went to war on.

If going to war because a ruler is doing stupid things that lead to economic sanctions and impoverishment of his people, our next attack should be Zimbabwe.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Hutch



No, they were not hurting Saddam and his cronies, I grant you. But they apparently did deter him from building WMD's and invading other countries, which was the original idea, wasn't it?

As for what the world was doing as we enforced the no-fly zone, they were supporting it at least tacitly (including several Arab countries, without which we never could have managed it) no matter what they might have been saying. It was only when we went for invasion that they dissented.

Which then reduces the argument for invading Iraq to getting rid of a very bad man who was very bad for his country...for which an excellent argument could be made (it could also have been made in 1991). However, that was not the argument the US went to war on.

If going to war because a ruler is doing stupid things that lead to economic sanctions and impoverishment of his people, our next attack should be Zimbabwe.

The only countries supporting the no fly zone were the ones on
the border with Iraq, they did not mind having US protection, gee wonder why, could be they thought Iraq had WMD? And those country's never dissented on the no fly zone they were happy as long as it was US money and lives at stake and they could continue to benefit from the sanctions, (Iraqi oil was not a factor in world oil markets, and that benefited them).

We Invaded Iraq because of what the world situation was prior to the invasion. If the ruler of Zimbabwe is doing stupid things which make things unsafe for the US and the world at large sure why not?

[Hutch]

Originally posted by SRW
The only countries supporting the no fly zone were the ones on the border with Iraq, they did not mind having US protection, gee wonder why, could be they thought Iraq had WMD? And those country's never dissented on the no fly zone they were happy as long as it was US money and lives at stake and they could continue to benefit from the sanctions, (Iraqi oil was not a factor in world oil markets, and that benefited them).

Just for clarification, countries who's borders were 400+ miles from Iraq supported the no-fly zone by allowing US aircraft to work out of there, so it wasn't just "on the border". Just FYI.

Remember, your original comment was "And where was the rest of the world while American and British pilots were risking their lives in the no fly zone?" And I replied they were either supporting it or at least not loudly objecting to it, as far as I can remember. Are you suggesting they should have had their planes flying too? And would we have accepted such help?

Interesting comment on the oil. I'd like to see you develop that with a bit more evidence before I'll fully accept it.

We Invaded Iraq because of what the world situation was prior to the invasion.

And what had changed in Iraq since 9-11 that required an invasion (besides them deciding to re-admit inspectors?]

If the ruler of Zimbabwe is doing stupid things which make things unsafe for the US and the world at large sure why not?

I was attempting to show that going to war only because a ruler is toxic to his people and scorned by most of the world is not a viable foreign policy for any country. And it appears that is what we did, given the lack of WMD's...perhaps the end result will be favorable (the jury will remain out on that for several years yet) but I think the US people will be a little more skeptical the next time...which may be a bad thing, because the wolf next time may have teeth.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Hutch


But Wildcat, based on what we have discovered (and so far there has been nothing discovered), it (inspections) did in fact work and apparently at 100%! :id:

That Europe and other countries around the world beyond the U.S. thought he had WMD is irrelevant. Those countries (and the U.S. from 1991-2003 and earlier) felt the combination of inspectors and economic sanctions, along with US air patrols and security were sufficient to deter Saddam from developing and deploying WMD--and that is apparently what has occurred.

And yes, I know inspectors were out of Iraq for several years...that Saddam apparently did not use the time to re-establish his WMD programs is perhaps the most interesting development of all. :con2:
True enough, but since nobody knew that they no longer had WMD's it made no difference from a policy standpoint.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Nonsense. Sieges of cities tend to be massively unpleasant even in the modern era. Everyone is glad that it worked out as well as it did, but beforehand we had no reason to presume it would go well.

Excessive optimism is necessarily as much a mistake as excessive pessimism, but if we have to err, it's best to err on the side of caution.

Not to the point that your caution paralyzes you. That only encourages others to act against your best interests.



