PDA

View Full Version : "We will succeed in Iraq, just like we did in Afghanistan," Cheney said.



doogiecb
24-06-2005, 17:23
Vice President Dick Cheney is defending his recent comment that Iraq's insurgency is in its "last throes." Cheney told CNN that progress is being made in setting up a new Iraqi government. "We will succeed in Iraq, just like we did in Afghanistan," Cheney said.


Uh, is it me or does he not understand that Afghanistan still is unstable outside the capital, opium is being mass produced & shipped out, the taliban and al queda still operates in Afghanistan, and possibly osama bin laden is hidding in Afghanistan almost 4 years after 911?

Not to bash, but it seems like there is a full understanding missing here?

Daria
24-06-2005, 20:41
"We will succeed in Iraq, just like we did in Afghanistan," Cheney said.




He said this phrase seriously, but there is a lot of irony in it. The US didn't succeed both in Afganistan and in Iraq. To get facts to support this statemant you should just turn on TV. The drugs are still produced in Afganistan, restaurants are still exploding in Iraq, innocent people are still dying in both places. And maybe even more commoners die after the invasion than did before it. Maybe The USA shouldn't have invaded Iraq? Of course, we can't change the past, but maybe it is worth leaving the country on its own? As was with Vietnam...... :(

trebor
24-06-2005, 21:23
Vice President Dick Cheney is defending his recent comment that Iraq's insurgency is in its "last throes." Cheney told CNN that progress is being made in setting up a new Iraqi government. "We will succeed in Iraq, just like we did in Afghanistan," Cheney said.


Uh, is it me or does he not understand that Afghanistan still is unstable outside the capital, opium is being mass produced & shipped out, the taliban and al queda still operates in Afghanistan, and possibly osama bin laden is hidding in Afghanistan almost 4 years after 911?

Not to bash, but it seems like there is a full understanding missing here?

I think even a hamster, if you explained slowly and carefully, would understand that Afghanistan is a FAR better place now than before millitary intervention.
If she was a female hamster she might even give you a kiss! :)

doogiecb
25-06-2005, 05:22
I think even a hamster, if you explained slowly and carefully, would understand that Afghanistan is a FAR better place now than before millitary intervention.
If she was a female hamster she might even give you a kiss! :)

Afghanistan is a better place today than it was under the Taliban but there is alot of room for improvement and the reasons for invading Afghanistan (in my opinion were vaild). However, those same reasons did not apply to Iraq ..... ignoring the reasons for invading Iraq, I just think we will be under achieving it Iraq just turns out to have the same level of Afghanistan.

It relates to the Bush "Mission Accomplished" sign about Iraq prematurely used in a photo op a couple years back.

lol ....... however for a kiss from a hamster, hhhhhmmmmmm maybe I could be swayed to change my opinion :rolleyes:

doogiecb
25-06-2005, 05:27
He said this phrase seriously, but there is a lot of irony in it. The US didn't succeed both in Afganistan and in Iraq. To get facts to support this statemant you should just turn on TV. The drugs are still produced in Afganistan, restaurants are still exploding in Iraq, innocent people are still dying in both places. And maybe even more commoners die after the invasion than did before it. Maybe The USA shouldn't have invaded Iraq? Of course, we can't change the past, but maybe it is worth leaving the country on its own? As was with Vietnam...... :(


Disagreed with the reasons for going to war in Iraq before we ever did, but it is now such a mess I think the USA has to stick it out for a while to make sure the Iraq government can stand operate effectively ..... If you look at Vietnam today the country is doing pretty well .... maybe Cheney should have said he wants Iraq to be as successful as Vietnam ...lol. :)

ghost 6-3
25-06-2005, 11:48
Of course you could compare Vietnam to South Korea.

Crazyeelboy
25-06-2005, 13:29
That could be an interesting comparison. What did you have in mind?

yankee@moscow
25-06-2005, 15:51
It's interesting to me how so many people criticize the present policies in Iraq, but no one ever gives a VIABLE alternative to them. All I ever hear is, "Get out!" That would be a freaking disaster! Any suggestions that may actually succeed in Iraq besides the present policies?

doogiecb
25-06-2005, 16:27
It's interesting to me how so many people criticize the present policies in Iraq, but no one ever gives a VIABLE alternative to them. All I ever hear is, "Get out!" That would be a freaking disaster! Any suggestions that may actually succeed in Iraq besides the present policies?

I agree getting out now would be the worse thing to do, but remember Colin Powell gave the warning before hand that was ignored by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc. that "Iraq is like a pottery shop, we need to remember that if we break it we must pay for it."

At the time I did not think the benefits of invading would exceed the costs ..... I still think this way.

Out of curiosity, if Bush had not been so arrogant and non-cooperative with other nations before the war don't you think that a truely multinational force would be there ..... if USA had other countries there would Iraq be farther along?

Just a few things to consider :bookworm:

yankee@moscow
25-06-2005, 16:53
I agree getting out now would be the worse thing to do, but remember Colin Powell gave the warning before hand that was ignored by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc. that "Iraq is like a pottery shop, we need to remember that if we break it we must pay for it."

At the time I did not think the benefits of invading would exceed the costs ..... I still think this way.

Out of curiosity, if Bush had not been so arrogant and non-cooperative with other nations before the war don't you think that a truely multinational force would be there ..... if USA had other countries there would Iraq be farther along?

Just a few things to consider :bookworm:

There are many "what ifs" that we can't go back and change. I'd rather figure out what to do next. Not that what I think really matters, but it would be nice to get this thing right from now until the US does pull out and even after that. Personally, I think that they are seriously considering doing something in Syria. I don't know what, but something more than they are doing now. We'll see.

doogiecb
25-06-2005, 16:59
Personally, I think that they are seriously considering doing something in Syria. I don't know what, but something more than they are doing now. We'll see.[/QUOTE]

If they could somehow get some international additional troops ... but the current administration can't pull that off.

Your right on Syria, but I think Iran is more of a problem .... however the USA does not have the military resources to invade Iran and Iraq, but Syria is small enough they could pull that off and.....like Iraq distract the american public from the fact that Iran & North Korea are more of a direct threat to the US instead ..... just my opinion.

lol....do you think that Bush can somehow link Syria to 911?

yankee@moscow
25-06-2005, 17:16
From the evidence that I've seen, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia have more guilt for 9/11 than any other countries in the region. Bin Laden had friends in every part of the mid-east back then though. I'd say if you wanted to, you could find terrorists somehow related to 9/11 in almost every country in the middle east. I don't think the US will directly invade Syria or Iran, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the CIA drastically increase operations in both countries.

TQ
25-06-2005, 17:40
Killing for peace is like f****** for virginity :suspect:

yankee@moscow
25-06-2005, 18:11
Killing for peace is like f****** for virginity :suspect:

Real good solution! Anything constructive you'd like to add or do you just want to criticize what's going on? It's easy to sit at your computer and make peacenick remarks. What takes a brain is saying what the USA should be doing instead of what they are doing. Maybe a little substance with your hype?

trebor
25-06-2005, 19:30
Vice President Dick Cheney is defending his recent comment that Iraq's insurgency is in its "last throes." Cheney told CNN that progress is being made in setting up a new Iraqi government. "We will succeed in Iraq, just like we did in Afghanistan," Cheney said.


Uh, is it me or does he not understand that Afghanistan still is unstable outside the capital, opium is being mass produced & shipped out, the taliban and al queda still operates in Afghanistan, and possibly osama bin laden is hidding in Afghanistan almost 4 years after 911?

Not to bash, but it seems like there is a full understanding missing here?

The Taliban are gone. Young girls can now go back to school and get an education. Women can work and are not openly beaten in the streets with sticks.
People can watch television and listen to the radio once more.
The terrorist training camps are gone. Al Quaida are not being supported by the Afghan state.
If you knew anything about the geography of the country you would know it is very easy for pockets of resistance to remain.
You would also know if you have read any history that Afghanistan is probably un-governable.
They have been growing and using opium in Afghanistan long before Timothy Leary told America to "turn on, tune in, drop out" In fact, long before America was even born. Why should they stop now?
Considering all these things i think its quite reasonable for certain people to claim the millitary intervention there had been a success.
Oh yeah and before i forget. Do you realy think it would be a good idea to capture Bin Laden?
Then what will they do with him?

TQ
25-06-2005, 20:04
Real good solution! Anything constructive you'd

Ok i will add , although i really think i was clear with my comment :) . Somehow the US officials (I'd never blame the whole nation) always find a decent reason for sending regulars to any country where they have their obvious interests in using natural resources, controlling major industries etc...the other side of the coin..yes, they definitely seed some civilazation there by building hospitals, more people get an education and so on, but has it anything to do with the real humanity? I think not really. It's just something to justify being there in the eye of the rest of the world. So i think the US shouldnt have started the war neither in Iraq nor anywhere else. Sept , 11 - yes a tragedy that will never be forgotten or forgiven, and even worse that 's been used as a reason of killing more people, overseas.
What else i'd like to say...politicians always promise you to build a bridge even
where there is no river....

Britanski Soldat
26-06-2005, 00:58
I don't think the US will directly invade Syria or Iran, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the CIA drastically increase operations in both countries.

I have promised myself that I shall not set off one of my normal rants but I offer a number of points:

Now the US has 140,000 troops in Iraq with all the infrasture and equipment, does anybody actually beleive that with all the instability in the Middle East that the US will ship everything back to the States. They will not loose their foothold in the region. To do so would deny themselves a launch pad for their ground manouevre units for any possible future operations which no doubt are being war gamed as you read this. These plans could be for 5 years or more down line.

Window dressing and spin is already ongoing for laying the groundwork in securing public acceptance for future operations (e.g Iranian nuclear reactor and Syrian missile tests, chemical weapon development and being the main channel for foreign fighters to Iraq).

The US military has forces of varying sizes and capability in all countries which border Iran. These are there for a reason, chiefly to support current operations in the Global War Against Terrorism (GWAT) but are also being used to exert pressure on Iran. Tehran has already biten back and will continue to do so. Small military exchanges between Coalition Forces in Iraq and Iranian ground forces along the Iraq / Iranian border are becoming more common. These relatively minor engagements could be seens as part of Transition to War and are being to conducted to test reaction, resolve and provoke a higher level of activity. Indeed, dangerous games are being played which does not necessarily mean that Iran will be attacked. The terrain and size is very different to Iraq and any attack would only be welcomed by a very small minorty of the Iranian population. Any operation would be far more costly to the US than the current campaign.

Yankee wrote "I wouldn't be surprised to see the CIA drastically increase operations in both countries". I would like to think that we would not see the CIA drastically increase operations as they are supposed to be covert, however, I think that we can rest assured that operations by a number of the Western Intelligence Services are being conducted and at a high level of intensity.

All in all, I hope that I am wrong but I fear that the key figures in the USA are bent on domination of oil producing coutries in order to meet their own national requirements for oil. I just wonder how various Former Soviet oil producing Republics feature in their plan? Interestingly, some of these already have US forces stationed within them as a part of the GWAT..............................

Only
26-06-2005, 06:35
Excellent post, Soldat. Got me out of lurking :)
For neocons in US it is a win-win situation, as while the war is fought domestic oil producers and defense industries take cream off the top in gallons, and than - and if - war is "won" to an extent where they like it they get rights to sell arms to protect newly "democratic" country in exchange for oil price privileges for particular importers. And hey, they might even manage to cut down subsidies for say, some agricultural sectors: looks good for WTO meeting while in reality monopolized Oil for Food program. Coalition of the Willing will have a field day picking the crumbs...not.

To whoever ( was it yankee?) who wanted something constructive: impeach W, reshuffle government, pledge at least half the sum spent on war by now in damages compensation over short period of time, crawl to UN peacecorps for help securing the boarders and monitoring, pull two thirds military personnel out and leave those trained in things like medical care, basic ingeneering, etc. Promise to help keeping their natural resources nationalized (fully or partially). Sign an agreement that you agree to by their oil at market value and that any US company trying to bribe, bully or otherwise avoid doing so would be fined double potential profit with fine going to country.
And don't try to tell me that they'll go on killing each other: yes, for some time they likely will, anyway. It's not like we are stopping them now really.

Kind of off the top of my head, that.

doogiecb
26-06-2005, 08:53
The Taliban are gone. Young girls can now go back to school and get an education. Women can work and are not openly beaten in the streets with sticks.
People can watch television and listen to the radio once more.
The terrorist training camps are gone. Al Quaida are not being supported by the Afghan state.
If you knew anything about the geography of the country you would know it is very easy for pockets of resistance to remain.
You would also know if you have read any history that Afghanistan is probably un-governable.
They have been growing and using opium in Afghanistan long before Timothy Leary told America to "turn on, tune in, drop out" In fact, long before America was even born. Why should they stop now?
Considering all these things i think its quite reasonable for certain people to claim the millitary intervention there had been a success.
Oh yeah and before i forget. Do you realy think it would be a good idea to capture Bin Laden?
Then what will they do with him?

I think were both partly right, my understanding is that Kabul is fairly under control but outside of the capital the warlords still run the country and some of them still support the Taliban (who is in existance still). So which of us is accurate here???

Your point about capturing Bin Laden is a good one, in my opinion he has to be killed and not put on trial because giving him a trial would be a lot of free press to preach his hatred & ideaology which in the long run I think would help recruit more people to the jihad ..... that would be a interesting thread in itself, good question.

doogiecb
26-06-2005, 08:59
Ok i will add , although i really think i was clear with my comment :) . Somehow the US gov. (I'd never blame the whole nation) always finds a decent reason for sending regulars to any country where they have their obvious interests in using natural resources, controlling major industries etc...the other side of the coin..yes, they definitely seed some civilazation there by building hospitals, more people get an education and so on, but has it anything to do with the real humanity? I think not really. It's just something to justify being there in the eye of the rest of the world. So i think the US shouldnt have started the war neither in Iraq nor anywhere else. Sept , 11 - yes a tragedy that will never be forgotten or forgiven, and even worse that 's been used as a reason of killing more people, overseas.
What else i'd like to say...politicians always promise you to build a bridge even
where there is no river....


LOL ... good follow up from the request to contribute thought into this board.
I have to agree with you about politicians of all countries .... from my travels I;ve come to believe that we common people of all countries, nationalities, races, etc. are pretty much the same in that all we want is a happy life to grow old and eventually spoil our grandchildren. It is the politicians and small % of people who spread hatred, stupidity, ignorance ..... just to help their own person ego's.

doogiecb
26-06-2005, 09:06
I have promised myself that I shall not set off one of my normal rants but I offer a number of points:

Now the US has 140,000 troops in Iraq with all the infrasture and equipment, does anybody actually beleive that with all the instability in the Middle East that the US will ship everything back to the States. They will not loose their foothold in the region. To do so would deny themselves a launch pad for their ground manouevre units for any possible future operations which no doubt are being war gamed as you read this. These plans could be for 5 years or more down line.

Window dressing and spin is already ongoing for laying the groundwork in securing public acceptance for future operations (e.g Iranian nuclear reactor and Syrian missile tests, chemical weapon development and being the main channel for foreign fighters to Iraq).

