Skip navigation

Victory!

or Register to post new content in the forum

313 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Dec 14, 2006 5:05 am

[quote=Pandale]

Not very constructive dude. 

Most people have lost all perspective when it comes to this conflict.  It is a blip on the radar relative to other real wars.  Single battles have taken far greater casualties  It's a police action, nothing more.  

At this point, leaving would create far worse problems than staying.  This Iraq study group has provided a disservice.  No real workable solutions. 

I personally favor McCain's solution, more troops on the ground.  We can't walk away from this.  It has to be won.

[/quote]

I agree 100%
Dec 14, 2006 3:44 pm

[quote=Sailor25]We went there to get the WMDs. There weren't any. Victory!!
We went there to depose Saddam. We did it. Victory!!
We went there to establish a democracy. We did it. Victory!!

Now, let's get the hell outta there!
[/quote]

Actually we have found WMDs http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005207.php

Lots of them.

The problem is that there isn't a clear definition of what a WMD is.  A big honking bomb delivered by missiles?  or is it a teeny tiny vial of smallpox or anthrax germs.  Given that Iraq is the size of California, I  can assure you that if I wanted to hide WMDs in the Trinity Alps, you would never find them.  The other problem is that the media who leans so far left they can see up their own butts have been hiding, distorting and just plain fabricating news to suit their agenda of making the Bush administration look bad and damn the consequences.

Sadaam was supporting and financing terrorism not just against his own people.  No one in the administration EVER said that Sadaam was behind the 9/11 attacks.  However, it is undisputed that he was supporting terrorism, was ramping up his nuclear capabilities and was likely to give more support in the form of nuclear bomb materials and chemical weapons.   With the help of the UN he was stealing billions from the food for oil program and using it to the above ends.

You can tuck your tail and run.  Show the world that we are cowards without any moral principles.  If we do this we might as well just resign ourselves to future and terrible attacks on our own country.  If we throw the Iraqi people and the rest of the middle east to the wolves, who would ever trust us again.  Who would ever want to be our friends. 

People who have no memory of or who want to deny our culpability in the disaster that we created by leaving a sucking vacuum in South East Asia are fully prepared to abandon millions of people in the Middle East to the same fate.   Waaaah..... its too hard... waaaah people are dying......waaaah I don't want to think about it......waaaaah  I'm mildy inconvenienced.........waaaah.

Life is hard.  War is hard. People die.  A lot of people die.  Many more will die before we either win and topple the radical Islamist who want to kill us all and destroy us, or before we lose everything we have created in the last 4000 years in our Western Civilization.  

If you think you are inconvenienced now by this itty bitty war, wait until we are all under Shaira Law.   

Dec 14, 2006 8:08 pm

Bab-good words.  I have never advocated cut and run, in spite of what the peanut gallery seems to believe.  We must not cut and run, period. 

I just think that American's had no understanding of the nature of the realities of this culture.  The war was poorly justified (why not Iran and other state sponsors of terror for example?) and poorly executed, time for a new leader/strategy...Bush is obviously not fit for the presidency, he lookes like a scared and confused puppy everytime I see him on TV; stuttering, inarticulate, repetitive, moot etc... I really feel bad for him.

There was shallow thinking going on at the top...one of the most important rules in war is to KNOW YOUR ENEMY.  We obviously were clueless.

Dec 14, 2006 8:10 pm

My perspective is, working in this industry can make you (more) conservative. How the world takes for granted a stable economy.

When the world is rocked by panic-induced recession, more little children in developing countries go to be hungry.

This has been a good year, thank God.

Dec 14, 2006 8:21 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude]

I can only sit back in great satisfaction and watch the unraveling of events supporting the position I took long ago.  [/quote]

Who says there aren't people hoping for a US defeat so they can say "I told you so"?

Who says there aren't people cheered by every US setback in Iraq?

[/quote]

MikeB,

Your lack of understanding of my position makes your comments concerning my position worthless....keep on wasting your time and 'serving' those clients of yours, it's of no consequence to me.