And isn't it international law that a country occupying another must pay to repair the damage it does? (Not that we care very much about international law...)

I don't think so. Otherwise we would have to pay back Japan and Germany for bombing the crap out of them. I think you are thinking of "war reparations."

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I would like to see evidence of that, please. The last available figures I can find on the net are from last September, and they show the armed services are meeting their reenlistment needs, and then some.

Just to be fair, in the future if you want to know how bad things are, look at how much reenlistment bonuses are. If they are going up, then things are getting tough for the armed services in the retention area.

Anyway, I can't find anything but predictions on the net that reenlistments will suffer as a result of Iraq.

I suggest that you start with this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=718&e=3&u=/ap/20040219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_military

Myers: Forces' Return From Iraq Unknown

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. military officer said Thursday he could not estimate with confidence how long American forces will have to stay in Iraq (news - web sites).

...

Pressed on the matter of how long U.S. forces might stay, Myers said, "There is not a range in my own mind."


"We're going to have to let events dictate" when the military can leave, he said.

His statement echoed a White House report presented to Congress this week. "It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of military operations or the scope and duration of the deployment of U.S. armed forces necessary for the full accomplishment of our goals," the report said.

...

Further, there were several news accounts that were posted in the thread that Kodiak started about how so many medals were being awarded that discuss problems with the Reserve Corps, the high attrition rate, and in today's Washington Post there is a story about the high suicide rate among the troops in Iraq.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Oh brother...

Are you serious?

We LIBERATED Kuwait from Iraqi occupation!

:teacher:

Yeah and we LIBERATED the Iraqis from despot Saddam. Why aint they that happy about it?

I just think we were swindled thats all. GW was looking to pick a fight and reasons for invasion turned out to be bogus. Thank god the repunican guard/army didnt put up as much a fight as thought. That worked out. but the rest is kinda a snafu.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy


Yeah and we LIBERATED the Iraqis from despot Saddam. Why aint they that happy about it?

I just think we were swindled thats all. GW was looking to pick a fight and reasons for invasion turned out to be bogus. Thank god the repunican guard/army didnt put up as much a fight as thought. That worked out. but the rest is kinda a snafu.

The vast majority of Iraqis ARE happy we deposed Saddam. The deaths are occuring because of Saddam/Baathist loyalists and foreign jihadists.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Oh brother...

Are you serious?

We LIBERATED Kuwait from Iraqi occupation!

:teacher:

And thereby re-installed the Emir of Kuwait with his palace that is equipped with gold plated bathroom fixtures, four wives (one of whom is a new virgin that he marries every Thursday and divorces before the next one is brought in) as the Monarch in Charge!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Crossbow


I suggest that you start with this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=718&e=3&u=/ap/20040219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_military

Myers: Forces' Return From Iraq Unknown

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. military officer said Thursday he could not estimate with confidence how long American forces will have to stay in Iraq (news - web sites).

...

Pressed on the matter of how long U.S. forces might stay, Myers said, "There is not a range in my own mind."


"We're going to have to let events dictate" when the military can leave, he said.

His statement echoed a White House report presented to Congress this week. "It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of military operations or the scope and duration of the deployment of U.S. armed forces necessary for the full accomplishment of our goals," the report said.

...

Further, there were several news accounts that were posted in the thread that Kodiak started about how so many medals were being awarded that discuss problems with the Reserve Corps, the high attrition rate, and in today's Washington Post there is a story about the high suicide rate among the troops in Iraq.

In the Slate article AUP quoted in his opening post, the claim was made "The Iraq deployment is probably the main reason the Guard and the Reserves are starting to experience some difficulty with recruiting and re-enlisting."

The yahoo article does nothing to satisfy this claim. Nor has anything else I have seen. Where are the numbers showing recruitment and reenlistment numbers for the Guard and Reserves are down?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Luke T.


In the Slate article AUP quoted in his opening post, the claim was made "The Iraq deployment is probably the main reason the Guard and the Reserves are starting to experience some difficulty with recruiting and re-enlisting."