The US military has forces of varying sizes and capability in all countries which border Iran. These are there for a reason, chiefly to support current operations in the Global War Against Terrorism (GWAT) but are also being used to exert pressure on Iran. Tehran has already biten back and will continue to do so. Small military exchanges between Coalition Forces in Iraq and Iranian ground forces along the Iraq / Iranian border are becoming more common. These relatively minor engagements could be seens as part of Transition to War and are being to conducted to test reaction, resolve and provoke a higher level of activity. Indeed, dangerous games are being played which does not necessarily mean that Iran will be attacked. The terrain and size is very different to Iraq and any attack would only be welcomed by a very small minorty of the Iranian population. Any operation would be far more costly to the US than the current campaign.

Yankee wrote "I wouldn't be surprised to see the CIA drastically increase operations in both countries". I would like to think that we would not see the CIA drastically increase operations as they are supposed to be covert, however, I think that we can rest assured that operations by a number of the Western Intelligence Services are being conducted and at a high level of intensity.

All in all, I hope that I am wrong but I fear that the key figures in the USA are bent on domination of oil producing coutries in order to meet their own national requirements for oil. I just wonder how various Former Soviet oil producing Republics feature in their plan? Interestingly, some of these already have US forces stationed within them as a part of the GWAT..............................


Ironically it was the US long term presence after the first Persian Gulf war when the USA decided to leave troops in Saudi Arabia that Osama Bin Laden used as his main goal and reason for hating the USA, infedels the in the holy muslim land. That combined with the USA relationship supporting the royal Saudi family who is viewed as extremely corrupt.

The USA is not going to be leaving their bases in Qatar & Bahrain any time soon.

Daria
26-06-2005, 09:31
Your point about capturing Bin Laden is a good one, in my opinion he has to be killed and not put on trial because giving him a trial would be a lot of free press to preach his hatred & ideaology which in the long run I think would help recruit more people to the jihad ..... that would be a interesting thread in itself, good question.

1 We have to catch him first. It isn't so easy as it seemed before the Afganistan war. Is it worth invading other countries to continue this game hide and catch?

2. If he is eventually caught, it is better for him to stand a fair trial. It would show ather people fallible to taliban etc that it is evil. I hope there would be no problems with evidence

doogiecb
26-06-2005, 11:54
1 We have to catch him first. It isn't so easy as it seemed before the Afganistan war. Is it worth invading other countries to continue this game hide and catch?

2. If he is eventually caught, it is better for him to stand a fair trial. It would show ather people fallible to taliban etc that it is evil. I hope there would be no problems with evidence

The fact that he has not been captured or turned over after almost 4 years given the USA's technology adn $25 M reward is amazing. Invading other countries for him if it was obvious that the government was hiding him (like Afghanistan's Taliban govt. admitted would be justified. But more proof the we had for WMD's in Iraq would be needed. What do you think?

I still think a trial would more of him spreading propaganda that would do more harm in the long run. Also, if there was a trial and the judges were from the West (either US or World Court) the average Mid Easterner would not think he could recieve a fair trial (remember the OJ trial how minorities did not believe he would receive a fair trial).

Crazyeelboy
26-06-2005, 13:51
I'm not that surprised that bin Laden has not been caught. Nobody reasonable ever said it would be easy to find him. In any event, while finding him would be very good, it is not the main focus of the war or the invasion of Afghanistan.

The war is about putting terrorists out of business, not about arresting one guy. While capturing high value people is part of the strategy, it is not the whole strategy. This is a war, not a criminal prosecution.

That said, however, bin Laden or others responsible for crimes should be tried and sentenced under law, so there should be a trial and punishment in the event that bin Laden is captured. But, he should be tried in the US Federal Court for the Southern District of New York, not in the World Court and the point of trying him should not be to show anybody anything - it is to enforce the rule of law. He should not get special treatment one way or the other because he is bin Laden.

Britanski Soldat
26-06-2005, 16:17
Doogiecb, you are quite correct. Forces remain in Turkey (a NATO partner), Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi to name few. Their presence creates instability in the region which, of course, may be a secondary aim as they will hardly be asked to leave a 'host' country if there is a threat to counter!

Ironically, their overt military presence acts as focus for the fundamentalists who are easily able to whip up hatred and subsequently encourage attacks against these forces. A Catch 22 situation which can only be solved by the bold decision being taken in Washington to decrease forces in the region prior to a complete withdrawal. This will not happen because of American strategic intent which has been discussed in the above posts.

Bluebird
26-06-2005, 18:25
The Taliban are gone. Young girls can now go back to school and get an education. Women can work and are not openly beaten in the streets with sticks.
People can watch television and listen to the radio once more.
The terrorist training camps are gone. Al Quaida are not being supported by the Afghan state.
If you knew anything about the geography of the country you would know it is very easy for pockets of resistance to remain.
You would also know if you have read any history that Afghanistan is probably un-governable.
They have been growing and using opium in Afghanistan long before Timothy Leary told America to "turn on, tune in, drop out" In fact, long before America was even born. Why should they stop now?
Considering all these things i think its quite reasonable for certain people to claim the millitary intervention there had been a success.
Oh yeah and before i forget. Do you realy think it would be a good idea to capture Bin Laden?
Then what will they do with him?The Taliban are far from gone...All the other points you've made, I can agree with though...

trebor
26-06-2005, 18:33
The Taliban are far from gone...All the other points you've made, I can agree with though...

The taliban are gone........................gone from power with no hope of them returning.

Bluebird
26-06-2005, 18:47
The taliban are gone........................gone from power with no hope of them returning.Gone from power, maybe....But, they've not gone and still pose a real threat...Do you ever read the BBC?

yankee@moscow
26-06-2005, 18:51
Gone from power, maybe....But, they've not gone and still pose a real threat...Do you ever read the BBC?

Isn't the BBC like in England or someplace?

trebor
26-06-2005, 18:52
Gone from power, maybe....But, they've not gone and still pose a real threat...Do you ever read the BBC?

Logon every day.
can't remember the last time Afghanistan and the Taliban made the headlines.
So what's your point?

Bluebird
26-06-2005, 19:15
Logon every day.
can't remember the last time Afghanistan and the Taliban made the headlines.
So what's your point?Then check out this story/article, which you've missed then...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4072830.stm

trebor
26-06-2005, 19:21
Then check out this story/article, which you've missed then...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4072830.stm


Okay, i read the article and saw this a few lines in.
I quote:
"Few believe they have any chance of success but they are still causing a lot of damage."
Like i said. If you know anything about the geography of the country it would come as no suprise that there is resistance.
Does this mean the miltary intervention there was a failure then?

doogiecb
26-06-2005, 21:02
Doogiecb, you are quite correct. Forces remain in Turkey (a NATO partner), Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi to name few. Their presence creates instability in the region which, of course, may be a secondary aim as they will hardly be asked to leave a 'host' country if there is a threat counter!

Ironically, their overt military presence acts as focus for the fundamentalists who are easily able to whip up hatred and subsequently encourage attacks against these forces. A Catch 22 situation which can only be solved by the bold decision being taken in Washington to decrease forces in the region prior to a complete withdrawal. This will not happen because of American strategic intent which has been discussed in the above posts.


I agree both with the USA presence in the middle east AND Iraq is a catch 22 ..... bringing stability to govts. that are supposed to be the groundwork for democracy but on the other hand these govt. do not have support because they appear to be USA govt. puppets.
Either Iraq becomes stable enough to govern itself (which I do not think is possible because there is basically 3 peoples who do not want to live together and should be broken up into separate countries like Yugoslavia was) or a "true" multinational force maintains security (which I do not believe is possible with the current Bush Adminsistration).

So the solution for now is to keep american troops there, but we americans are very fickle with short attention spans ..... although Bush told us it would be a long war many are tired and ready to pull out (including republicans).

doogiecb
26-06-2005, 21:11
Logon every day.
can't remember the last time Afghanistan and the Taliban made the headlines.
So what's your point?


I'm not sure about the BBC but in America Afghanistan is a forgotten war that does not make the front pages for the most part, Iraq has all of the news.

The Taliban is not the official government of Afghanistan, but outside of Kabul warlords continue to run their part of the country like they did when the Taliban was in power. With some of these warlords the presence of the Taliban still exists as well as their repressive laws ..... Once again we are both right in that parts of Aghanistan are still better off today while parts are still under repressive rulers. If foreign forces pulled out of Afghanistan today the Kabul govt. would be overthown so I still argue that success has not been achieved "yet" in Afghanistan so why it Cheney saying we want Iraq to be just like Afghanistan? Why not say we want Iraq to be like ..... maybe a country who is stable today?

doogiecb
26-06-2005, 21:17
Okay, i read the article and saw this a few lines in.
I quote:
"Few believe they have any chance of success but they are still causing a lot of damage."
Like i said. If you know anything about the geography of the country it would come as no suprise that there is resistance.
Does this mean the miltary intervention there was a failure then?

Your comment that "Like i said. If you know anything about the geography of the country it would come as no suprise that there is resistance." is why I was opposed to the Iraq war because (as you note) Afghanistan geography favors guerilla warfare ..... I thought the resources used for Iraq would have been better utilized to go into Afghanistan, provide stability outside the capital so "democracy in the middle east" could fourish even more, better to eliminate the Taliban & Al Queda infrastructure, and possibly capture Osama Bin Laden.

Instead the USA & England are achieving partial success in both countries.

Bluebird
26-06-2005, 22:21
Okay, i read the article and saw this a few lines in.
I quote:
"Few believe they have any chance of success but they are still causing a lot of damage."
Like i said. If you know anything about the geography of the country it would come as no suprise that there is resistance.
Does this mean the miltary intervention there was a failure then?Nope, not at all....What it means is, that what you said, that the Taleban are gone, is not quite right though....I repeat...Gone from power yes....But, not gone...Not by a long chalk....

Bluebird
26-06-2005, 22:28
I'm not that surprised that bin Laden has not been caught. Nobody reasonable ever said it would be easy to find him. In any event, while finding him would be very good, it is not the main focus of the war or the invasion of Afghanistan.

The war is about putting terrorists out of business, not about arresting one guy. While capturing high value people is part of the strategy, it is not the whole strategy. This is a war, not a criminal prosecution.

That said, however, bin Laden or others responsible for crimes should be tried and sentenced under law, so there should be a trial and punishment in the event that bin Laden is captured. But, he should be tried in the US Federal Court for the Southern District of New York, not in the World Court and the point of trying him should not be to show anybody anything - it is to enforce the rule of law. He should not get special treatment one way or the other because he is bin Laden."It is not the main focus of the war or the invasion of Afghanistan." Errr, with all due respect....But, immediatley after the terror act of 9/11...Osama Bin Laden was the first and immediate target. Kinda strange how Bush then went onto the now (amazingly absent WMO), in Iraq and Hussian....Bush speak and all of that....

Britanski Soldat
26-06-2005, 22:52
The USA has to have an enemy. We all remember how they demonised the Soviets and in recent times they have demonised Usama Bin Laden. This focusses the people of America against a common enemy.

If the truth be told, Usam Bin Liner and his organisation has been smashed. Ironically, his organsiation previously funded and trained and equipped to a certain extent by the CIA and Pakistani Intelligence Services (ISIS).

Usama Bin Laden is now a flag of convenience and a rallying point for many disparate groups born from the results of how the USA, and Britain to a certain extent, have muscled their way around the world. Attacks against Falluja et al have served as one of the best recruiting sergeants or advertisements for fundamentalists in decades.

Bin Liner is holed up and has little control of the scattered remnants of his former Al Qaeida. It is the smaller, less penetrable groups which now pose more of a threat to the West and our values. Maintaining control of these smaller groups and attempting to understand their intent in an attempt to be one step ahead and thus thwart their attacks is no small feat.

We in the West should not forget that in several decades time, the Muslim religion will be the majority religion on this earth. Lets hope that only a minority become fundamentalist but that is down to how we treat them between now and when they become the majority.........................Food for thought, I am sure you will agree!

Ned Kelly
26-06-2005, 23:13
The USA has to have an enemy. We all remember how they demonised the Soviets and in recent times they have demonised Usama Bin Laden. This focusses the people of America against a common enemy.

If the truth be told, Usam Bin Liner and his organisation has been smashed. Ironically, his organsiation previously funded and trained and equipped to a certain extent by the CIA and Pakistani Intelligence Services (ISIS).

Usama Bin Laden is now a flag of convenience and a rallying point for many disparate groups born from the results of how the USA, and Britain to a certain extent, have muscled their way around the world. Attacks against Falluja et al have served as one of the best recruiting sergeants or advertisements for fundamentalists in decades.

Bin Liner is holed up and has little control of the scattered remnants of his former Al Qaeida. It is the smaller, less penetrable groups which now pose more of a threat to the West and our values. Maintaining control of these smaller groups and attempting to understand their intent in an attempt to be one step ahead and thus thwart their attacks is no small feat.

We in the West should not forget that in several decades time, the Muslim religion will be the majority religion on this earth. Lets hope that only a minority become fundamentalist but that is down to how we treat them between now and when they become the majority.........................Food for thought, I am sure you will agree!

yes. tastes like, er......overcooked left-wing bullshit!
i don't think anyone will be respected for kowtowing to terrorists or militants. in fact you could drive a truck through the holes in your arguments: the soviets "demonised"? i think they did a good enough job of it themselves.

Bluebird
26-06-2005, 23:44
yes. tastes like, er......overcooked left-wing bullshit!
i don't think anyone will be respected for kowtowing to terrorists or militants. in fact you could drive a truck through the holes in your arguments: the soviets "demonised"? i think they did a good enough job of it themselves.Whil'st I could agree with the last part of your statement/argument...I feel that the starting point of your argument-cum statement bears little or no logic at all - "America always has to have an enemy"...I agree with Ned...Total bullshit....Where on earth do you get that from? Moreover, how do you or could you justify that opening opening sentence? Sorry, but...Utter tosh...

Goose0009
27-06-2005, 09:43
[QUOTE=yankee@moscow]It's interesting to me how so many people criticize the present policies in Iraq, but no one ever gives a VIABLE alternative to them. All I ever hear is, "Get out!" That would be a freaking disaster! Any suggestions that may actually succeed in Iraq besides the present policies?[/QUOTE
It will be a freaking disaster no matter what. George Bush should have never pushed for this war in the first place. He should have thought this out long before he went to war. The Iraqis just don't have the will to fight. If the Iraqis army had the will of the insurgents there wouldn't be a problem. How come the insurgents don't need more training and funding to fight and be a leathal weapon? They have something their willing to die for. Maybe, the Iraqis just don't see the Iraqis government as something to die for. It all comes down to will power. The South Koreans had it and South Vietnamese didn't have it. The Iraqis for what ever reason don't have it. The Iraqis have the insurgents out numbered, out gunned and backed by the strongest military power in the world. There shouldn't be a problem. What is the U.S. Army going to do since they have been short on recruitment the last four months. I would bet in July the numbers for June will be short as well. Why can't people see that this insurgency will not stop no matter what. This insurgent ideology fought the Soviets for 10 years, and you know damn well they would still be fighting them to this day if the Soviets had not pulled out. If the U.S. doesn't pull out now, when do we pull our troops out of harms way? 3 years from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, what happens if the Iraqis still can't beat the insurgency after 10 years? Should we stay 20 years or how about 30 years. The U.S. just can't keep fighting their war. They need to stand on their own two feet.