It makes me angry everytime we have a setback, not happy.  Everytime there is evidence of incompetence (not just the natural chaos of war) and piss poor planning in addition to my belief that Iraq is a DISTRACTION from the real problem of Al Queada and therefore is increasing our vulnerability to attack, since it is providing the 'terrorists' with so much fuel and tarnishing our reputation, I get angry....Even China leveraged our weak position concerning the war at the economic summit. 

My pleasure is not from the failure in Iraq.  Just the validation of the position I took long ago...that Iraq was a mistake and distraction and Bush is a tool/fool (you pick).  McCain's ideas are interesting and I'd like to see what his ideas for a 'broader' strategy are.

Dec 14, 2006 8:33 pm

[quote=dude] It makes me angry everytime we have a setback....[/quote]

No doubt that anger is why you chose the words "great satisfaction"....

[quote=dude] My pleasure is not from the failure in Iraq.  Just the validation of the position I took long ago...that Iraq was a mistake and distraction and Bush is a tool/fool (you pick).  [/quote]

"Pleasure"......

[quote=dude]

McCain's ideas are interesting and I'd like to see what his ideas for a 'broader' strategy are.

[/quote]

No doubt when Bush sends in more troops, as McCain suggests, the "tool/fool" line will surface again soon in another form.

BTW, "war we cannot win"... "war on the muslim world"... where does that sort of thing come from?

Dec 14, 2006 8:34 pm

[quote=dude]

What you resist persists.  This is a wisdom you obviously have no understanding of; back to your mindless militarism George. 

You will never beat the muslim world into submission, they are exponentially poorer with much less to loose than you could even imagine.  They've got more fight in them than we ever will have because it is born out of a desperation that is not understood in this country.  This is a war which can't be 'won'

[/quote]
Dec 14, 2006 10:32 pm

[quote=dude]

Bab-good words.  I have never advocated cut and run, in spite of what the peanut gallery seems to believe.  We must not cut and run, period. 

I just think that American's had no understanding of the nature of the realities of this culture.  The war was poorly justified (why not Iran and other state sponsors of terror for example?) and poorly executed, time for a new leader/strategy...Bush is obviously not fit for the presidency, he lookes like a scared and confused puppy everytime I see him on TV; stuttering, inarticulate, repetitive, moot etc... I really feel bad for him.

There was shallow thinking going on at the top...one of the most important rules in war is to KNOW YOUR ENEMY.  We obviously were clueless.

[/quote]

I agree we have no idea of the enemy that we are dealing with.  And this is a huge problem.  We would like to assume that they are people who think like we do, unfortunately we might as well be dealing with people from another planet.  They do not hold the same values on life, liberty, personal respect, personal freedom and most importantly religious freedom.  We cannot... must not...negotiate with people who view that strategy with disdain.  It only makes us look more weak and cowardlythan we have already proven ourselves to be in their eyes.  We don't speak the same language in more ways than one.   

I agree, the war on terror should be expanded to every other country that also supports terrorism.  Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and any one else.  However, had Bush attempted to go that route the caterwauling from the left would be even more shrill than it is now, and I dare you to deny that.

I agree it was poorly executed.  That was because the war has been run by politicians and in the press instead of letting the soldiers, our professional warriors, do their job. We didn't send enough troops to begin with and we have been trying to run kinder gentler politically correct war. It's an ugly messy repugnant job.  We can't win a war if we aren't willing to do the ugly things and whine about every single soldier that is wounded.  It is sad and I feel for each one wounded and for the families of those who have died. 

BUT we need to realize that we are crying alligator tears while we are dealing with an enemy who has no compunction about using children and women as meat shields and finds it acceptable to blow up innocent civilians, to saw the heads off of living reporters, draw and quarter teachers who teach to women, stone to death or crush people under stones because they have committed personal sins, drills holes in peoples bodies and eyeballs for fun......need I go on?    