The yahoo article does nothing to satisfy this claim. Nor has anything else I have seen. Where are the numbers showing recruitment and reenlistment numbers for the Guard and Reserves are down?

I have not seen any data regarding actual numerical data of recruitment and re-enlistment rates, but there is good bit of more general data all the same.

Here are some to get you started.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4243092/
Too many medals?

...

Col. Jack Jacobs, who received the nation’s highest medal, the Medal of Honor, during his Vietnam years, agrees with some of the criticism.

“It’s an age old problem with the Army and the Air Force, too,” he says. “The authority to approve most awards is at a very low level, and that has a tendency to increase their frequency. Plus, there’s always a political motive, or component, to giving out awards, to keep morale high and create a positive story for the home front.”

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37340-2004Feb12.html
Most Think Truth Was Stretched to Justify Iraq War

A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

...
But the president's declining ratings related to Iraq were the most striking. Approval of his handling of the situation there has fallen to 47 percent, down 8 percentage points in the past three weeks. About half of Americans -- 51 percent -- said they would prefer a report evaluating the accuracy and use of prewar intelligence before the election, while 35 percent favor what Bush has ordered: a broader study of the overall accuracy of U.S. intelligence-gathering operations that will report its findings after the election.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26974-2004Feb9.html
Army Policy To Reduce Soldier Relocations

...

The change is also meant to make military life more attractive to families by letting them set deeper roots in their communities, buy homes and keep children in the same school longer. The fast pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and their danger have caused concern that the Army could start losing troops in large numbers as spouses balk at the strain of repeated deployments there or elsewhere.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A42855-2003Apr26&notFound=true
Letter From Army Capt. James F. Adamouski
... You probably know more about what is going on than I do and I'm right in the middle of it. I guess it is not going quite as expeditiously as we originally thought, however I think we are making progress. ...

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/editorial/7775826.htm
Morale check in Iraq elicits different answers

The dean of military sociologists, Charles Moskos, toured Iraq recently listening to American soldiers, interviewing them and surveying their opinions and gripes. He found morale was good among regular soldiers and was markedly lower among reserve component soldiers.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52735-2004Feb18.html
Suicides in Iraq, Questions at Home

...

According to William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, who discussed the suicides in a briefing last month, that represents a rate of more than 13.5 per 100,000 troops, about 20 percent higher than the recent Army average of 10.5 to 11. The Pentagon plans to release the findings of a team sent to Iraq last fall to investigate the mental health of the troops, including suicides.

...

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The vast majority of Iraqis ARE happy we deposed Saddam. The deaths are occuring because of Saddam/Baathist loyalists and foreign jihadists.

Is that what the intelligence says? Well it must be true!

I just find it strange that if the Iraqi majority is with us, why dont they help us rid the country ofteh loyalists and jerkhads?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by SRW
So which is it they had no way of "knowing that It would go so well". Or they are Morons for not knowing that it would go so well. Read carefully, please: they are morons for not acknowledging that they had no way to know it would go as well as it did. Their failure to produce even the most rudimentary plan for a military advance on the city that didn't involve everyone dropping their weapons and throwing flowers caused major security problems and untold damage to the Iraqi infrastructure.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

They may be happy to have Saddam gone, but that doesn't mean they're happy to have us in charge.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Not to the point that your caution paralyzes you. That only encourages others to act against your best interests. Failing to secure weapons depots and moving on because you don't have enough troops to stand guard DOESN'T encourage others to act against our interests?

I don't think your side of the argument is anchored in reality any more, to be perfectly honest.

I don't think so. Otherwise we would have to pay back Japan and Germany for bombing the crap out of them. Gee, why did we rebuild Japan and Germany, again? I'm sure it'll come to me eventually...