Britanski Soldat
27-06-2005, 11:20
Whil'st I could agree with the last part of your statement/argument...I feel that the starting point of your argument-cum statement bears little or no logic at all - "America always has to have an enemy"...I agree with Ned...Total bullshit....Where on earth do you get that from? Moreover, how do you or could you justify that opening opening sentence? Sorry, but...Utter tosh...

If I had the time and did not wish for blisters to form on my fingers then I would respond in full and add strength to my statement that the USA has to have an enemy and that this century the USA has demonised either an individual, a country or group of countries.

Instead, it would be far more enjoyable to debate this over a few beers so will extract myself from this thread now.....................

Bluebird
27-06-2005, 12:04
If I had the time and did not wish for blisters to form on my fingers then I would respond in full and add strength to my statement that the USA has to have an enemy and that this century the USA has demonised either an individual, a country or group of countries.

Instead, it would be far more enjoyable to debate this over a few beers so will extract myself from this thread now.....................I'm all for that one...If you're serious, send me a PM and let's try and arrange something... 1st round's on you though...:)

PS. Still think you've lost the plot of you're argument, with that opening statement though...But, I'm all ears....Pity you can't see your way to justify that comment, in open forum though....Now, what could that suggest, I wonder...??? That there is no logical answer you could provide for all of us with, to mull over....???

Crazyeelboy
27-06-2005, 13:05
"It is not the main focus of the war or the invasion of Afghanistan." Errr, with all due respect....But, immediatley after the terror act of 9/11...Osama Bin Laden was the first and immediate target. Kinda strange how Bush then went onto the now (amazingly absent WMO), in Iraq and Hussian....Bush speak and all of that....

Arresting Bin Laden or any other specific individual was never the prime reason for any invasion. The war on terror is about putting terrorist organizations out of business. While Bin Laden's organization is a top priority, the goal is to put them out of business not just arrest their leaders. Look at it this way, do you expect the US to call it quits when they capture Bin Laden? There's a lot more to this than just Bin Laden.

Britanski Soldat
27-06-2005, 13:18
I'm all for that one...If you're serious, send me a PM and let's try and arrange something... 1st round's on you though...:)

PS. Still think you've lost the plot of you're argument, with that opening statement though...But, I'm all ears....Pity you can't see your way to justify that comment, in open forum though....Now, what could that suggest, I wonder...??? That there is no logical answer you could provide for all of us with, to mull over....???

When I am in town, I will buy the first round and the first round only!

Ned Kelly
27-06-2005, 14:57
the USA has to have an enemy and that this century the USA has demonised either an individual, a country or group of countries.


i'd just like to reiterate that that is a hot steaming crock - still keeping with the food for thought theme - of shite. the soviet union was a serious threat up until gorbachev and anyone who turns planes into cruise missiles and sends them into buildings is also a serious threat. the subsequent invasion of afghanistan was supported by every man and his dog, including russia.

the invasion of iraq is another matter: it was a grand idea that has gone horribly awry. there was also a cable of thinkers in the states looking for a massive trigger (like 9/11) to assert america's global influence. that does not amount to policy.

i'd say america's two main post second world war enemies - it was not a major player beforehand - were the same as much of the rest of the normal world's, and your assertion a piece of fluff.

Bluebird
27-06-2005, 17:19
When I am in town, I will buy the first round and the first round only!I'll take you up on that, but the last part of your sentence seems to suggest that you can't have too much of a logical response to my original question though.

However, I'm always happy to buy a drink, on my part, and listen and chew the cud with a good and logical converationalist - should the discussion go on for that long, that is... :)

Bluebird
27-06-2005, 18:14
[QUOTE=Ned Kelly]i'd just like to reiterate that that is a hot steaming crock - still keeping with the food for thought theme - of shite. the soviet union was a serious threat up until gorbachev and anyone who turns planes into cruise missiles and sends them into buildings is also a serious threat. the subsequent invasion of afghanistan was supported by every man and his dog, including russia.

the invasion of iraq is another matter: it was a grand idea that has gone horribly awry. there was also a cable of thinkers in the states looking for a massive trigger (like 9/11) to assert america's global influence. that does not amount to policy.

i'd say america's two main post second world war enemies - it was not a major player beforehand - were the same as much of the rest of the normal world's, and your assertion a piece of fluffthe invasion of iraq is another matter: it was a grand idea that has gone horribly awry. there was also a cable of thinkers in the states looking for a massive trigger (like 9/11) to assert america's global influence."

Seems to sum that up quite nicely...But, let's not forget that my country, the UK, were very, very, much involved - from the murky start in it. America did not act entirely alone, although had Britain and Spain refused, I feel that the Bush admin would've gone ahead, one way or another.

Australia's also played its role, and still is....But, but, who knows...What would've been the result, had we all said no Bushy...Yer, plan's not entirely legal and workable...

surfsky
29-06-2005, 23:59
Yes there is room for improvement in Afghanistan, but what do you expect. You are talking about people that are so localized in their point of view that there will never truly be a "nation". This is really the core of the problem there. Basically the lines of communications are so thin and the isolation is so great for people that localism will not go away any time soon. This problem will result in civil war again. We are talking about an issue of re-socializing people to make progress, if it is not done than what ever you build will just be torn down.

The invasion of Afghanistan was successful because it has reduced the mortality rate there by 2,000%. Yes arrant bombs from US war planes dig kill the wrong people on occasion. In one case 200 people and it is still debatable that half the people were Taliban. But the reality is that the presence of US and international forces has saved lives there.

Iraq, people we have been there 2 years in the span of history that is tiny. I was a soldier I have recently spent 2 years in current combat zones and the hard facts of it are that we lost more people in a day on D-Day than we did in two yeas in Iraq. I don’t need CNN or the BBC to tell me how painful war is. I know first hand, and let me tell you, the American Soldier is strong, and has sole. With the exception of a couple guys that did wrong, politics aside we the soldiers are in it for the right reasons. I have filled body bags of my own friends, that did not throw grenades in rooms because they new they could not account for who would be hurt or killed. So they went in a room an fought it out with a gun, and some times they just know your coming. That’s war.

Goose0009
02-07-2005, 06:39
Yes there is room for improvement in Afghanistan, but what do you expect. You are talking about people that are so localized in their point of view that there will never truly be a "nation". This is really the core of the problem there. Basically the lines of communications are so thin and the isolation is so great for people that localism will not go away any time soon. This problem will result in civil war again. We are talking about an issue of re-socializing people to make progress, if it is not done than what ever you build will just be torn down.

The invasion of Afghanistan was successful because it has reduced the mortality rate there by 2,000%. Yes arrant bombs from US war planes dig kill the wrong people on occasion. In one case 200 people and it is still debatable that half the people were Taliban. But the reality is that the presence of US and international forces has saved lives there.

Iraq, people we have been there 2 years in the span of history that is tiny. I was a soldier I have recently spent 2 years in current combat zones and the hard facts of it are that we lost more people in a day on D-Day than we did in two yeas in Iraq. I don’t need CNN or the BBC to tell me how painful war is. I know first hand, and let me tell you, the American Soldier is strong, and has sole. With the exception of a couple guys that did wrong, politics aside we the soldiers are in it for the right reasons. I have filled body bags of my own friends, that did not throw grenades in rooms because they new they could not account for who would be hurt or killed. So they went in a room an fought it out with a gun, and some times they just know your coming. That’s war.
World War 2 chose us. We chose to fight the war in Iraq.

First of all I do respect your service, and never questioned the war in Afghanistan. The U.S.A has every right to be in Afghanistan. I think there was a real arab nut having real links to Al Qeada there. I never questioned the Guantanamo Bay prision. However, the 3,000 soldiers that died in Normandy on D Day were fighting a legit threat to the U.S. and the rest of Europe. Hitler needed to be stopped. I just don't think You can compare Saddam's threat to that of Hitler's threat. Saddam couldn't even conquer Iran with U.S. money and weapons, so how the hell could he inflict any serious harm to the U.S. Well, We know there were no weapons of mass destructions, very small link to al Qeada. The Allied occupation of Germany was almost at peace after 2.5 years of occupation. The same can't be said in Iraq. Iraqi's government can't move outside the green zone. American soldiers are still doing the major combat operations. Americans 2.5 years after invasion are still sufering 2 casualties a day. The insurgents will fight to the death. The Iraqis army does not have the will that the insurgents have. Iraqis might vote and hold elections, but I don't think they are willing to fight for this government? What proof does anyone have that Iraqis are willing to fight and die for this American backed government.
can Iraqis parliment move freely through the streets outside the green zone? No
Could the U.S. reduce the number of troops from 135,000 to maybe 80,000 troops any time soon? No
Can a large equiped Iraqis army stop a small under equiped insurgancy on its own? No
Are American Casualities going down over the course of the war? NO
How much time does it take?
How come the insurgents don't need more time to fight harder?
In regards to the Iraqis army, where is the progress?

surfsky
02-07-2005, 07:17
World War 2 chose us. We chose to fight the war in Iraq.
The Iraqis army does not have the will that the insurgents have. Iraqis might vote and hold elections, but I don't think they are willing to fight for this government? What proof does anyone have that Iraqis are willing to fight and die for this American backed government.





Your right, but the Iraq forces are still building. Reduction of forces is not coming soon. You have to recognize the New Iraq National Army has casualty rates that exceed that of the USA, and they started up more than a year after the invasion was complete and they have lost more service men than we have. The Iraqi Police and Military are laying it on the line every day out there. They are not cowards and force on force they kick the heck out of the bad guys. You say that no Iraq is willing to die for the New Iraq? Than why the heck are so many Iraqis in uniform dieing? You’re watching the news and picking up your thought but failing to recognize that every month over 20 Iraqis die standing in line to join the police or Army. Yes it sounds pretty dum to me why we cannot figure out a safer way to recruit soldiers, but the truth is that Iraqis are joining the police every day and fighting for their country...It is written in blood. When you write that no Iraq is willing to die for there country your not honoring their sacrifice.

The other reality is that it is not so crazy out there. You’re focusing on the bad places. There are plenty of places throughout Iraq that USAID is having great success in.

I respect that you respect my service. I am a contractor now an I go back on rotation. I be willing to take you there, than you can form your own opinion.

Bluebird
02-07-2005, 14:34
A really great debate guys, and you both make good and valid points...We could all argue the toss, that the the US and UK, should never have gone into that pandora's box. The fact is we did and we have and, for me at least, that's now an old argument.

The fact is, we're there now - like it or not.

All we can hope for is a rather swifter, resolution to peace, than what is happening right now.

I've read some of the blogs, of the US and British service men and women, in Iraq - harrowing to say the least.

The danger, I fear and, for me, the question is...Especially for US personnel...If this quagmire, that is Iraq continues; which it is almost certainly destined to...Even Rumsfield's admitted to that sure fact....

Then will the American public treat returning soldiers (in time), as they did to those returning from Vietnam; as lepers of society, and thus confine them to their private hells and nightmares in solitude?

surfsky
03-07-2005, 08:51
Your right this has been discussed. As a vet, in my eyes, most of the soldiers going home and complaining are the same ones that complain about cleaning the toilets when we were at peace. Now they have a topic that has media attention.

I'm not bitter, actually I am pretty jazzed to see the training that we gave our soldiers worked. They have the moral fiber to be courageous but the ability to think on their own and make the right choices because one thing the US soldier is not known for doing is blindly following orders. They always take an order than put perspective in it, than translate that into something we call intent, vs. a step by step instruction. It is kind of a "you told me to do this, but you really could not see the situation, so what my interpretation is that you really want me to do this." They are young and brilliant and can take a complex situation and make a decision in seconds

doogiecb
03-07-2005, 12:23
Then will the American public treat returning soldiers (in time), as they did to those returning from Vietnam; as lepers of society, and thus confine them to their private hells and nightmares in solitude?[/QUOTE]

In America I do not think that will happen because in the late 80's we really began to realize how wrong and terrible we treated teh Vietnam Vets .... That being said it is one thing to support the troops publicly and not spit on them in the streets, but I do not think the govt. did enough to help soldiers get over it with actions (i.e. many of the homeless in USA are vietnam vets needing therapy).

We can only hope the govt. does a better job to help soldiers now adapt back to civilian life.

Bluebird
03-07-2005, 13:36
Your right this has been discussed. As a vet, in my eyes, most of the soldiers going home and complaining are the same ones that complain about cleaning the toilets when we were at peace. Now they have a topic that has media attention.

I'm not bitter, actually I am pretty jazzed to see the training that we gave our soldiers worked. They have the moral fiber to be courageous but the ability to think on their own and make the right choices because one thing the US soldier is not known for doing is blindly following orders. They always take an order than put perspective in it, than translate that into something we call intent, vs. a step by step instruction. It is kind of a "you told me to do this, but you really could not see the situation, so what my interpretation is that you really want me to do this." They are young and brilliant and can take a complex situation and make a decision in secondsI have to say, that as a person who has never been a vet, nor a soldier, for that matter; I have nothing but the deepest respect for people who have been vets, such as yourself.

And, as I live and work in Moscow, Russia, that also applies to the Russian vets, who laid down their lives, together with the allied forces, during WW2; against a Nazi war machine.

Before replying to your answer, to my question, I paused for thought and looked at what you're saying; and I can only find myself in agreement with your synopsis.

I've met many American vets, from all walks of life, and they've all come on to be fine businesspersons, and peolpe, with a sense of well-being and responsibilty.

That, I have no doubt, that, that was (not in any smallpart) down to their survival training, the importance of punctuality, communication, and self-disciplin, instilled in them during their days in the armed forces.

My brother, is an instructor/trainer, with the American army based in Southern Germany, and what you have written, in reply to my question; rings true - almost word for word, about what my brother tells me (about his students). He tells me that they are always challenging him, and that most of them are very highly motivated, and are very, very respectful and helpful towards him. He has a great time with them, in class.

Talking of cleaning toilets, although (as I've already mentioned) I never served in the armed forces; I did serve 10 years, with the British Merchant Navy - finishing my time as a Chief Officer, 1st Class.

But, my first day of duty, on a passenger ferry to France, was cleaning the toiltets; after a 1,000 passengers had just disembarked from a trip and a force nine gale, in the English Channel.

I spent most of the return trip gagging and vomiting down one of the pans, I'd just cleaned - I couldn't hold it back any longer...Not because of the storm - but, but...Need I say more.

My (then) line officer just grinned, and said, "We all gotta start somewhere son, and if you can handle this job and do it nice, then you'll start to move on through the ranks. You gotta month to prove yourself, otherwise, your off the ship, cos no one's gonna carry a lame duck - they ain't nor I've got the time for pussies."