Until we get the guts to face the reality that we are in a serious war that is a fight of civilizations.  If we lose, we will be dooming generations of our descendants to unspeakable lives and turning back the clock of civilization by thousands of years.  This has NOTHING to do with George Bush or with the political parties in our country.  The left and you too, Dude, are getting high centered on Bush. That is just eyewash and a distraction.  

Bush is going to be gone in a few years, but the Islamofascists are going to be around for decades and perhaps for centuries if we don't get serious and quit the effing partisan bickering. We need to come up with a plan to save all of our collective a$$es instead of jockeying for political points, posturing and only caring about getting this or that political party into power.  There is soon going to be no point to that game if we don't pull together.

Dec 14, 2006 11:37 pm

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=dude] It makes me angry everytime we have a setback....[/quote]

No doubt that anger is why you chose the words "great satisfaction"....

[quote=dude] My pleasure is not from the failure in Iraq.  Just the validation of the position I took long ago...that Iraq was a mistake and distraction and Bush is a tool/fool (you pick).  [/quote]

"Pleasure"......

[quote=dude]

McCain's ideas are interesting and I'd like to see what his ideas for a 'broader' strategy are.

[/quote]

No doubt when Bush sends in more troops, as McCain suggests, the "tool/fool" line will surface again soon in another form.

BTW, "war we cannot win"... "war on the muslim world"... where does that sort of thing come from?[/quote]

The pleasure and satisfaction comes from being correct in my assesment of the state of this war (which is confirmed by the report)which in earlier debates you denied as 'left wing' BS.  You denied that a civil war was breaking out (now the report is confirming this as the case) in addition to a whole slew of other crap...which I don't frankly have the time to dig out of the archives to use against you.

I'm sure you'll find the time to pull them out though.

It also gives me pleasure that this report is coming from Baker which is of a 'conservative' paradigm and it is supporting all of those points you classified as 'left wing' etc....are you going to call Baker a liberal Michael Moore lover?  You can't....therefore I take pleasure in the fact that there's nowhere for you to go now that your ammunition is gone ('liberal' name calling etc...).

My pleasure has nothing to do with the awful state of this war, it has to do with your ammo being taken from you (and others who adhere so strongly to the party 'line') so now you'll have to engage with ideas instead of petty partisan posturing and misplaced accusations of me being a left wing sympathizer (which I am definitely not). 

I'll point out that in other issues you have brought good ideas that have influenced my opinions and I respect when you stand on your intellectual capital as opposed to the predictable 'smearing'.

Dec 14, 2006 11:42 pm

[quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Sailor25]We went there to get the WMDs. There weren't any. Victory!!
We went there to depose Saddam. We did it. Victory!!
We went there to establish a democracy. We did it. Victory!!

Now, let's get the hell outta there!
[/quote]

Actually we have found WMDs http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005207.php

Lots of them.

The problem is that there isn't a clear definition of what a WMD is.  A big honking bomb delivered by missiles?  or is it a teeny tiny vial of smallpox or anthrax germs.  Given that Iraq is the size of California, I  can assure you that if I wanted to hide WMDs in the Trinity Alps, you would never find them.  The other problem is that the media who leans so far left they can see up their own butts have been hiding, distorting and just plain fabricating news to suit their agenda of making the Bush administration look bad and damn the consequences.

[/quote]

Babs....read the article....they haven't found WMD, just chemicals which apparently came in after the fall of Baghdad.  No disrespect but this link doesn't really establish anything.  I don't completely agree with all your positions, but appreciate and respect your approach.  I do think you have some good ideas though.

Dec 15, 2006 12:00 am

Dude as I contemplate some of your criticisms of Bush I think they are valid.  Others I disagree with.

I also agree with Babs that this whole damn thing has been run by politicians and we didn’t commit enough resources to engage in ‘nation-building’ from the beginning, nor have we been willing to do what it takes to crush the insurgents…the supporters of Hussein.  So now here we are.

I also agree with and like Bab’s analogy that the left is “high-centered” on Bush. 