:nope:

[SRW]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Read carefully, please: they are morons for not acknowledging that they had no way to know it would go as well as it did. Their failure to produce even the most rudimentary plan for a military advance on the city that didn't involve everyone dropping their weapons and throwing flowers caused major security problems and untold damage to the Iraqi infrastructure. [/B]

They had no way of knowing that there would not be a fight for Baghdad. The expatiation was that it was going to be a long drawn out bloody affair. The third was going to encircle the City and wait for the Fourth to arrive and attack. The major concern of the US commanders was not getting hoards of US troops killed.


By the way if the fighting went street to street house to house, things would have been much worse. Not only did they acknowledge that they were not aware it would turn out like it did they were thrilled.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by SRW
By the way if the fighting went street to street house to house, things would have been much worse. Not only did they acknowledge that they were not aware it would turn out like it did they were thrilled. You're not paying attention to what I said before, or what I just said.

We did not make plans to take the city slowly. We did not make plans to take the city quickly. The highest levels of our government expected that we would be welcomed into the area with open arms, and that the people of Iraq would be fully cooperative.

Lower-level military commanders were quite worried that the taking of Baghdad would become a drawn-out siege with house-to-house fighting. They were very pleased it didn't come to that. Of course. The people in charge hadn't expected any fighting at all, and they gave the military commanders very few troops. They also gave them mission objectives that did not involve locating and securing government documents or weapons caches.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Actually, this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4312686/) is what Bremer is saying.

From the web article:

"Agreeing with the United States, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Thursday that he doesn't think Iraqi legislative elections are possible by the June 30 handover of power set by the Bush administration."

"U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer said earlier Thursday in Baghdad that the formula for establishing a new Iraqi government could be changed but the date for the U.S.-led coalition to hand over power remains firm."

None of which seems to disagree with what I said. It appears that an administration goal is a long-term presence in the Middle East with significant capability. Remember the talk of moving military (bases?) from Saudi Arabia to Iraq? So, while the June 30th handover is set, it may be a paper handover with not much else changing. At least, until the Iraqis decide differently...

[SRW]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
You're not paying attention to what I said before, or what I just said.

We did not make plans to take the city slowly. We did not make plans to take the city quickly. The highest levels of our government expected that we would be welcomed into the area with open arms, and that the people of Iraq would be fully cooperative.

Lower-level military commanders were quite worried that the taking of Baghdad would become a drawn-out siege with house-to-house fighting. They were very pleased it didn't come to that. Of course. The people in charge hadn't expected any fighting at all, and they gave the military commanders very few troops. They also gave them mission objectives that did not involve locating and securing government documents or weapons caches.

I understand what you said I simply do not agree with it, the High level military command expected a fight in Baghdad. And that is what they planned for.

Where did you get your information that they did not expect any fighting?

They knew that there were 4 or 5 divisions of Republican guards surrounding Baghdad, and expected them to dig in and fight. What they did not expect were the hit and run attacks of the Fedihien<sp>. And that the Republican guard would dissolve so quickly. The plan was for the 4th ID to stage the final assault on Baghdad, however they were not even in Iraq when Baghdad fell.

Now if you are talking about some civilian leaders painting a rosy picture, well I didn't pay much attention to them after the shooting started. So you may be right there.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by SRW
I understand what you said I simply do not agree with it, the High level military command expected a fight in Baghdad. And that is what they planned for. Donald Rumsfeld did not expect a major fight, which is why he gave those commanders far fewer troops than they requested.

Where did you get your information that they did not expect any fighting? The soldiers? They expected it. Higher-ups in our government thought it would be a cakewalk.

Now if you are talking about some civilian leaders painting a rosy picture, well I didn't pay much attention to them after the shooting started. So you may be right there. I did pay a lot of attention to them, both before and after the shooting began, and they seemed to think everyone would just jump at the chance to turn the country over to us. The military leaders were complaining (indirectly, as it's not politic to openly criticize the Commander-in-Chief and his supporters) that they weren't being given enough troops, that they were being asked to move far too quickly, and that the civilian leaders in charge (in particular, Rumsfeld) were forcing decisions out of a desire to make an ideological point rather than strategic thinking.