After that, cleaning the crew's and public toilets, just became pure routine - nothing more nothing less. And, I then found myself - some years later, saying the same thing to my new (ships) personnel.

And, that was a young man's welcome and initiation to a real man's world. However, that taught me one thing, in life...Do it nice or do it twice.

PS. My apologies, to all, if my comment's gone a little way of topic. However, in reply to the (above) post - I feel that there's relevance.

Bluebird
03-07-2005, 13:53
Then will the American public treat returning soldiers (in time), as they did to those returning from Vietnam; as lepers of society, and thus confine them to their private hells and nightmares in solitude?

In America I do not think that will happen because in the late 80's we really began to realize how wrong and terrible we treated teh Vietnam Vets .... That being said it is one thing to support the troops publicly and not spit on them in the streets, but I do not think the govt. did enough to help soldiers get over it with actions (i.e. many of the homeless in USA are vietnam vets needing therapy).

We can only hope the govt. does a better job to help soldiers now adapt back to civilian life.[/QUOTE]Very well written and said.

Ned Kelly
03-07-2005, 20:32
politics really is a bastards' game

JUST over a week ago, US Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican with presidential dreams, said: "The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

Before a Senate committee, meanwhile, General John Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, dismissed Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the insurgency was in its "last throes". The insurgency, he said, was undiminished and, indeed, the number of foreign fighters coming into Iraq was growing. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who, up to now, has insisted on the effectiveness of the US military against the insurgents, was suddenly explaining that "insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years".

For his part, General George Casey Jr, commanding general of the multi-national force in Iraq, confirmed that US and Iraqi officials had begun meetings with Sunni leaders. And while Rumsfeld denied that these were insurgency leaders, he added, "we're not quite there yet" - seeming to suggest that we might be soon enough.

All in all, after more than two years of combat and any number of cycles of triumphalism followed by dismal comeuppance, you'd have to be a cockeyed nitwit not to realise that the Iraq war might not end happily. People are now talking of a new Tet moment. During the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, the Vietcong, who were said to be demoralised and on the run, were suddenly storming the doors of the US embassy (and on television). In Iraq the insurgents, with their supposedly poor leadership and declining support, are suddenly upping their kill rate, with attacks of terrible ferocity and obvious strategic smarts.

January's Iraq election - that high moment of triumphalism - now seems not to have done the administration any favours. At the time, however, it seemed to be a vindication of Bush's policies. Even left-liberals were getting on board.

Yet the election, rather than defining the strength of the quiescent population, defined the size of the insurgency. While 70 per cent was a grand turnout, it soon became clear that the 30 per cent unified Sunni population that did not vote were supporting an insurgency against both the occupiers and the rest of the nation. It was a civil war as well as an insurgency.

What's more, the election produced legislators who turned out to be no help at all. The current US strategy - we put together a working government and then get the hell out - depends on these would-be parliamentarians performing in a minimally acceptable professional manner. But they are simply not getting on with the job. In some sense, this is even more problematic than the war itself - there aren't too many Republicans who are going to have unlimited patience with recalcitrant Iraqi politicians. Whom do they think they work for?

More than any other war in the history of the US, this is one man's war. The association is absolute: it's Bush's war. But now, as we start to come to the end of the Bush years, the unavoidable question is: who else wants it? Not that many, it seems. After all, it requires signing on to all that Bush family meshugas, and all those neo-con intellectual contortions, not to mention all that Bush jut-jawed toughguyness. Indeed, it's quite impossible to see this war without Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rove and the rest. Once they're gone, the imperative, indeed the very nature, of the war is gone.

And, in fact, the political reality is that they'll be gone before they have actually left office. That's the inescapable second-term curse. Everybody's career is beginning to shift. Your best people have one foot out the door, or have already left. People who have supported you, because you have supported them, are suddenly a lot more iffy. You simply aren't the man you were. Indeed, you're a sinking ship. In a second term, fighting a war - a long-running, expensive, bloody, never particularly popular, largely unsuccessful war - looks almost impossible.

There is another unsettling aspect of a second term. A second term demands a denouement - and it's almost always operatic. Impeachment for Clinton. Iran-contra for Reagan. Watergate for Nixon. Partly this happens - can happen - because politically you become weak and your enemies get stronger. But it also happens because so much media attention has been focused on you for so long that there is an inevitable push to wrap the story up, to drive it to its most dramatic climax. Then, too, the media, having let a president (especially this one) get away with so much while he was gaining power, invariably take it back while he's losing it. And to make matters worse, the president invariably digs in - and for this stubbornness and churlishness and insensitivity he'll be punished.

It's starting. The President's speech last week defending the war had hints of that mystical and delusional view that necessarily begins when you've bet the farm. The President's "clear path forward" had a cadence and desperation disconcertingly similar to Lyndon Johnson's "light at the end of the tunnel".

Most insistently, the President's address to his wobbly nation was about the moral imperative. Beyond cost or method, we are doing this because it has to be done. These insurgents are "followers of the same ideology" as those who attacked us. If we don't fight them there, we'll be fighting them on our shores. "Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it..." There was an unmistakable plaintiveness. That's why he was here - desperately trying to hold on to the crowd. Was there a hint of tears in his eyes? Some Johnson-style self-pity welling up?

Then there is the number of US deaths. If the present cumulative kill rate in Iraq is maintained over, say, the same nine-year time frame that US troops fought in Vietnam, we would lose fewer than 7000 soldiers. But it is unlikely that the present rate will remain the same: either it will fall because the US strategy is working - as it appeared to be doing for a time early this year - or it will rise because the strategy isn't working and the insurgency becomes more proficient, as now appears to be the case.

Furthermore, the death rate doesn't have to rise by much for the numbers to become dramatically more menacing. From the beginning of the war, we have cumulatively averaged two American soldiers killed every day. Recently, however, that has risen to an average of three a day. At present troop strength, we reach Vietnam-level kill rates - 10 per cent of troops deployed with the deaths of just over four soldiers a day.

Declining kill rates spell success, and help foster a level of public tolerance, even of optimism, allowing the administration to stay longer in Iraq (for years, possibly) as it slowly reduces its troop count, or establishes a permanent presence. Rising kill rates, on the other hand, spell failure, since they will almost certainly encourage a loss of support for the war not only in the population as a whole but in the Republican party, too.

Although the President said last week that he had no plans to send more troops to Iraq, someone in the Pentagon is certainly calculating the effect on kill rates if troop levels are increased, likewise if troop levels are reduced, likewise if more civilians are used (these last are off-balance-sheet kills). Of course, the better spreadsheet projection concerns the speedy deployment of better-trained Iraqi troops and police. This, assuredly, has been worked out in great and variable detail: the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, measured by such and such a formula, reduces the kill rate of US troops by such and such a factor.

It's just that these gambits and projections and little fictions and recast assumptions are so much harder to maintain and argue and sell - especially as those great salesmen in the White House begin more and more to consider their retirement - than it apparently is for the insurgents (whoever they are) to roll out every day and up the kill rate by one or two more.

Michael Wolff, a columnist for Vanity Fair, covered the Iraq invasion in March-April 2003 from Centcom headquarters in the Persian Gulf. This is an edited extract from the London Spectator.

surfsky
03-07-2005, 21:19
Wow Ned, I was just about to say you were an out standing writer.

Bluebird
04-07-2005, 01:25
Wow Ned, I was just about to say you were an out standing writer.Errr, me too...

surfsky
04-07-2005, 04:12
I am concerned for the vets; mostly get them employed so they can move on. As the sons and daughters of the Baby Boom generation start hitting upper management. Less and less people know people that are actually in the military; also most of their parents were very anti-military. I looked at getting out during the Clinton years when the economy was booming. I remember going into interviews and people looking at my military experience as a negative. Because their parents taught them the only people that when in the military were guys who could do nothing else.

Also, a lot of organizations fear the military factor. We have a tendency of getting in taking charge and hiring more people like us. The guys that don't have military experience are kind of outsiders.

So I am just hoping they can get jobs. Make sure they don't go home and go idle is the best form of recovery. All to often you’re treated like an ex-con.

Goose0009
04-07-2005, 19:12
Your right, but the Iraq forces are still building. Reduction of forces is not coming soon. You have to recognize the New Iraq National Army has casualty rates that exceed that of the USA, and they started up more than a year after the invasion was complete and they have lost more service men than we have. The Iraqi Police and Military are laying it on the line every day out there. They are not cowards and force on force they kick the heck out of the bad guys. You say that no Iraq is willing to die for the New Iraq? Than why the heck are so many Iraqis in uniform dieing? You’re watching the news and picking up your thought but failing to recognize that every month over 20 Iraqis die standing in line to join the police or Army. Yes it sounds pretty dum to me why we cannot figure out a safer way to recruit soldiers, but the truth is that Iraqis are joining the police every day and fighting for their country...It is written in blood. When you write that no Iraq is willing to die for there country your not honoring their sacrifice.

The other reality is that it is not so crazy out there. You’re focusing on the bad places. There are plenty of places throughout Iraq that USAID is having great success in.

I respect that you respect my service. I am a contractor now an I go back on rotation. I be willing to take you there, than you can form your own opinion.
The cost of this war is far from over!!!!
We shouldn't have fought this war!!!. We could use these resources on our on people. When was the last time you saw most of our Nursing homes back in the States. We have problems with healthcare. I think my mom told me the City of Pittsburgh needs a billion dollars just to revamp its water systems. I am sure that it isn't the only city with such problems. This war is about OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL, and NO WMD's, NO WMD's NO WMD's
Iraqs largest natural Resource--- OIL, OIL, OIL,
George Bush former CEO of Harken Energy semurged itself in OIL. I know Mr. Bush wasn't charged with anything when he sold his shares then share price tanked. I think its bullSh@t.
Dick Cheney former CEO of Halliburton semurged itself in OIL and had many no bid contracts in Iraq with Millions of dollars charged for services not accounted for.
Condolleeza Rice board of Directors of Chevron-OIL
Isn't it nice when the rich stick together and give their former companies big kisses.
What happend to George Bush's Butt Buddy Enron's own Kenneth Lay? Hey all these CEO's who minipulated share price and stock holders money are in Jail. Even, Martha Stewart served jail time. Where is Kenneth Lay? He is still walking the streets cause he was in bed with this adminstration. This adminstration lives in fantasy land. Don't you see this happend in Vietnam. Many good things happend in Vietnam The U.S. built highways, schools, hospitals, and put billions of dollars in their economy. In the end, The South Vietnamese couldn't keep that country together without the help of the U.S. What are you gonna say when 10 years from now Iraqis still can't stop the insurgents. Are Americans going to have to die for another 10 years. I know for a fact that insurgents will fight forever.

Crazyeelboy
04-07-2005, 22:46
Toga! Toga! Toga!

surfsky
06-07-2005, 06:06
Goose,

If we wanted cheap oil and were truly that evil we would have negotiated a deal with Saddam to buy cheap oil in the future, if we successfully pressured the UN to lift sanctions. Oh, that was France, Germany and the other country that I will not mention in this venue. Darn those guys are smart!

Bottom line we invaded Afghanistan to bring the fight to them. They got beat, Afghans were tired of hard core Islam, and we won. The problem was is that they would not come out and play. It is too far to cold the terrain sucks and the Afghans hate them. The Afghans hated them during the Soviet times and History shows that the real fighters were Afghans, not some Saudi.

So how do you get the bad guy to come out and play? So you kick him were it counts. He is a greedy SOB too. So you go sit your butt in the middle of his play ground where he and all his little brothers can jump in the fight. Were not surrounded we are just fighting in all directions out there. Because he will actually defend oil now we got a fight.

The Al Qaeda cells were in Europe and the US long before 9-11. They have hated us for a long time. The manifesto was published as the Soviets were leaving Afghanistan. We can go back and point fingers for the last 50 years of wrong doing but the bottom line is you don't have to look to hard to find really rich people in that part of the world. Hard core radical Islam was promoted by the House of Saud for a long time because it justified them being in charge. Yes, they do have oil and we learned our lesson during the oil embargo. So we said lets be friends.

The house of Saud basically hurt them selves though, with that whole promotion of hard core Islam.

I guess if you were truly concerned you would have studied something else in University, solicited the Ford Foundation and developed that self replenishing cold fusion energy source.

Bluebird
06-07-2005, 08:51
An intetesting piece of news, on the CBS evening news, caught my eye today.....Ex- Vietnam vets are being asked to go into Iraq - especially those who piloted helicopters...Now what does this tell you...???

American army reserves suddenly getting a bit thin on the ground...???

What does the future hold, as far as that's concerned, I wonder...???

Goose0009
06-07-2005, 10:55
Goose,

If we wanted cheap oil and were truly that evil we would have negotiated a deal with Saddam to buy cheap oil in the future, if we successfully pressured the UN to lift sanctions. Oh, that was France, Germany and the other country that I will not mention in this venue. Darn those guys are smart!

Bottom line we invaded Afghanistan to bring the fight to them. They got beat, Afghans were tired of hard core Islam, and we won. The problem was is that they would not come out and play. It is too far to cold the terrain sucks and the Afghans hate them. The Afghans hated them during the Soviet times and History shows that the real fighters were Afghans, not some Saudi.

So how do you get the bad guy to come out and play? So you kick him were it counts. He is a greedy SOB too. So you go sit your butt in the middle of his play ground where he and all his little brothers can jump in the fight. Were not surrounded we are just fighting in all directions out there. Because he will actually defend oil now we got a fight.

The Al Qaeda cells were in Europe and the US long before 9-11. They have hated us for a long time. The manifesto was published as the Soviets were leaving Afghanistan. We can go back and point fingers for the last 50 years of wrong doing but the bottom line is you don't have to look to hard to find really rich people in that part of the world. Hard core radical Islam was promoted by the House of Saud for a long time because it justified them being in charge. Yes, they do have oil and we learned our lesson during the oil embargo. So we said lets be friends.

The house of Saud basically hurt them selves though, with that whole promotion of hard core Islam.

I guess if you were truly concerned you would have studied something else in University, solicited the Ford Foundation and developed that self replenishing cold fusion energy source.
Come on dude!!!!
You had to have basic economics 101 supply and demand. Iraq produces more oil and then that puts more oil into the pool which lowers prices. It makes gasoline cheaper and George Bush gives all of his buds a great big kiss!!!!

Goose0009
06-07-2005, 11:16
An intetesting piece of news, on the CBS evening news, caught my eye today.....Ex- Vietnam vets are being asked to go into Iraq - especially those who piloted helicopters...Now what does this tell you...???

American army reserves suddenly getting a bit thin on the ground...???

What does the future hold, as far as that's concerned, I wonder...???
Amen! This is gonna last for ten years. How is the U.S. gonna fight that long when the U.S. can't even reach its goals for enlistment for this year? Where are all you young Republicans who wanted this war. Come on all you young Republicans from CMU, PITT, WVU you voted for the man. Why don't you go fight for him? How can you vote for a man who wanted war, when your not willing to fight and die for him. Bring back the draft, so all the rich kids that I grew up with in Mt. Lebanon, Upper St. Claire, NA. Fox Chapel, Cranberry, can give up their lives just like poor kids do.

quincy
06-07-2005, 12:31
Come on dude!!!!
You had to have basic economics 101 supply and demand. Iraq produces more oil and then that puts more oil into the pool which lowers prices. It makes gasoline cheaper and George Bush gives all of his buds a great big kiss!!!!