Dec 15, 2006 1:35 am

[quote=joedabrkr]Dude as I contemplate some of your criticisms of Bush I think they are valid.  Others I disagree with.

I also agree with Babs that this whole damn thing has been run by politicians and we didn't commit enough resources to engage in 'nation-building' from the beginning, nor have we been willing to do what it takes to crush the insurgents...the supporters of Hussein.  So now here we are.

I also agree with and like Bab's analogy that the left is "high-centered" on Bush. 
[/quote]

I agree with babs on the 'high centered' position of the left as well.

Your post brings up the issue of 'nation building'....of which is a major issue for me and very critical to my opinion of the war.

When Bush first ran for the White House, he ran on a platform that expressed disdain for 'nation building' and George was very clear that he didn't want to go down that path.  This was a major reason that my wife and I voted for him over Al Whore.  I am a strong believer in Libertarian values and have a live and let live ideology (which has served me well btw)....nation building and all that comes with it is not where I'd like my tax resources to be directed, we have enough problems in our country as it is.

911 changed things and I completely understand the need to respond in a comprehensive way (which includes a judicious application of violence in the right places as well a some nation building).  In the case of Afghanistan, which was a clear 'safe haven' for the enemy, I am convinced that we were justified and pertinent in executing 'regime change' and subsequent nation building efforts. 

Afghanistan does not have the influence or power center that Iraq has and so is/was less likely to engage our country in a prolonged and INTENSELY controversial action like Iraq.  The implications and complexity of Iraq, it's historical roots and resources raises the stakes to a much much higher level.

If I were to compare it to investing I'd say that Afghanistan had a much better risk to reward ratio...although Iraq offered/offers the potential for a much greater prize, I don't believe it was/is within the aggregate risk tolerence of the American public to see it through and dedicate the resources necessary to be successful.  Add to that the other issues like really bad planning, tenous justification and lack of a comprehensive (to include robust diplomatic efforts in the Middle East and forging opportunities for the Muslim community to have their own victory in this exchange) strategy, I am very disappointed to say the least.

Right now our position and approach has come off as obstinant, arrogant, narrow and one sided.  We have made success more difficult by alienating those who could be allies in creating a win/win situation.  If we are to wage a 'cultural' war like Babbling Looney suggests (thats my take anyway) then we must understand the enemy.  I personally don't think waging a cultural war is wise or would solve anything....this is the war that I say we can't really win.

Dec 15, 2006 1:56 am

It’s not time for more ‘boots on the ground’…it’s time for more specialists

on the ground. Time for CIA, ONI, and Special Forces.



The problem is that it’s time for the Iraqis to take control of their country.

The above mentioned services have experts whose mission is to train

indigenous people in the arts of counter-insurgency, client protection,

espionage, counter-espionage and other of the gray and black arts. It’s time

for the local cops to take over the neighborhoods. The people are glad, I

think, to be rid of Saddam, but the gratitude fades and we are now viewed as

occupiers instead of liberators. More troops will simply reinforce that belief.

Dec 15, 2006 3:09 pm

If a Shiite soldier has more loyalty to his tribe, his sect, or his faith than he does to his government then that government has no chance. The one U.S. Congressman who advocates this viewpoint has it exactly right.

This congressman also advocates finding the best 75000, and most loyal to the government, troops, putting them in an area that is securable and see how they do. His take: The government won't be seen as anything more than a U.S. puppet government until it can stand on its own two feet. That means that if the Iraqies want it they have to fight for it. We would pull back to an advisory roll. Failing that, it's time to leave.

Iran- interesting problem. Anyone think Iran would have nukes if Saddam was still around? Funny how things go when the balance of power is upset. One answer would be to subject Iran to a gasoline embargo. They import about 40% of their gas, so that would hurt. It's worth a try before invading them or bombing them. Of course I realize how outlandish non military options sound in this day and age.

In other off topic news the Georgia BOE has decided to let Harry Potter books stay on the shelves of Georgia schools. Good for them. The parent mounting the fight promises an appeal and a legal fight. I guess she believes she knows what is best for everyone.