Tons of documents were destroyed or lost (which could have been vital in determining whether there were any more WMDs, and if so, where), weapons depots were captured and then abandoned without searching them or even posting guard, vital infrastructure was looted because we didn't have enough people to take care of it...

It was a mess. It may have gone wonderfully in a short-term tactical sense (few deaths and injuries), but it was a strategic debacle. At least, that is definitely the impression I have gathered - I don't trust the information I can get from the mass media much now, whether it's supportive or critical of what happens.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Donald Rumsfeld did not expect a major fight, which is why he gave those commanders far fewer troops than they requested.

[/b] The soldiers? They expected it. Higher-ups in our government thought it would be a cakewalk.

I did pay a lot of attention to them, both before and after the shooting began, and they seemed to think everyone would just jump at the chance to turn the country over to us. The military leaders were complaining (indirectly, as it's not politic to openly criticize the Commander-in-Chief and his supporters) that they weren't being given enough troops, that they were being asked to move far too quickly, and that the civilian leaders in charge (in particular, Rumsfeld) were forcing decisions out of a desire to make an ideological point rather than strategic thinking.

Tons of documents were destroyed or lost (which could have been vital in determining whether there were any more WMDs, and if so, where), weapons depots were captured and then abandoned without searching them or even posting guard, vital infrastructure was looted because we didn't have enough people to take care of it...

It was a mess. It may have gone wonderfully in a short-term tactical sense (few deaths and injuries), but it was a strategic debacle. At least, that is definitely the impression I have gathered - I don't trust the information I can get from the mass media much now, whether it's supportive or critical of what happens. [/B]

Ok I thought you were talking about the Military leaders, not the civlian ones. If the war had gone the way the Military leaders feard it would have, the Third and Fourth would have been there to take Bagdad, and It would have been reduced to rubble but at least we would have had enough people there.

[Hutch]

Wrath, I have to go along with SRW on this one, even though I think he's skepti-woo on some other points. :D :p

The Generals would have expected a fight for Baghdad, no matter what the politicians were saying, and would have deployed their troops based on that knowledge. The sudden entry into Baghdad (and having read some of the military releases, the inital forays were more heavily engaged than some impressions that have been left, before the resistance collapsed).

And even with the mobility the US Army has today, it takes TIME to redeploy troops from combat positioning to occupation duty.

Your points on numbers are well-taken, but Military commanders are trained for decades to fight an enemy, not guard buildings..it takes time to adjust.

And unfortunately, the looters, be they deliberate or not in their looting, did not give us the time.


BTW SRW, saw your picture in the Community section. Those U-12 players? I've coached youth soccer 25 years, U-6 to U-19 and U-12 was always my favorite age to work with.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Hutch
Wrath, I have to go along with SRW on this one, even though I think he's skepti-woo on some other points. :D :p


BTW SRW, saw your picture in the Community section. Those U-12 players? I've coached youth soccer 25 years, U-6 to U-19 and U-12 was always my favorite age to work with.

Skepti-woo? Ok I'll keep that one. :)


Yes they are U-12 and this was my first year coaching at that level. I had more fun at U10, but this was the first year we went all boys in our League (yes we had one girl, but its a long story) and it is much harder to controll boys at this age than I expected.

[dsm]

Originally posted by dsm
None of which seems to disagree with what I said. It appears that an administration goal is a long-term presence in the Middle East with significant capability. Remember the talk of moving military (bases?) from Saudi Arabia to Iraq? So, while the June 30th handover is set, it may be a paper handover with not much else changing. At least, until the Iraqis decide differently...

Hmmm, right on queue -- up pops this article (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&u=/nm/20040219/ts_nm/iraq_usa_forces_dc&printer=1)...

:p

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Hutch
The Generals would have expected a fight for Baghdad, no matter what the politicians were saying, and would have deployed their troops based on that knowledge. The sudden entry into Baghdad (and having read some of the military releases, the inital forays were more heavily engaged than some impressions that have been left, before the resistance collapsed).

And even with the mobility the US Army has today, it takes TIME to redeploy troops from combat positioning to occupation duty. Agreed, agreed, and agreed. But before the city was actually taken, there was a great deal of discussion about how few soldiers were actually being involved. If there had been more soldiers available, they might have at least been able to post a guard over important sites.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy


Is that what the intelligence says? Well it must be true!

I just find it strange that if the Iraqi majority is with us, why dont they help us rid the country ofteh loyalists and jerkhads?

Who do you think those Iraqi policemen are?

Why are the Iraqi casualty numbers so high for attacks on coalition positions?

All search-and-seizure missions now being executed in Iraq are joint coalition/Iraqi operations. Specifically either British/Iraqi or US/Iraqi military units made up of coalition special forces and former Iraqi military officers and/or republican guard.

[a_unique_person]

I don't doubt that a lot of Iraqi's want something better than what they had, or that many have families to feed.

Look at Iran, the conservatives are only have power because they are abusing the system to keep the moderates out of power. (Hmm, rings a bell).

That is not the point. The point is that the place is a shambles, and the ineptitude of the US in it is palpable. It is patently obvious to all, after Dubyas speech on the aircraft carrier, that they thought that all they had to do was win the conventional war to finish the deal. Vietnam should have taught them that superior firepower alone is not enough.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
...the place is a shambles, and the ineptitude of the US in it is palpable...

"Palpable", huh?...excellent!

Evidence please...



Originally posted by a_unique_person
...It is patently obvious to all...

Again...excellent!

Evidence please...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


And thereby re-installed the Emir of Kuwait with his palace that is equipped with gold plated bathroom fixtures, four wives (one of whom is a new virgin that he marries every Thursday and divorces before the next one is brought in) as the Monarch in Charge!

Shame on you! By what right do you judge the the culture of the Kuwaiti people!? Smug in your Eurocentric bias! For shame! Don't you know that all cultures are equal and cannot be judged by the standards of another!? You BIGOT! :D

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I don't doubt that a lot of Iraqi's want something better than what they had, or that many have families to feed.

Well the way that jails have emptied of political prisoners, the sanctions have been lifted, the schools have been refurbished, the "disappeared dead" have been unearthed, satellite antennas sprout from many roofs,...and cell phones are popping up everywhere, I'd say that things have gotten better. Haven't you noticed how the suicide bombers have begun attacking Iraqi police recruitment centers? Why do you think that is? Obviously it's because they fear them. Isn't it interesting to you that there are a limited number of shadowy attackers,...and yet hundreds of recuits line up for hours in vulnerable places for a chance to join the police force?

Do you only see the negative AUP? Is that all you are aware of? Do you really think the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam, and his heirs? A Hussein dynasty....under never ending international sanctions to contain and concentrate their evil within Iraqi borders? Is that a place you would deign to live?


Look at Iran, the conservatives are only have power because they are abusing the system to keep the moderates out of power. (Hmm, rings a bell).

Why don't you just come on out and say what you mean?


That is not the point. The point is that the place is a shambles, and the ineptitude of the US in it is palpable. It is patently obvious to all, after Dubyas speech on the aircraft carrier, that they thought that all they had to do was win the conventional war to finish the deal. Vietnam should have taught them that superior firepower alone is not enough.

How so? You talk alot of crap, but you never give evidence. So explain the "palpable ineptitude". What would you have done? Besides nothing, that is.

-z

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Who do you think those Iraqi policemen are?

Why are the Iraqi casualty numbers so high for attacks on coalition positions?

All search-and-seizure missions now being executed in Iraq are joint coalition/Iraqi operations. Specifically either British/Iraqi or US/Iraqi military units made up of coalition special forces and former Iraqi military officers and/or republican guard.

Thats just it. Iraqis are getting killed! So you'd think there'd be more public out cry to catch these "handful" of dissidents and outsiders. That iraqi's would hunt them down like it was an amber alert.

Unless...........there are more than just a handful. And maybe theres alot more Iraqi's sympathizing with them.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy


Thats just it. Iraqis are getting killed! So you'd think there'd be more public out cry to catch these "handful" of dissidents and outsiders. That iraqi's would hunt them down like it was an amber alert.

Unless...........there are more than just a handful. And maybe theres alot more Iraqi's sympathizing with them.

Amber alert?... :rolleyes: Iraq is not the United States with it's local news stations in every town, 24-hour national news broadcasts, and a TV in every home...

It is an uncertain time, and the Iraqi populace is scared of two things:

#1 Saddam/Baathist loyalists.

#2 That we will leave Iraq and leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of #1.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Is that a place you would deign to live?

WARNING!!! Beware of 'zilla when he starts using words like "deign"!! :eek:




:D

[Tmy]

Whered ya get that from? FoxNews???? Yeah im sure they have the pulse of the Iraqi people. Insert rolleyes here.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whered ya get that from? FoxNews???? Yeah im sure they have the pulse of the Iraqi people. Insert rolleyes here.

If you're looking for something to "insert", I might have a boot available for ya! :p ;)

My two points are common knowledge and hardly controversial.

Here (http://www.mail-archive.com/sam11@erols.com/msg00117.html) , here (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2003/n07292003_200307293.html) , and here (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2215667) are just some of the articles expressing the same two points I did in my previous post above.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


If you're looking for something to "insert", I might have a boot available for ya! :p ;)

My two points are common knowledge and hardly controversial.

Here (http://www.mail-archive.com/sam11@erols.com/msg00117.html) , here (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2003/n07292003_200307293.html) , and here (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2215667) are just some of the articles expressing the same two points I did in my previous post above.

Great. Links to the armed forces site and a storyt based on statements of a US General. Of cousre they're gonna tow the party line. I wonder what an Al Jezzer story would say?

I dont presume to know what the Iraqis want. But looking at the situtaion I find it hard to swallow that they are all with us and they are jsut afraid of the boogyman. We caught Saddam and killed his brats. AT this point they should be with us.

I think our govt is downplaying the resitance. Its a PR move.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont presume to know what the Iraqis want. But looking at the situtaion I find it hard to swallow that they are all with us and they are jsut afraid of the boogyman. We caught Saddam and killed his brats. AT this point they should be with us.I think our govt is downplaying the resitance. Its a PR move.


Alot of Iraqi resistance is due to the "Stockholm syndrome", others are driven by religeous or political beliefs, other are "foreigners" coming to blow up Americans.....but I am sure a huge portion of Iraqis are more than happy to see the tail end of Saddam, Qusay and Uday.

People fear change, it is only natural to resist change.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy


Great. Links to the armed forces site and a storyt based on statements of a US General. Of cousre they're gonna tow the party line. I wonder what an Al Jezzer story would say?

I dont presume to know what the Iraqis want. But looking at the situtaion I find it hard to swallow that they are all with us and they are jsut afraid of the boogyman. We caught Saddam and killed his brats. AT this point they should be with us.

I think our govt is downplaying the resitance. Its a PR move.

Be skeptical of the source, but argue the content.

Again, my points are not controversial. Do a google search and you will find the sources I linked as well as scores of others. TV interviews on national news broadcasts have said the same.

Are you arguing that Saddam/Baathist loyalists are as nonexistent as the boogyman?!? :eek:

I think they should be with us too. That's why I supported us going there in the first place. Maybe you should inform the Bush administration of you desire to go to Iraq and rally the citizens to our cause. You'd have my suppport. As a matter of fact, if you get the go-ahead, I'd even be willing to gather up a few of my colleagues from my active duty days and go with you as protection.

[Kodiak]

SHIITE LEADER APPROVES ELECTIONS BY YEAR'S END (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4312686/)