Goose, you're spot on! :)

Crazyeelboy
06-07-2005, 17:06
Goose is spot off.

His arguments all seem to be linked to the assumption that the President took the country to war just to futher enrich US oil companies, but his logic does not prove this premise.

He argues that by increasing oil supplies, gasoline prices fall and US oil companies prosper. It just does not work that way, though. Higher oil prices NOT lower oil prices provide more profits to US oil companies. Production costs do not go down when oil prices go down, the best way to raise profitability is through higher oil prices, not lower oil prices.

Also, gasoline prices right now depend more upon refinery capacity than oil supplies from Iraq, so there is something of a bottle neck on this.

Now, if you want to talk about strategic oil issues, the focus is on access to reserves, not on gasoline prices. As noted above, if the plan was to get US companies into Iraqi oil fields, the most effective way to do it would have been to cut a deal with Saddam, not go to war.

doogiecb
06-07-2005, 19:35
Goose is spot off.

His arguments all seem to be linked to the assumption that the President took the country to war just to futher enrich US oil companies, but his logic does not prove this premise.
.


Not a Bush fan, but I've heard some debate whether Bush wanted to use 911 as a stepping stone for Iraq based upon his own ideas or whether it was because he surrounded himself by neo-cons only (who have had returning to Iraq on their agenda since the 90's) so he was a victim of group-think \ brainwash.

I personally kind of think it was a mixture of both.

surfsky
06-07-2005, 23:12
So which is it, we lower the price of oil because we invade and make the oil available....or we lower the price of oil when we buddy up with Saddam and lift sanctions?

Ok well lift sanctions; invite Saddam over to the White House for Thanks Giving, same with the rest of the G8 leaders and everyone is happy.

Or screw that oil stays where it is at. We don't lift sanctions; we keep you average Iraq in a bad spot.

All I am saying is if we wanted cheap painless oil. We would have had a team of American PR people descend on Saddam, spin him in a positive light, lift sanctions, and make oil available. Part of the deal would have been KBR getting a huge contract to manage their whole oil infrastructure.

If the ends justified the means like you are saying than we would have just done that.

So that whole thing about invading to make oil available and giving Halliburton huge contracts does not really play with me.

Bluebird
07-07-2005, 00:33
So which is it, we lower the price of oil because we invade and make the oil available....or we lower the price of oil when we buddy up with Saddam and lift sanctions?

Ok well lift sanctions; invite Saddam over to the White House for Thanks Giving, same with the rest of the G8 leaders and everyone is happy.

Or screw that oil stays where it is at. We don't lift sanctions; we keep you average Iraq in a bad spot.

All I am saying is if we wanted cheap painless oil. We would have had a team of American PR people descend on Saddam, spin him in a positive light, lift sanctions, and make oil available. Part of the deal would have been KBR getting a huge contract to manage their whole oil infrastructure.

If the ends justified the means like you are saying than we would have just done that.

So that whole thing about invading to make oil available and giving Halliburton huge contracts does not really play with me. Now, that's a damn good answer...Which ever way you put it....I like that answer....

Goose0009
17-07-2005, 09:25
Goose is spot off.

His arguments all seem to be linked to the assumption that the President took the country to war just to futher enrich US oil companies, but his logic does not prove this premise.

He argues that by increasing oil supplies, gasoline prices fall and US oil companies prosper. It just does not work that way, though. Higher oil prices NOT lower oil prices provide more profits to US oil companies. Production costs do not go down when oil prices go down, the best way to raise profitability is through higher oil prices, not lower oil prices.

Also, gasoline prices right now depend more upon refinery capacity than oil supplies from Iraq, so there is something of a bottle neck on this.

Now, if you want to talk about strategic oil issues, the focus is on access to reserves, not on gasoline prices. As noted above, if the plan was to get US companies into Iraqi oil fields, the most effective way to do it would have been to cut a deal with Saddam, not go to war.
You have yet to prove me wrong. Dude, Your so full of Republican pride you can't see anything. Are you gonna look me in the eyes and tell me we would be in Iraq if its largest natural resource was peanuts. I don't think we would be there if it was. It is about oil. Sure, Saddam was a Pr@ck, so are we going to invade North Korea, Iran, Nigeria, North Africa, and China. Look, I don't want to sound like Im trying to say America was evil for invading Iraq. No, I don't think that way because the world could be better without Saddam. I just don't think the cost of the war is worth the outcome. Or should I say the outcome can't be reached. We still don't know what the outcome is? The cost of this war is far from over? Since you got your rose colored glasses on what the heck its only money. It could be worse without him. There are countries more powerful, more evil, more corrupt then Saddam. Every reason he gave for war has been a LIE. NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I remember watching CSPAN on monday morning and seeing Colin Powell talking about how many of these weapons he had and how he was gonna use them. What a LIE? Where are they? It was about oil.

surfsky
17-07-2005, 10:16
Goose,

Here is the deal and your right. The average person cannot stomach the deal. Saudi...F'd up....Iraq...F'd up....Iran....F'd up....Russian...F'd up....Venezuela F'd up. The only un-F'd up country in the deal is UAE. Do we allow all the worlds’ oil supply in an F'd up situation? No...ok, because no counselor is going to fix these people.. deal with it... we invaded to destabilize the region so F'd up people don't control the world's oil supply. So hopefully a democracy will form. The first of it's kind in the region.

There is this incredible thing, when a country is democratic it is most likely a friendly country. Ok, lets not say the US is the evil empire, when China becomes the global power and it will, just time, you will wish the US was back in it's old seat.

I don't have rose-colored sunglasses... I know reality... I just remeber the words of Chesty Puller world’s greatest fighter and Marine "If we don't create a hearty bread to defend our turf, than a heartier bread will come in to propagate our women." Just ask the Germans about 50 years of US Occupation. Our soldiers took the women and the half the German men love each other...Democracy at work. Not that there is anything wrong with that….OK, I am an open minded person.

Reallity is I don't want to live in a World that is controlled by the Middle East.

If we let the worlds’ oil supply stay in the hands it is currently in, Islamic Radicals will run the world.

Go ahead call me a Red Neck.

Ned Kelly
17-07-2005, 11:01
Our soldiers took the women and the half the German men love each other...Democracy at work. Not that there is anything wrong with that….OK, I am an open minded person.

so you're saying one of the reasons the us is in iraq is to promote tolerance to gay culture in the middle east? interesting. i think you'd have to agree though that germany was pretty fertile ground before the americans came and took the women - the whole goose-stepping, black uniform thing has long been seen as simply a front for a mass gay outbreak in germany. so while i respect the breadth of your scope i think you're drawing a long bow.

Britanski Soldat
17-07-2005, 11:04
Every reason he gave for war has been a LIE. NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I remember watching CSPAN on monday morning and seeing Colin Powell talking about how many of these weapons he had and how he was gonna use them. What a LIE? Where are they? It was about oil.

I am not sure that we will ever know the real reasons for going to War against SH. We can debate it for years and have our own opinions but will we ever know exactly why we were all appallingly brainwashed to enable the Alllies to invade with our support ? I suspect not.

One thing is for sure and that is they knew that there were NO weapons of mass destruction, let alone any CW capability. I say this because I was there and spent many weeks in the Kuwaiti desert, prior to the invasion, in an assembly area, just south of the Iraqi border. We were worryingly in range of the Iraqi guns which were of the calibre to enable the firing of chemical munitions. We were also well within the range of various chemically capable missile systems not forgetting the potential use of hang gliders and crop spraying aircraft.

A pre-emptive strike against large targets in Kuwait by SH was a real possibility but were we issued with chemical suits, atropine and filters / cannisters for our gas masks before moving in range of these delivery systems? NO, we were not. We were held in these areas for many weeks - many thousands of very vulnerable troops sat in the desert waiting to be hit!

We were only issued with the necessary equipment a couple of days before G Day (the ground invasion).

I would like to think that if there was a real and serious threat from Chemical Weapons then we would have been issued with the necessary equipment before moving into those big, fat juicy assembly areas.................!

As we were not, then I can only assume that the powers that be knew that there was no capability to deliver chemicals.................

Ned Kelly
17-07-2005, 11:11
man, the subject is whether iraq was invaded in a radical strategic offensive by america's "camp camp", for want of a better term, to try to bring modernity to a backward nation that thought butt-banditry was a sin. the whole wmd thing is totally passe.

surfsky
17-07-2005, 22:43
so you're saying one of the reasons the us is in iraq is to promote tolerance to gay culture in the middle east? interesting. i think you'd have to agree though that germany was pretty fertile ground before the americans came and took the women - the whole goose-stepping, black uniform thing has long been seen as simply a front for a mass gay outbreak in germany. so while i respect the breadth of your scope i think you're drawing a long bow.

Yes, I agree I think Radical Islam is the front that covers a mass gay out break in the middle east. The first gay pride parade in Ryad will be ground breaking.... how dare you call it passe


Man I am going to be the next guy getting my head sawed off with a dull knife.

tbill
19-07-2005, 01:52
I think the situation is Iraq is moving in the favor of the coalition. I base this assertion on the behavior of the 'insurgents' and the level of violence in Iraq from the invasion until today.

1) 'Insurgents' have gone from attacking US troops to attacking Iraqi military/police to targetting civilians. It shows that they have had less and less success attacking hard targets and that they have switched strategy from inflicting maximum casualties on the US in order to break the American will to fight to fomenting civil war among Shia and Sunni. Also, commentary from soldiers on the ground is that the Iraqi forces and more professional and motivated with the successes they have had in the field.

2) We are not fighting the Shia militias. The Shia have stopped supporting Sadr and are happy with the political power they have in the new Iraqi gov't. Sunni tribesmen have attacked al Qaeda recently. The tactic of targetting civilians and the strong armed attempt to assert control in Sunni tribal areas have alienated some of the Sunni supports of the 'insurgents'. The key to greatly suppressing the 'insurgency' will be when Sunni's realize that they have more to lose if the killing continues than if they chose to participate in the new Iraqi gov't.

There will be suicide bombers in Iraq for many years. That fact does not mean the guerilla tactics of Zawqawi are effective or that they have any real chance of influencing the political situation in Iraq. What you need to do is look at the levels of violence over time and by region. I believe when there is a political deal between the Sunni's and Shia the 'insurgency' will be effectively over. Their only goal is to push Iraq into chaos and when Sunni's decide to join the gov't that goal will be next to impossible to achieve.

tbill
19-07-2005, 01:59
The media has done a poor job of reporting what is happening is Iraq in part because of the 'if it bleeds it leads' mentality.

Here is a summary of the good news coming out of Iraq. (http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007196.php)

As the link says, nation building is long process. I would add that it is not without milestones which show us if we are making progress. Ultimately, the benchmark will be if Iraqis can live together in peace.

surfsky
19-07-2005, 05:46
tbill,

I agree with you and I have been there. But there are all these people who have not been there and tell me they know better....who may that be.. could it be Goose?

Goose0009
19-07-2005, 18:59
Listen dude,
I don't have to be there to know that things are going good. I have said it time and time again there are many good things going on in Iraq. I am sure of it. Just as there were many good things being done in South Vietnam. However, 135,000 U.S. Troops are in Iraq. Surfsky answer me this could the U.S. Pull our troops out tomorrow? No, You know we couldn't. Yet, on your reply you will talk about how it takes time, voting, and a consitution. Those are good things, but when you can't defend you consitution on your own it is window dressing. What good is voting when Iraqis can't stop insurgents? I know you will give me some number on how Iraqis are waiting in long lines to join the guard. Surfsky answer me this can anyone from the Iraqis government go outside the greenzone without many safety precautions. Well, unemployement is high so joining the army which pays three times more then the average Iraqis salary makes sense to me. I was watching frontline when an American Quick Response team had to come to the aide of 20 Iraqis police officers who were so scared they were on there hands and knees begging the Americans not to leave. If they can't fight the insurgents now after two and a half years with American Might, how the hell are they gonna do it without them. I know I have not been to Iraq, but guess what you have not proven me wrong. Insurgents fight on, Americans are dying, Americans are paying 185 billion dollars, Iraqis have yet to fight the insurgents on their own. I remember when Mohammed Baqr Al Hakim was killed by Sunnis insurgents. It laid the ground work for a possible civil war. There is going to be a time when the Shites wake up from their freedom felt Utopia and fight the sunnis for thirty years of oppression, descrimination and Genocide. I don't need to be in Iraq to know grudges take a long time to die in many of the middle east and the rest of the world. I have heard several leading Shites use the "J" word and I have heard they are getting sick and tired of the Sunnis Insurgents attacking the Shite population. How much more are they going to take? When the civil war comes and it draws other nations in and more American Troops, I guess you will still worship George Bush. BTW, Kenneth Lay feels the same way you do.

surfsky
20-07-2005, 03:36
Like I said before you’re right on most your comments. Differences are when we first invaded there was hope in their eyes and now there letting go. Most of that is based on what they think Americans will do, they think we will leave. They see us as being weak, not because our soldiers but because our public is weak. Guys like you are going to win out than we will just abandon them. I know what you think your doing is helping soldiers. When you talking about mounting casualties and a quagmire. The reality is your hurting us, we are here, and it has to be done by someone. No one would say leaving is the responsible thing. Tag, I’m it.

The insurgents like a guy like you. As long as there is a guy like you that is weak hearted they smell victory.

You don’t know my politics so don’t even speculate.

Bels
22-07-2005, 23:05
I have many opinions about Iraq, but what bugs me the most is why are the Americans so conceited, Britain was first to declare war on the Iraqi s on their invasion, last to my count there were 45,000 British troops in Iraq. Don,t get carried away with yourselves

tbill
23-07-2005, 00:45
I have many opinions about Iraq, but what bugs me the most is why are the Americans so conceited, Britain was first to declare war on the Iraqi s on their invasion, last to my count there were 45,000 British troops in Iraq. Don,t get carried away with yourselves

Actually it is more like 8,500 troops (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071000725.html) which are certainly not as good as the American troops.*






*Joking!

surfsky
23-07-2005, 06:26
I have many opinions about Iraq, but what bugs me the most is why are the Americans so conceited, Britain was first to declare war on the Iraqi s on their invasion, last to my count there were 45,000 British troops in Iraq. Don,t get carried away with yourselves

Just because were talking about the US perspective does not mean we are not concerned with UK Soldiers. My heart goes out to them every time I hear about a casualty, as well as any other coalition soldier.

But if you want center stage we could always trade the Sunni Triangle for Basra.

surfsky
23-07-2005, 06:28
lets finnish this thing, we are going to push this cart in the ground long after the wheels have been sold on ebay.

Bluebird
23-07-2005, 10:57
lets finnish this thing, we are going to push this cart in the ground long after the wheels have been sold on ebay.I agree...There are many other things to talk about...