Dec 15, 2006 3:59 pm

[quote=BondGuy]His take: The government won't be seen as anything more than a <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />U.S. puppet government until it can stand on its own two feet. That means that if the Iraqies want it they have to fight for it. We would pull back to an advisory roll. Failing that, it's time to leave. [/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Critics of that approach, like Barry McCafferty point out that you'd be leaving US advisors in an extremely dangerous position, scattered two here, two there, across the entire country. His take: US troops have to train Iraqis AND do  security work while the Iraqi army gets its feet on the ground OR Iraqi troops will never "fight for it" if it appears the US will pull out and leave them like we did the Vietnamese boat people.

BTW, the Iraqis, including their police and army in their current state are already dying in much larger numbers than US troops.

[quote=BondGuy]Iran- interesting problem. Anyone think Iran would have nukes if Saddam was still around? [/quote]

Of course. Iranian pursuit of nukes began long before Saddam was taken down and probably started as a result of concern in Iran that Saddam was ahead of them in that game.

[quote=BondGuy] One answer would be to subject Iran to a gasoline embargo. They import about 40% of their gas, so that would hurt. It's worth a try before invading them or bombing them. Of course I realize how outlandish non military options sound in this day and age. [/quote]

Enforcing a gas embargo would be even harder than enforcing sanctions as regimes friendly to Iran and on their doorstep would be happy to provide them with refinery capacity. BTW, since everyone is pursuing non-military options they don’t sound outlandish at all.

IMO the UN will come to some watered down sanctions agreement, the Iranians will ignore it and build nukes, the world will ignore it and the warnings about the dangers of that holocaust denying nutcase having nukes. The only thing that might stop it all is Israel doing what the rest of the world lacks (as they did to Iraq in 1980s) the courage to do, and that’s take out the facilities.

Dec 15, 2006 4:20 pm

"Anyone think Iran would have nukes if Saddam was still around?"

You think it was Saddam's presence that held Iran's nuqular ambitions back?

I think it is Bush's presence that pushed the program forward, so, I guess you are correct in a way.

As far as ANY plan for Iraq, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people with any opinion AT ALL in the entire world will say that the plan must start with Bush NOT being part of it.

They have been MASSIVELY incompetent so far. Why would any rational person think that they are going to be right "next time"?

If you think they'll get it right this time, please tell me why.

Mr. A 

Dec 15, 2006 4:54 pm

[quote=mranonymous2u]

As far as ANY plan for Iraq, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people with any opinion AT ALL in the entire world will say that the plan must start with Bush NOT being part of it.[/quote]

And how would "the majority of the people with any opinion AT ALL in the entire world" go about making that so?

Dec 15, 2006 5:33 pm

As far as ANY plan for Iraq, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people with any opinion AT ALL in the entire world will say that the plan must start with Bush NOT being part of it.

Who gives a flying f$#$ what the majority of the people in the world think about how we run the United States foreign policy? They don't have our best interests at heart and some are actively rooting for us to fail.  They don't count. These decisions are up to the people who count......the voters and their elected representatives.    

If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided we don't like how you are running things in your home and that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?  Now, if she agrees......then that is another thing

Dec 15, 2006 6:34 pm

[quote=babbling looney]If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided...that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?[/quote]

I thought 'A' stood for anonymous...

Dec 15, 2006 7:33 pm

"Who gives a flying f$#$ what the majority of the people in the world think " <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Yeah! I think I'm right and so do all my friends so who cares that billions of people are telling me I'm wrong. What do they know?

"If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided we don't like how you are running things in your home and that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?"

Pretty much what you described is what is known as a LAW. There are laws against certain behaviors which the community has decided are assholian, thus, they forbid it, whether your wife likes it or not.

"Our best interests" We have long since ceded that moral construct. We gave away our right to care only about OUR best interests in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq. Our responsibility now is to make sure that the colossal [email protected]* that we caused doesn't wind up with the murdering of millions of Iraqi's in the power void that we would leave there.