Crazyeelboy
23-07-2005, 11:32
Hate to say it, but TBill, you are off base with the "not as good" comment. From what I can see, they are all doing the work. Some have different missions, but they are all doing the job.

tbill
23-07-2005, 11:57
Hate to say it, but TBill, you are off base with the "not as good" comment. From what I can see, they are all doing the work. Some have different missions, but they are all doing the job.


Bels said what he did not like about Americans in the case of Iraq is that we were conceited to which I replied like I was conceited. I was joking.* Hence the asterisks and the word joking at the bottom of the page.









*But this is serious.

Crazyeelboy
23-07-2005, 12:44
I didn't see the fine print - never mind. :-)

doogiecb
24-07-2005, 12:03
man, the subject is whether iraq was invaded in a radical strategic offensive by america's "camp camp", for want of a better term, to try to bring modernity to a backward nation that thought butt-banditry was a sin. the whole wmd thing is totally passe.

My thoughts before the war (and still) with respect to the arguement of creating a democracy in the middle east and it will spread ..... why not take the resources used in Iraq and instead let them make Afganhistan secure enough throughout the whole country so that democracy can blossom quicker). Also, these same resources instead of being in Iraq could be used to hunt down Osama Bin Laden (since he did have more to do with 911 & the radical jihad movement than Sadam Hussien).

surfsky
24-07-2005, 13:31
What do you want to use the resources in Pakistan, a great Allie and to the US against UBL? Go smoke some more, if you want to invade an ally.

Iraq was about sucking suckers in. You want to fight our soldiers trained to kill and wearing body armor. Be my guest.

I kick in doors and smoke f@!kr's for a living.... I like it leave us a lone.

If not face East and pray five times a day

tbill
24-07-2005, 16:17
My thoughts before the war (and still) with respect to the arguement of creating a democracy in the middle east and it will spread ..... why not take the resources used in Iraq and instead let them make Afganhistan secure enough throughout the whole country so that democracy can blossom quicker). Also, these same resources instead of being in Iraq could be used to hunt down Osama Bin Laden (since he did have more to do with 911 & the radical jihad movement than Sadam Hussien).

The resources are better spent in Iraq than in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a very mountainous country divided among ethnic groups that have no experience trusting each other. The people live very primitive lives. A truce is about all we could expect.

OBL is not just not important. In fact, it is a strategic resource to keep him alive if we have a good idea where he is hiding we can intercept communications. Also, OBL is not the strategic genius that you might think. 9/11 was a blunder in that they expect it would cow the US or provoke us into indiscriminate killing. It would have been smarter to hit the US with a death blow instead of a symbolic gesture that just served to wake us up.

Iraq borders the three biggest purveyors and sponsors of terror. Its strategic location makes it the perfect place to launch psychological warfare against the Syrian kleptocracy, the Iranian theocracy and the Saudi oligarchy. The war on terror (WOT) is more than retaliation and destruction of an enemy. If that were so then it would not be called the WOT, it would be correctly be called the war on Islamofascists. The term WOT is a politically correct way of saying we are not really targetting the religion of Islam when, in fact, we are. We are trying to bring democracy to the ME hoping that it will temper the anger that is caused by poverty. We are trying to change the ME so that the restless young men which are the fuel of jihad will have better things to do with their time like playing video games or going to the pub and getting pissed.

Bush believes that democratic societies calm the violent tendencies of political fringe movements. That is because democracy and prosperity are linked. To be more cynical, the Chomskyan critique would be manufacturing consensus or bread and circuses to keep the masses dull witted. Either way, people who have a voice in how their societies are run tend to be less violent. Just look at fringe movements on the right and left in the US. They are free to say what they like and to try and recruit members but they remain small groups who do little harm.

I hope this helps you understand our goals in Iraq.

doogiecb
24-07-2005, 18:40
What do you want to use the resources in Pakistan, a great Allie and to the US against UBL? Go smoke some more, if you want to invade an ally.


So do you think the world would be a safer place with Osama Bin Laden in prison or Suddam Hussien .... I happen to think Osama Bin Laden since Hussien did not have WMD's, was a weak contained force in the Middle East, and was not a driving force behind unitiing muslims around the world for a jihad against the west.

Also, I did not mention invading Pakistan, but lets think for a second ..... if Osama Bin Laden is moving back and forth accross the Afghanistan & Pakistan border if the coalition forces were able to tighted up the Afghanistan side, maybe the Pakistan army would have a better chance to capture him?

doogiecb
24-07-2005, 19:13
TBILL,
You make some good points, to reply to some of them:
1) A truce being all we can expect in Afghanistan -- pretty accurate based upon the Soviet invasion experience, however Bush & Blair when selling reasons for the invasion seemed to promise more than settling on a truce. However, most military actions to gain support have a lot more selling than can be delivered.

2) Iraq is a stategic location to plant democracy --- geographically agree, but Iraq is very similar to former Yugoslavia in that Communist's oppression was used to force several ethinic groups that hate each other to co-habitate the same country .... I think the US trying to force them to live as one country may actually be hindering the democratic movement and pushing them closer to civil war, which in the long run will make the whole middle east region less stable and a better breeding ground for the jihad movement to gain support. ,,,, your thoughts on a whole vs. separated Iraq and the democratic process?

3) Your comment about restless young men ... In my opinion the Marshall Plan after WWII was brilliant in that it used funds to promote economic development to reduce unemployment and thus restless young men in western Europe were not as interested in the communist movement. Maybe you can help clarify what I am misunderstanding as to why a similar approach could not be used in the Middle East to fight the muslim jihad movement? Also, I have always considered the Palestinian uprising to be very much related to the high unemployment rates there and wondered why Israel (although it seem illogical to fund a country with radical enemies) did not promote economic growth to lower unemployment & in turn reduce the number of young men with idle time to become disgruntled an throw rocks at tanks?

4) Agree that democracies do not allow as much voilent actions, but that should be amended to "stable & pure democracies" ... Palestine could quite possibly have "fair" elections and Hamas come out the winner which.

5) In establishing democracy with military action, civilian casualties are expected, if I am an Iraqi who hates Sadam and wants democracy will I be able to keep from believing the rhetoric of the radical muslims if my family is killed by US troops or continue supporting the democratic movement .... So the question is through military action to plant democracy in Iraq are we actually planting more seeds of democracy or of anti-western sentiment (obviously both are being planted in and outside of Iraq)?

You definately gave some good points to consider when looking at the pro's and con's of invading Iraq. Thank you for the constructive reply, I've tried to be as logical as you (hopefully).

tbill
24-07-2005, 20:39
1) I think they sold the Afghan invasion based on the fact that was where Al Qaeda was based. As for any grand rhetoric about the future of Afghani democracy, we will see but I am not all that optimistic nor concerned. It is much more important that Iraq is politically stable.

2) There are only two ethnic groups, Kurd and Arab, and only one religion, with two sects. Not nearly as complex as Yugoslavia. Also, the Shia want peace and have refrained from attacking the Sunnis. The Kurds have their own area and are participating in the gov't. Which leaves the 20% which are Sunni Arabs who are showing signs of being willing to participate in the new gov't: Sunni clerics speaking against violence and Sunni tribesmen fighting with foreign fighters. If that civil war does break out then we will talk. However, I think this is unlikely because it is not in the interests of any of the groups. It is only in the interests of the Jihadis.

3) One necessary condition of a prosperous economy is the rule of law; uncorrupt courts, law enforcement and bureaucrats. Political freedom is necessary to a degree, also. Giving aid to tyrants is a waste and possibly even harmful to the citizens of a country. (Take a look at Africa whose biggest problem are corrupt gov'ts)

4) A functioning representative democracy is the goal. Holding a fixed election is not enough. I would say let Hamas win with the understanding that they can't use their power to eliminate the opposition. In a functioning country political opponents do battle with words not guns.

5) It is necessary for the coalition forces to follow rules of engagement that minimize the risk to civilians. This has increased the risks to our troops. If we are to be seen as a force for good, the Iraqis must believe that we are not in Iraq to enslave or kill them. I would have to say that, outside of the Jihadis and some of the Sunnis, the average Iraqi is not looking to rise up against the coalition. I think Sadr was funded and controlled by Iran and that Sistani effectively squelched his attempt power grab. Since then the Shia and Kurd have been very peaceful. With our efforts to rebuild Iraq the reports from our troops in the field shows a very different picture than you might paint of seething resentment. I would add that the best way to avoid conflict will be to train Iraq police and military forces and put them in place to be the face of security ASAP.

I know we disagree about the invasion but we should be on the same side concerning the aftermath. I will be very happy to see coalition troop levels drop when the Iraqs are ready to take over those missions. I think there will be an American division or perhaps a couple of battalions in Iraq for possibly decades. But that will only be at the request of the Iraqis and it will be a force for stability just as American troops in Europe provided security.

One more thing I would like to make clear. i am completely opposed to an invasion of Syria or Iran. That is not necessary. We invaded Iraq to use it as a platform for displaying democracy. We should let it work, especially in Iran.

Bluebird
24-07-2005, 20:59
1) I think they sold the Afghan invasion based on the fact that was where Al Qaeda was based. As for any grand rhetoric about the future of Afghani democracy, we will see but I am not all that optimistic nor concerned. It is much more important that Iraq is politically stable.

2) There are only two ethnic groups, Kurd and Arab, and only one religion, with two sects. Not nearly as complex as Yugoslavia. Also, the Shia want peace and have refrained from attacking the Sunnis. The Kurds have their own area and are participating in the gov't. Which leaves the 20% which are Sunni Arabs who are showing signs of being willing to participate in the new gov't: Sunni clerics speaking against violence and Sunni tribesmen fighting with foreign fighters. If that civil war does break out then we will talk. However, I think this is unlikely because it is not in the interests of any of the groups. It is only in the interests of the Jihadis.

3) One necessary condition of a prosperous economy is the rule of law; uncorrupt courts, law enforcement and bureaucrats. Political freedom is necessary to a degree, also. Giving aid to tyrants is a waste and possibly even harmful to the citizens of a country. (Take a look at Africa whose biggest problem are corrupt gov'ts)

4) A functioning representative democracy is the goal. Holding a fixed election is not enough. I would say let Hamas win with the understanding that they can't use their power to eliminate the opposition. In a functioning country political opponents do battle with words not guns.

5) It is necessary for the coalition forces to follow rules of engagement that minimize the risk to civilians. This has increased the risks to our troops. If we are to be seen as a force for good, the Iraqis must believe that we are not in Iraq to enslave or kill them. I would have to say that, outside of the Jihadis and some of the Sunnis, the average Iraqi is not looking to rise up against the coalition. I think Sadr was funded and controlled by Iran and that Sistani effectively squelched his attempt power grab. Since then the Shia and Kurd have been very peaceful. With our efforts to rebuild Iraq the reports from our troops in the field shows a very different picture than you might paint of seething resentment. I would add that the best way to avoid conflict will be to train Iraq police and military forces and put them in place to be the face of security ASAP.

I know we disagree about the invasion but we should be on the same side concerning the aftermath. I will be very happy to see coalition troop levels drop when the Iraqs are ready to take over those missions. I think there will be an American division or perhaps a couple of battalions in Iraq for possibly decades. But that will only be at the request of the Iraqis and it will be a force for stability just as American troops in Europe provided security.

One more thing I would like to make clear. i am completely opposed to an invasion of Syria or Iran. That is not necessary. We invaded Iraq to use it as a platform for displaying democracy. We should let it work, especially in Iran.They already had their own forms of demcracy and culture, whether we liked it of not, before we felt the need to "plant" our own form of democracy on them.

We should never have gone in there...Simple, period!

Goose0009
25-07-2005, 03:51
I found this article by Scripps Howard News Service
WASHINGTON- During more than seven hours of testimony this week, a Senate committee heard that Iraq is in a low-grade civil war, that there are no additional U.S. or allied troops to help and that Iraqi soldiers are far from ready to take over.
From experts on the war in Iraq, senators heard that a new constitution could make things worse, and wouldn't quiet the insurgency.
They heard that the oil industry is sabotaged for profit, not just politics, and that much of the billions of dollars spent on reconstruction so far have accomplished nothing.
"Discount half of what you said, it's still damn disturbing," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., told witnesses that it's not too late to change the course of the war "by our conversations here."
Lugar, in an interview after three days of hearings, said there's "no reason for me to be overconfident" that the administration will take his panel's advice on the war.
"no more than all the advice we've given, starting before the war," he said. Yet "I've found many members of the administration are interested in new ideas."
Many of the experts' ideas conflicted.
Kenneth Pollack, a Brookings Institution senior fellow, said the United States can't end the insuregency by going to hot spots and then leaving when the fighting is over. "The insurgents don't stay to fight. They melt back into the population," he said.
Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey said there are no more troops to be had--and in a year, the United States will have to scale back because of rules on how often National Guard and Reserves troops can be called up.
"The army and Marines are starting to come apart. The National Guard is in a stage of meltdown," he said."By the end of next summer, we're going to be halfway out of Iraq." He said the country has an 80 percent chance "of pulling this off by next summer."
Anthony Cordesman, of Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said he thinks the chance for success is "50 percent and dropping." He wouldn't predict how long the war would take. "I agree it will take years-- I have no idea how many-- five, 10 or 12."
Lugar said in an interview, "I think the bulk of our forces will have left Iraq" in two more years, though there could be permanent bases there if Iraq asks for them.
Pollack said U.S. troops will be in Iraq "at least a decade plus."

surfsky
26-07-2005, 23:12
You know we just tripped the wire on the bomb that would have existed had we not gone in. Than we would have gone in at that point when there was civil war. Who is to say when Saddam died and he eventually would have that there would not have been a Shiite-Sunni civil war.

Now it is the time to recognize that Iraqis and the soldiers that believe they are there to make a better future are in it together. My first few months after 9-11 I worked very closely with Afghans. We developed bonds, still when I go back I can fid these people and their homes are open. The same is true for soldiers working with Iraqis.

The problem is hysteria in Iraq. Any law enforcement finds it difficult to resolve things when hysteria exists. Right now there is not personal accountability for people’s actions which leads to more violence. It is the same a riot where people that would usually never commit a crime find them selves throwing bottles and rocks at police. The insurgency is as miss directed as it comes. They are not working for the benefit of the people. They exist because organizations that wrap people in fear can exist. One can compare that element of the insurgency to organized crime.

Look, audit makes sure the money is being spent effectively. Don't get on the horn and tell us every soldier’s life is now a wasted life. Because Kerry or any one else that was running for President said the same thing. "I don't support us invading, but we have a responsibility to stay."

Let me tell you how do a family that just lost a love one think after that? Or a soldier still there? So regardless we are there now, now you have to support them.

Don't make it miss directed support like anti-war congress people showing up to soldier's funerals, not talking to the family, than going straight to the media and ranting about their anti-war crap. Right now both Democrats and Republicans want soldier in Iraq. Democrats so they have something to complain about and rant about. Republicans well they just like tanks and helicopters destroyed so they can give more contracts to make more.

I had choice stay in and make a bs wage as a soldier and stay with the people respect he most, or get out and make a doctor’s salary while staying with the people I respect the most. I choose the latter. They are the only people I really respect, because they are the only people on earth wiling to put their lives on the line for each other. No over time, no bonuses.

Goose0009
27-07-2005, 09:35
I said this time and time again. I am sure many Americans who have lost loved ones over seas don't want to pull out because they would have died for nothing if we did. My belief is that 2 or 20 years from now it doesn't matter that country will not ever beable to keep itself together without U.S. help. If we would pull out now only 1,775 Americans would have been killed for nothing. It is much better then 59,000.
You just don't get it. We are sacrificing so much. Our country is going down the F@cking toilet. The lower cl**** middle class or the working poor are being left behind in this world economy. We can't just keep invading countries hoping 100 years from now they will have a democracy. We are spending 185 billion dollars, 435 billion dollars on our defense and we have lost 1,775 soldiers for what. There is no democracy in Iraq. I don't care what Iraqis vote on. Americans have to fight and pay for it. We can't keep going to war. These actions our president has taken is going to bleed this country dry. I know there are a lot of Republicans expats doing business in Russia and on this site. So, I guess as long as they get their tax breaks, and have lots of money invested in Bechtel Group, Haliburton Co., DynCorp, Stevedoring Services of America, General Dynamics, Boeing, Skylink They would support their president and they can be a member of the I got mine club Like Kenneth Lay. Listen, America is decaying from the inside which has nothing to do with terrorism. We need to put our focus on the education of our children. We need to rebuild our cities that have gone down the f@cking tubes. We need to fix our social security, health care, hospitals and care for our elderly. The care in hospitals and nursing homes is going to sh#t. Why? lack of funding from the federal government. But, then again we can't keep social security but we can fight a war were there were NO WMDS, NO WMDS, NO WMDS, NOW WMDS, This war is still being fought every F@cking day, it will go on and on and on and on as long as America is stupid enough to allow its soldiers to die over there. Like I said time and time again America will pay for this war for 20 years and have nothing to show for it. The insurgency believes its destiny is to fight for Islam. I don't think what they are fighting for is right, but they do and that is all that matters.

surfsky
27-07-2005, 11:05
You got to take it easy. There is nothing more complex and more demanding than to lead people in combat. It takes 4 years to train a Platoon leader in our country. It takes 2 years for a junior non-commission officer to lead 3 other men. A military is not something that comes at a pace you are considering. The former Iraq Army is completely un suited to, un trained, un ethical, they basically sucked. So you can not look to that to help you out. But to say the New Iraqi military is failure is a jump to conclusion.

The insurgency does not have popular support throughout the country. It has popular support in isolated areas with an ability to move through out the country blending in as other civilians. Basically if you think of it as Texas, a red neck can live in Waco and have popular support there. But he can get in his pick up truck with a couple buddies and drive to Dallas. Hit a target and be back home for dinner.

That is not to say that the military does not have a hard time. This is why there is miss trust. Civilian know we cannot be everywhere all the times. When we leave they know some thug will show up and piss on the work we do. The remedy is the slow proxess as we get the Iraqi military up.

But, once again. Thank you for telling me what I did and do is worthless. Regardless of who is in Office from this day forward it will be the same. No one is going to pull us out because there will be a power vacuum 100 times larger than there was in Somalia or Afghanistan. The result of which will be truly sinister. That will be a threat. I can't point fingers at who did it 3 years ago. I wish they would have a draft and start with Congress People's off spring.

With the exception of a few, everyone voted for the War. Knowing that it was guys in uniform like me that would be at the tip of the decision. Democrats had nothing to loose by voting for the war. They could basically say later "deep down in side I did not believe in it, but at the time I wanted to support the president." If everything went well they had nothing to loose, but if Iraq turned into a mess than they had everything to gain. Well the Democrats that say the above quote, lack back bone. So in my eyes they were playing politics knowing full and well that election victory would come as soldiers ended up in body bags. In fact, the Washington State Democratic Party Leader said in a speech that Iraq has been a gold mine on its effects on elections, saying that had the war gone well than they (democrats) were in for hard times. Than she said "luckily the war is going bad and we are loosing soldiers." What the F@#k is that? Since when do Americans hope for American soldiers to be killed?

So realize this, there are people that also wish to shape all the information you hear to be as bad as it could possibly be. These forces are just as powerful as the President of the United States.

Look I know you got your beliefs but your beliefs are not helping that much. If you just want to turn your back on things than just do it. But the rest of us that operate in Iraq have some back bone. We have crossed the line of no return. For me it has gone from door kicking to humanitarian. Every day is one more motorcade and taking people where they need to go, because we have to do it. The thing that keeps us going is one neighborhood at a time we are setting up a sewer system, a school, or a clinic. The rocks turn into waves. Believe it or not it is getting better every day.

Like is said the decision line has been crossed and we are two feet in. We are just fighting are way through the other side live or die. You just take comfort in the fact that all you have to do for your country is pay taxes and vote. Since you probable make less than 80K a year and live in Moscow you don’t even pay taxes.

As far as the contracting goes KBR, Dyn, and other, I totally agree with you. I am getting billed out at 3K a day and I am seeing a fraction of that.

Crazyeelboy
27-07-2005, 15:19
I said this time and time again. I am sure many Americans who have lost loved ones over seas don't want to pull out because they would have died for nothing if we did. My belief is that 2 or 20 years from now it doesn't matter that country will not ever beable to keep itself together without U.S. help. If we would pull out now only 1,775 Americans would have been killed for nothing. It is much better then 59,000.
You just don't get it. We are sacrificing so much. Our country is going down the F@cking toilet. The lower cl**** middle class or the working poor are being left behind in this world economy. We can't just keep invading countries hoping 100 years from now they will have a democracy. We are spending 185 billion dollars, 435 billion dollars on our defense and we have lost 1,775 soldiers for what. There is no democracy in Iraq. I don't care what Iraqis vote on. Americans have to fight and pay for it. We can't keep going to war. These actions our president has taken is going to bleed this country dry. I know there are a lot of Republicans expats doing business in Russia and on this site. So, I guess as long as they get their tax breaks, and have lots of money invested in Bechtel Group, Haliburton Co., DynCorp, Stevedoring Services of America, General Dynamics, Boeing, Skylink They would support their president and they can be a member of the I got mine club Like Kenneth Lay. Listen, America is decaying from the inside which has nothing to do with terrorism. We need to put our focus on the education of our children. We need to rebuild our cities that have gone down the f@cking tubes. We need to fix our social security, health care, hospitals and care for our elderly. The care in hospitals and nursing homes is going to sh#t. Why? lack of funding from the federal government. But, then again we can't keep social security but we can fight a war were there were NO WMDS, NO WMDS, NO WMDS, NOW WMDS, This war is still being fought every F@cking day, it will go on and on and on and on as long as America is stupid enough to allow its soldiers to die over there. Like I said time and time again America will pay for this war for 20 years and have nothing to show for it. The insurgency believes its destiny is to fight for Islam. I don't think what they are fighting for is right, but they do and that is all that matters.

TOGA! TOGA! TOGA!

tbill
27-07-2005, 15:27
They already had their own forms of demcracy and culture, whether we liked it of not, before we felt the need to "plant" our own form of democracy on them.

We should never have gone in there...Simple, period!

I am missing something. What form of democracy existed in Iraq or Afghanistan before the invasions?

tbill
27-07-2005, 21:00
You just don't get it. We are sacrificing so much. Our country is going down the F@cking toilet. The lower cl**** middle class or the working poor are being left behind in this world economy. We can't just keep invading countries hoping 100 years from now they will have a democracy. We are spending 185 billion dollars, 435 billion dollars on our defense and we have lost 1,775 soldiers for what.

Here is the cost of war (http://costofwar.com/) website. If you want to know the cost of the Iraq war per capita or by household the information is there. You can get an idea of the priorities of the people who run the site when they have the option to see how many times we could fully fund global anti-hunger initiatives. (http://costofwar.com/index-world-hunger.html) Personally I would rather have a new 30" LCD screen to watch Hi-Definition sports on DirecTv. But that is the reason that why their crocodile tears for the American taxpayer are falling on deaf ears.

$185 billion is a lot of money but we should put it in perspective. Each point of the Dow Industrials represents about a billion dollars. The Dow dropped from 9605 to a post 9/11 low, after it reopened, of 8062 on September 21st. A loss of $1,557 billion. Since al Qaeda appears to be occupied in Iraq I feel comfortable saying that the Iraq war has helped prevent further attacks on US soil and the attendant damage to the economy.

Now if you are serious about cutting the deficit how about privitzing PBS and NPR? How about cutting off the NEA and NASA? Ending farm subsidies, that would help third world farmers! Better yet, how about a balanced budget amendment that would limit the deficit to 2% of the GDP after which across the board cuts, including means tested entitlements, in the federal budget? Could a leftist support cutting the size of gov't? I doubt it. You should probably stick to telling us about how much you care about the troops.

Crazyeelboy
27-07-2005, 21:37
Well done, T! You will notice from earlier Goose posts that he rants against the destruction of America because of .... drumroll, please ... too little federal funding. Take a peek:

"Listen, America is decaying from the inside which has nothing to do with terrorism. We need to put our focus on the education of our children. We need to rebuild our cities that have gone down the f@cking tubes. We need to fix our social security, health care, hospitals and care for our elderly. The care in hospitals and nursing homes is going to sh#t. Why? lack of funding from the federal government."

surfsky
28-07-2005, 01:24
I agree with T-bill. The average American has spent a total of $650, of their tax dollars on the war since it has started. That is almost three years. Most of you guys burn more money in the Bore House in a month.

The reason why the US is so F'd up is local governments that year after year have brain washed you to believe that nothing is their responsibility and it is all the responsibility of the Federal Government. What does every state Governor say...."I will get more Federal Funding" for this or that. You’re talking about Federal programs for schools, hospitals, and everything else and they are all truly defined as a State responsibility.

The reason why health care is f'd up is because when anyone ahs the choice between health insurance and a friggen SUV, they will take the SUV. One of the most interesting experiences I had was a job working as a loan officer briefly when I go out of the military. You really find out where people's money are going. It is just human nature people pick wrong over right all the time and run their credit into the dirt. Why the heck should my tax dollars pay for that guy. Darwin was one smart bro. Let the guy fall. I have a firm belief that is one of the reasons the US is on top. There is no safety net for stupid people. So the crap sinks.

Bluebird
28-07-2005, 02:14
Well done, T! You will notice from earlier Goose posts that he rants against the destruction of America because of .... drumroll, please ... too little federal funding. Take a peek:

"Listen, America is decaying from the inside which has nothing to do with terrorism. We need to put our focus on the education of our children. We need to rebuild our cities that have gone down the f@cking tubes. We need to fix our social security, health care, hospitals and care for our elderly. The care in hospitals and nursing homes is going to sh#t. Why? lack of funding from the federal government."What a pity that a few more didn't think like that, when they had a chance to get rid of Bush & Co, last time around then...

surfsky
28-07-2005, 03:27
Blue bird,

Lets take a look at the social well fair program in the UK and tell me if it helps your country overall? Well it helps Paki terrorist live in your country for three years getting free rent.

See the problem with giving any money to the government is that it becomes politicized. Some minority group demands all of.

Crazyeelboy
28-07-2005, 09:06
What a pity that a few more didn't think like that, when they had a chance to get rid of Bush & Co, last time around then...

Blubird: I don't get your connection with Bush to this. The point is one of to what degree Americans want the federal government to be involved in running society.

There are guys like Goose who think more federal spending is the way to solve our problems and there are guys like myself who believe that people are better off with a more limited government.

Just throwing government money at these kinds of problems won't do the job. At best, you just waste the money. More likely, you waste the money and make the problem worse. At worst, you continue to build up governmental control over society. I think PJ O'Rourke put it well when he described a trip behind the Iron Curtain (in the bad old days) - he said it was as if the Post Office ran the entire country. The problem is not that the US federal government does not spend enough - the problem is that the spending is not effective.

Take education - the US spends tremendous amounts on education every year, and the per student cost is staggering. But, for some reason, despite all of this "investment" in education, people are still unhappy with the results. From the first days I taught school, I realized money was not the problem. The problem was a lack of accountability and misguided ideas as to what schools are supposed to do. So, the more money we poured in not only failed to bring improvements, but took us further down the wrong path - doing more harm than good.

We can go down the list, but I think you get the point. Government is good for certain specific and limited things, but it is by no means the cure all.

One last point - Goose is dead wrong in saying that everything in the US is going down the tubes. That is simply not true. Those of us who have been abroad quickly realize just how good things are in the US, Western Europe, etc. Sure, we have issues and problems, but to freak out and rant that everything is going down the tubes is just plain off the mark and distorts any rational consideration of the issues. The sky isn't falling.

Bluebird
28-07-2005, 21:48
Blubird: I don't get your connection with Bush to this. The point is one of to what degree Americans want the federal government to be involved in running society.

There are guys like Goose who think more federal spending is the way to solve our problems and there are guys like myself who believe that people are better off with a more limited government.

Just throwing government money at these kinds of problems won't do the job. At best, you just waste the money. More likely, you waste the money and make the problem worse. At worst, you continue to build up governmental control over society. I think PJ O'Rourke put it well when he described a trip behind the Iron Curtain (in the bad old days) - he said it was as if the Post Office ran the entire country. The problem is not that the US federal government does not spend enough - the problem is that the spending is not effective.

Take education - the US spends tremendous amounts on education every year, and the per student cost is staggering. But, for some reason, despite all of this "investment" in education, people are still unhappy with the results. From the first days I taught school, I realized money was not the problem. The problem was a lack of accountability and misguided ideas as to what schools are supposed to do. So, the more money we poured in not only failed to bring improvements, but took us further down the wrong path - doing more harm than good.

We can go down the list, but I think you get the point. Government is good for certain specific and limited things, but it is by no means the cure all.

One last point - Goose is dead wrong in saying that everything in the US is going down the tubes. That is simply not true. Those of us who have been abroad quickly realize just how good things are in the US, Western Europe, etc. Sure, we have issues and problems, but to freak out and rant that everything is going down the tubes is just plain off the mark and distorts any rational consideration of the issues. The sky isn't falling.My mistake...

I agree, with the points you've made, an excellent answer and well put. Thanks.

Bluebird
28-07-2005, 21:53
Blue bird,

Lets take a look at the social well fair program in the UK and tell me if it helps your country overall? Well it helps Paki terrorist live in your country for three years getting free rent.

See the problem with giving any money to the government is that it becomes politicized. Some minority group demands all of.*Sigh,* I've only but to (unfortunately) agree, with that point.

Goose0009
29-07-2005, 01:49
Blubird: I don't get your connection with Bush to this. The point is one of to what degree Americans want the federal government to be involved in running society.

There are guys like Goose who think more federal spending is the way to solve our problems and there are guys like myself who believe that people are better off with a more limited government.

Just throwing government money at these kinds of problems won't do the job. At best, you just waste the money. More likely, you waste the money and make the problem worse. At worst, you continue to build up governmental control over society. I think PJ O'Rourke put it well when he described a trip behind the Iron Curtain (in the bad old days) - he said it was as if the Post Office ran the entire country. The problem is not that the US federal government does not spend enough - the problem is that the spending is not effective.

Take education - the US spends tremendous amounts on education every year, and the per student cost is staggering. But, for some reason, despite all of this "investment" in education, people are still unhappy with the results. From the first days I taught school, I realized money was not the problem. The problem was a lack of accountability and misguided ideas as to what schools are supposed to do. So, the more money we poured in not only failed to bring improvements, but took us further down the wrong path - doing more harm than good.

We can go down the list, but I think you get the point. Government is good for certain specific and limited things, but it is by no means the cure all.

One last point - Goose is dead wrong in saying that everything in the US is going down the tubes. That is simply not true. Those of us who have been abroad quickly realize just how good things are in the US, Western Europe, etc. Sure, we have issues and problems, but to freak out and rant that everything is going down the tubes is just plain off the mark and distorts any rational consideration of the issues. The sky isn't falling.
HAHAHA, I am sure you love Neal Cavuto too!!!!!!

I do agree that pouring money in our education system isn't the answer, but we better do something fast. When U.S. students rank 28th of industralized countries in math, it should be a show of great concern. I would like to know why Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Australia, And Netherlands can have a higher standard of living then the Average American living in the wealthiest nation in the world. Maybe, it is the less preditory capitalist system that treats the masses better. HA,HA,HA, What the hell is in Iceland but Hot springs and Icebergs, yet their socialized welfare system has done well for the average Icelander. I am abroad and yes our system is better then Russia, but we should not compare ourselves to a country that hasn't even fully embraced a democracy. I would like to compare the average in the rest of the western world. I have been to many Western European countries. I remember Koba told me their was poverty in Berlin. He said you just have to get off the beatin path. HAHAHAHA, I wish all of you Preditory Capitalist could come to cities like Pittsburgh, Erie, Buffalo, Cleveland, and other smaller steel cities where the Poverty is right in your face. You don't have to go off the beatin path to see poverty in America. I would guess that you haven't been to many Nursing homes and hospitals in the U.S. Take a look on how poor the help is and how understaffed they are compared to other countries like Norway. How in America doctors and nurses have higher patient ratios then their European counterparts. I see how beautiful Western Europe is and I would say the average European lives a lot better then the average American. I will get back to you with statistics when I wake up.

koba65
29-07-2005, 07:09
I would like to know why Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Australia, And Netherlands can have a higher standard of living then the Average American living in the wealthiest nation in the world. Maybe, it is the less preditory capitalist system that treats the masses better.

Again with this tripe! Hmm, higher standard of living than the "Average American" or higher standard of living than Americans living beneath the poverty level? Something tells me, based on the huge houses, two (or more) car families, the Average American lives quite nicer than the Average Dutch guy living in a flat and using a bicycle to go get his hashish.


HA,HA,HA, What the hell is in Iceland but Hot springs and Icebergs, yet their socialized welfare system has done well for the average Icelander.

Another one of your famous faulty analogies. Iceland is a small small country and cannot be compared to the US. Iceland doesn't allow free immigration and has racist immigration policies, or are you saying we shouldn't let in any dark skinned immigrants who might mate with our white women and then suck off of the government hind teet. Because that's what Icelandic policy has been.


I am abroad and yes our system is better then Russia, but we should not compare ourselves to a country that hasn't even fully embraced a democracy. I would like to compare the average in the rest of the western world. I have been to many Western European countries. I remember Koba told me their was poverty in Berlin. He said you just have to get off the beatin path. HAHAHAHA, I wish all of you Preditory Capitalist could come to cities like Pittsburgh, Erie, Buffalo, Cleveland, and other smaller steel cities where the Poverty is right in your face. You don't have to go off the beatin path to see poverty in America.

Let me explain once again my comments regarding Berlin. Poverty exists there and it is off the beaten path BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT THE TOURISTS TO SEE THE POVERTY. The poor were "housed" in Kreuzberg and areas of Moabit and NeuKolln. After the fall of the Wall, they were shipped over to the newly "freed" Eastern Berlin and live there in the concrete jungle. Of course, if you visited it you'd probably get your a** kicked because the Turks don't like people sniffing around. If you want a good picture of the long history of poverty in Berlin you should get a copy of "Christianne F." Instead of "visiting" Western countries, I've lived in them. There are some good things there, some things we can learn from, however, it is not a socialist paradise. There is inequality, oppression, and poverty. It's HIDDEN. You have to live there to learn about it. Fromers isn't going to have handy maps to it.



I would guess that you haven't been to many Nursing homes and hospitals in the U.S. Take a look on how poor the help is and how understaffed they are compared to other countries like Norway. How in America doctors and nurses have higher patient ratios then their European counterparts. I see how beautiful Western Europe is and I would say the average European lives a lot better then the average American. I will get back to you with statistics when I wake up.

Before you twist your statistics, might I suggest you try doing a per capita study and you'll see that it would be better and more accurate to compare Norway with one of our States and not the country as a whole.

Furthermore, you touch upon a problem in the US. The difference between transitional poverty and cyclical poverty. Transitional poverty is a condition experienced by first generation Americans or immigrants and is temporary in nature. As they become more settled they tend to work their way out of poverty. The condition of transitional poverty is almost non-existent in your Western European countries because most immigrants become victims of cyclical poverty.

Cyclical poverty in the US is a result of failed government programs that get the poor "hooked" on the thought that the gubment is responsible for their welfare from cradle to grave. A side aspect of this condition is the degradation of the American family. Why take care of grandma when the gubment should. Instead of taking her in to your own home, shove her in an underfunded and overcrowded nursing home. At least she has a roof over her head and then she won't get in the way of your favorite sitcom or football game playing on your 500 channel satellite system. Of course, let's not forget the millions of fatherless children who continue to be born even though our loving government programs provide free birth control at every free clinic located in the poverty stricken areas of the US. But, hey, wrapping that rascal or taking the pill is just too much damn work and if Sheila cranks out 5 babies from 5 different guys it's the government's responsiblity to feed and clothe them. And let's not forget that without a "nuclear family" those kids end up scoffing off school, hanging out on the streets and falling to a life a crime. Why? Because the government owes them and since they don't have a nice home it's not their fault that they have to rip off hard working people who just must have been "born into wealth."

In the meantime, the newspapers of the American cities you mentioned are FILLED with job announcements. But, unless it's a job paying tons of money that person on welfare isn't going to take it. Why work your butt off when you can get money for free. Since you're so informed about the poor areas of Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Erie, what's your opinion of welfare recipients who have 3 or more kids going into Wal-Mart, buying a loaf of bread with welfare checks, getting change and going next door to the liquor store? What government handout program will resolve that problem?

PS - those scores on the academic tests have gone up quite significantly in the last 4 years. I guess you just missed that in your research.

PPS - If I bought into your philosphy about poverty in America I'd have my a## planted on my porch in some trailor park sipping Pabst Blue Ribbon. After all, my government should have been taking care of me all that time?? Why the hell did I go and work my way out of poverty? What a dope I am.

Crazyeelboy
29-07-2005, 08:51
Goose - thanks for the reply (really). It is now clear. You are simply a socialist and that is your ultimate problem with the US government. It is not about WMD, Iraq, President Bush, crumbling infrastructure or any of that. You are simply a socialist and you have a problem with the USA because it does not follow a socialist ideology.

The real fact, comrade, is that as an economic system, free markets work and socialism does not. As a political ideology, free markets support free societies and socialism leads to increased government control over people's lives (either directly or indirectly through bureaucratic allocation of benefits and resources).

Now that we have reached the heart of your position, I have to get back to my job as a predatory capitalist (cool buzzword). I'll be sure to inform the people we employ with good paying jobs that we are really just exploiting them.

tbill
29-07-2005, 10:33
If sweden were a US state, it would be the poorest state in the union. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/678536/posts)

Reuters Market News Swedes less well off than poorest Americans -study

STOCKHOLM, May 4 (Reuters) - Swedes, usually perceived in Europe as a comfortable, middle class lot, are poorer than African Americans, the most economically deprived group in the United States, a Swedish study showed on Saturday.

The study by a retail trade lobby, published in the liberal Dagens Nyheter newspaper 19 weeks before the next general election, echoed the centre-right opposition's criticism of the weak state of Sweden's economy after decades of almost uninterrupted Social Democratic rule.

The Swedish Research Institute of Trade (HUI) said it had compared official U.S. and Swedish statistics on household income as well as gross domestic product, private consumption and retail spending per capita between 1980 and 1999.

Using fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data, the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800 compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households, HUI's study showed.

"Weak growth means that Sweden has lost greatly in prosperity compared with the United States," HUI's President Fredrik Bergstrom and chief economist Robert Gidehag said.

International Monetary Fund data from 2001 show that U.S. GDP per capita in dollar terms was 56 percent higher than in Sweden while in 1980, Swedish GDP per capita was 20 percent higher.

"Black people, who have the lowest income in the United States, now have a higher standard of living than an ordinary Swedish household," the HUI economists said.

If Sweden were a U.S. state, it would be the poorest measured by household gross income before taxes, Bergstrom and Gidehag said.

They said they had chosen that measure for their comparison to get around the differences in taxation and welfare structures. Capital gains such as income from securities were not included.

AMERICANS CAN BUY MORE

The median income of African American households was about 70 percent of the median for all U.S. households while Swedish households earned 68 percent of the overall U.S. median level.

This meant that Swedes stood "below groups which in the Swedish debate are usually regarded as poor and losers in the American economy," Bergstrom and Gidehag said.

Between 1980 and 1999, the gross income of Sweden's poorest households increased by just over six percent while the poorest in the United States enjoyed a three times higher increase, HUI said.

If the trend persists, "things that are commonplace in the United States will be regarded as the utmost luxury in Sweden," the authors said. "We are not quite there yet but the trend is clear."

According to HUI figures, in 1998-99 U.S. GDP per capita was 40 percent higher than in Sweden while U.S. private consumption and retail sales per capita exceeded Swedish levels by more than 80 percent.

The HUI economists attributed the much bigger difference in consumption and sales mainly to the fact that U.S. households pay themselves for education and health care, services which are tax-financed and come for free or at low user charges in Sweden.

According to recent opinion polls Sweden's Social Democrats are comfortably ahead of the centre-right opposition in the run-up to the September 15 elections.


Goose, I think it is quite clear that socialistic policies encourage slothe rather than relieve poverty. It goes back to the parable of teaching a man to fish versus giving him a fish. My father was a minister so I got to see my share of hospitals and nursing homes. For a good part of my life I lived on the southside of Chicago so I have seen poverty, also. It is amazing to me to see blighted neighborhoods in Chicago going through building booms right now. I think we are in a housing bubble but a great side-effect is the revitilization of southside. Poverty in America has many causes, a good many are societal. Here is an article on poverty and the Black family in America. (http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html) Daniel Patrick Moynihan saw this coming 40 years ago. The solution, again, was not giving them money but to try and change their behavior. Behavior is the key to ending poverty. I think countries like Sweden create perverse incentive which encourage people not to work, innovate or take risks as much as they might. There is a great deal of literature out there showing how socialism and the welfare state hurt the people they are trying to help. I hope you have an open mind. If you are interested I would be happy to point you in the right (no pun intended) direction.

PugetPilot
29-07-2005, 11:24
Anyone that has been to a European Socialist economy on the first Monday of a month can find bars packed by noon with people on welfare. I kind of like Americans under the gun to perform. It is the American way.

Want to smoke cigarettes? You pay for your own health cars. Compare US smoking statistics to just about anywhere in Europe and the US is lower. Why? The individual suffers with 100% of the consequences.

There is a problem with the budgets of the US. It is at the State and City level. There is not as much oversight in the media and with the voters. With a transient population in the US, few people can even tell you who there Governor or Mayor is. Don't pay attention to these guys and that 8% sales tax, 10% income tax and 1.5% property tax gets blown really quickly with no answer. One just has to look at the U as a whole. Every state and city has raised taxes in the last 20 years, while the Federal Government has lowered it. So really who controls you and where is the money going. It is probably some guy that lives with in 5 miles of you scamming you the hardest.

PugetPilot
29-07-2005, 11:26
Anyone that has been to a European Socialist economy on the first Monday of a month can find bars packed by noon with people on welfare. I kind of like Americans under the gun to perform. It is the American way.

Want to smoke cigarettes? You pay for your own health cars. Compare US smoking statistics to just about anywhere in Europe and the US is lower. Why? The individual suffers with 100% of the consequences.

There is a problem with the budgets of the US. It is at the State and City level. There is not as much oversight in the media and with the voters. With a transient population in the US, few people can even tell you who there Governor or Mayor is. Don't pay attention to these guys and that 8% sales tax, 10% income tax and 1.5% property tax gets blown really quickly with no answer. One just has to look at the US as a whole. Every state and city has raised taxes in the last 20 years, while the Federal Government has lowered it. So really who controls you and where is the money going? It is probably some guy that lives with in 5 miles of you scamming you the hardest.

Goose0009
29-07-2005, 16:00
I guess you guys are right things are looking up. By 2015, 49% of packaging software jobs could be outsourced, 44% in Biotech, 25% in world banking, 20% of insurance jobs, 13% pharmaceutical jobs, 52% of engineering jobs, 31% of accounting jobs, and 4.1 million service jobs. 45 million Americans do not have any health coverage. What kind of care do they get? That is more than the total population of Canada. U.S. Pays 53% more for health care than elsewhere. U.S. Citizens paid $5,267 per person for health care in 2002, 53 percent more than any other industrialized country and 1,821 more than Switzerland. We pay for drugs, hospital stays and doctor visits 2 to 2.5 times as much as other countries pay. What do we get for that money? Shouldn't we live longer then Citizens from Canada, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, but we don't live longer than these countries. We have higher death and infant mortality rates than these countries. Our education system is p@ss poor. The Brits, Germans, Dutch, South Koreans, are top notch in education. American students ranked 28th out of all industrialized countries. Only 2,500 Americans earned doctorates as compared to almost 8,000 Chinese students in 2002. We don't have to worry about the Chinese building up their military. They are patient and gladly waite 50 years to take us over economicaly. So, I guess it was more important for George Bush to send troops to an oil rich country to spread democracy. Even though, there were NO WMDS, NO WMDS, NO WMDS, NO WMDS, NO WMDS, AND NO OSAMA BIN LADEN.
my source August ed.,2005 of Forutune pages 74-78, 81, 83.

Crazyeelboy
29-07-2005, 16:13
Toga! Toga! Toga!

Packman
13-06-2007, 15:58
Gee, hasn't the two years that we lost really proven Cheney right! Iraq now has a fully functioning democracy and the US forces have withdrawn. How could we know how smart the man is.:nut:

Yuzov
14-06-2007, 03:25
Gee, hasn't the two years that we lost really proven Cheney right! Iraq now has a fully functioning democracy and the US forces have withdrawn. How could we know how smart the man is.:nut:

That is precisely why he is so loved and revered in the United States and around the world.:farout: