Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
America In Way Over Its Head  
User currently offlineN754pr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1238 times:

How many of you US based users have seen the light and noticed your government is in WAY OVER ITS HEAD in Iraq? Do you think Bush will ever accept this or just continue to get hundreds of American citizens (and others) killed? Not to mention the Billions being pumped down the drain?

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1222 times:

 Insane

User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3552 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1215 times:

 Yeah sure Yawn........ next subject, please.

User currently offlineSolarix From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1203 times:

Woah. Another Iraq posting.  Insane
Whats done is done. There is nothing we can do except finish the job at this point. Either that or we let the country drop into civil war and chaos. Personally I could care less as the whole thing sickens me.


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1193 times:

"Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it."



User currently offlineDiamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1186 times:

Being "in over our head" is not the same thing as "Whats done is done". It doesn't matter whether you are for the war or against it. Now that we are there - we ARE in over our heads.

We don't have a clear strategy to create a Democracy OR to exit the country. Even Bush's fellow Republicans are voicing their concern.

Turning the country over to Iraq on 6/30 will either not happen at all or it will be a complete sham.

It was reported today that our own army is running out of bullets and having to import them from Israel.

source: http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/21194.php





Blank.
User currently offlineMark777300 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1177 times:

I said it before, and I will say it again, we should have never gone to Iraq. This was a personal thing with Bush, and of course, the oil. But what do we do know? we made a mess, who's gonna clean it? Us of course, with my good ol wonderful tax dollars. What happened to Bin Laden?? Did we forget that we were suppose to go after him and his goons?

User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7951 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1160 times:

We are definitely in over our heads - but what f*cking choice do we have? These animals will keep coming at us regardless of what we do or don't do.

Iraq itself is proving to be a wholesale mistake, however. We have mismanaged things royally thus far by both underestimating the gravity of the task and overestimating the realistic possibilities of installing democracy in a part of the world nowhere near f*cking ready for it.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1134 times:

We are not in over our heads, but its time to stop tying the military's hands. If we are going to be over there, then its time to use the military in a proficient manner and get things locked down.

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

If we are going to be over there, then its time to use the military in a proficient manner and get things locked down.

That's been going on for more than a year, and look how bad the situation is. Surely what's needed now is INTERNATIONAL support, and UN help with peace keepers?

All it takes is to ask.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12032 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1122 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We are not in over our heads, but its time to stop tying the military's hands. If we are going to be over there, then its time to use the military in a proficient manner and get things locked down.

I would tend to agree, but I'm afraid the 'message' coming from the US government is as confused as hell. Are we (US and its allies) in there to liberate the oppressed Iraqis, or as an army of occupation?

If the former, then using the Army and Marines as policemen isn't going to work - they're not trained for it (the abuse issue is just an example, and I'm not digging at the US on this, it seems, sadly, that the Brits are playing that game too).

If the latter, then yes, the military needs to be let of the leash to do what they can do. Personally, I fear for the long-term consequences. It might be possible to clean out the rebels in a few months, but could easily create a seed-bed of future anti-west hatred.

The most worrying aspect is that it seems as though the US government doesn't have any idea what to do. I don't see how on earth they can hand over power on their stated deadline. They are likely damned if they do, damned if they don't.

It's a big mess. If not over their heads yet, they could easily become so.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1122 times:

You mean to tell me, that the American Military, with its full capabilities (not even going the nuclear route) cannot handle things in Iraq? Sorry slugger, but the military is not being used correctly or as well as it should be in Iraq.

User currently offlineWorldoftui From Sweden, joined Aug 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1109 times:

Just wanted to point out that it is not JUST the Americans that may be in over their heads. There a people from a lot of countries who are currently risking their lives in Iraq.

Many of the countries who helped to liberate Iraq initially are now struggling with justifying their actions in the beginning, and their continued presence in Iraq. Spain may be the first of several to go.
Prime Minister (President  Big grin ) Blair had, and will continue to have a tough time over his actions. It may well cost him his leadership.

Anyway, back to the point. The alliance does not seem to have a clear strategy for exit, which to me, seems to be the most worrying thing.

Don't think that "in over your head" is the right phrase. But I certainly think that the coalition has vastly under-estimated the scale of the task. Also, did they really think that just because Sadam was out of the way, that the hundreds of thousands of his supporters would go too?

Mark

EDIT - Apologies. Just re-read the initial post. Sorry  Smile

[Edited 2004-05-13 13:10:36]

User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1092 times:

If we are going to be over there, then its time to use the military in a proficient manner and get things locked down.

That's been going on for more than a year, and look how bad the situation is. Surely what's needed now is INTERNATIONAL support, and UN help with peace keepers?

All it takes is to ask.


Uh huh. The UN peacekeepers are sooooo well known for dealing with violence, yeah that's a great idea. All they ever do is stand by and wait for the violence to end, even if it means they let a bunch of their Peace Keeping troops get slaughtered, What are they gonna do every time a bomb goes off over there, are they just gonna withdraw like they always do.

As for the military being in over its head, no I don't think that Iraq is beyond the capabilities of the US military, but you guys always stating "There isn't a solid exit strategy, There isn't a rigid war plan" duh, there never is a set in stone rigid war plan, show me a war or military action were every outcome was known and things went 100% buy some plan drawn up 1 year, 6 months or even a week ago. War and combat are very dynamic, you don't just follow some cue cards. We will have an exit from Iraq when things are more or less right and in our and the Iraqis favor. That "there is no exit strategy" is merely a political talking point. And neither side is innocent from using it.








"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1083 times:

Galaxy5,

I don't think that Iraq is beyond the capabilities of the US military

Well, I should hope not, because that would be a very disturbing thing for the US which has an army supposed to be able to fight 2 large scale wars and 2 minor scale conflicts at the same time...

Anyway, the aim of this invasion was not to occupy Iraq, suppress the local population, strip them of the very few liberties they enjoyed under Saddam, install a US military backed regime, use martial law, etc... but to free Iraq, give it a stable democratic government, see it prosper and pull out your troops by 6/30...
Oh, and wait a second... yes that's right, there was something else.. Hum, what was it? Oh, it must have been those WMD the US was going to deal with...

Anyway, you also say:

War and combat are very dynamic

I agree 100%, but wasn't the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, a long time ago?
Strange to have you commander in chief saying this, yet have over 100,000 troops engaged in combat and even an open war 6 months later...

[Edited 2004-05-13 14:33:07]

User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1080 times:

Yes major combat operations were accomplished.

Whats your point. Oh i guess we should have just wound things up and left 24 hrs after that.



"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1056 times:

Alpha1,

Why shouldn't we ask the UN for help?

Good idea, but do you really think the permanent members of the UN are standing by, waiting for your president to send his Secretary of State with a draft resolution to the Security Council, have it voted asap and then to commit hundreds of thousands of their troops to Iraq, just like that?

If things would be that simple, that would indeed be a very good way out which might lead to success. The problem with it is however, this administration openly, publicly and repeatedly attacked, insulted and humiliated not less than 3 permanent members of the security Council as well as many other member states, so these will want to present the bill to Washington somehow... Maybe the Chinese and Russians are willing to forget about the arrogant comments of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush, but is a public secret the French President is not willing to let rest the very painful comment that France and Germany are just old Europe and thus irrelevant... It will take a lot more than just saying 'I am sorry and I take responsibility' on TV to heal that... The US will have to swallow it's pride and accept a public humiliation too... However, I do not see President Bush himself come to the UN and state the US started the war in Iraq on wrong facts, that he made a mess of it, does not know what to do any further and begs for help... Maybe a regime change in Washington would be a quicker and better way out of this mess?

EDIT: seems this is in reply to a post which got deleted...




[Edited 2004-05-13 15:12:26]

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1045 times:

..but the military is not being used correctly or as well as it should be in Iraq.

Being against the war, I can say that I don't think we were over our heads, but as KROC alluded to, I think political considerations, just like in Vietnam,are interfering with how the military operation is being waged.

In the '91 Gulf War, Colin Powell, head of the JCS, said that if you're going to go to war, you give the troops all they need, and you go in with overwhelming superiority in numbers. We invaded Iraq and Kuwait, with about a half million men, mostly Americans, to simply drive Iraq from Kuwait. Yet here, in 2003/04, in trying to invade a country, and also OCCUPY it, we had what? 180,000 troops, at most, in theater, actually on the ground. Never mind that Saudi and Turkey didn't give us permission to use them as staging areas, are you telling me we couldn't have put in 300,000 troops? 180,000 may have been sufficient for the assult, but it certainly wasn't sufficient for occupation AND continued fighting, which is what we fact now.

It means one of two things-either the Administration miscalculated on how long they thought we'd need to occupy Iraq (which I think is what it is), or they simply made a political decision, for domestic consumption, not to put as many soldiers as they could have on the ground.

So more troops are needed. But where are they to come from? Bush doesn't seem ready to commit a lot more troops.

Uh huh. The UN peacekeepers are sooooo well known for dealing with violence, yeah that's a great idea.

Cut out the anti-foreigner stuff, Galaxy5. Why shouldn't we ask the UN for help? Why not send UN forces into areas that are not a threat, and have a semblance of peace in them, while U.S. and Coalition forces can concentrate on finishing the combat portion of the operation. The sooner we can do that, the sooner our men and women can get home.

Your pride is I think exactly the same pride Bush is showning, and all it's doing is dragging out this war far beyond how long it should have done. We're beyond trying to be stubborn, and telling the world to go fuck itself. Swallow our pride, ask for assistance, and let's finish this mess and get our troops home as soon as we can.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1039 times:

Galaxy5, even if UN peacekeepers do a bad job, it'll probably be better than the mess that a lot of the place is in now.

All it'd take is George Bush standing in front of the UN, admitting he was wrong, asking for help, and before long a multilateral peacekeeping force would be in Iraq, not only helping directly, but showing the Iraqis that the WORLD is there to try and help THEM rebuild their country - and it's not just the big bad US trying to occupy their country.


User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1036 times:

That's a better post Alpha, see you didn't have to resort to name calling to get your point across.

I still disagree with it however. The UN was in Iraq if you remember, but they pulled out very shortly, if you recall it only took a single event, 1 car bomb and they withdrew like a cat on fire. As for pride, yes I have pride, whets wrong with having pride, its better than having no pride at all and wanting to quit when things get tough, or wanting everyone else to finish what you started. If you have no pride I guess that's the way you want things done. The UN could come to Iraq but they want total autonomy and full control of the Government and military operations, and I don't think that's a very good idea , especially with the UNs track record, the US military doesn't want to be under UN control and shouldn't be, but no-one is stopping them from coming back to assist, except those countries that are spiteful and refuse to allow it.



"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1040 times:

777236ER

admitting he was wrong

That's exactly what it takes, indeed. However, for a president running for re-election and in an election year, this is highly unlikely, don't you think?

But then, maybe President Bush is a great leader after all and understands that the success of this operation in Iraq, the lives of his troops and the future of the middle east are more important than his own political carrier...
 Yeah sure



User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1031 times:

So, you'll just let us go along, with this insufficient force, while more Americans get killed, and the war drags on. Is that what you want? I don't. I want our men and women home. Most of them have served honorably and with professionalism, and many in the Guard have had their tours extended while families wait at home. It's time for us to swallow a little pride, and do the right thing, and ask for ASSISTANCE in helping to finish the job up, making Iraq as safe as possible, then leaving the future of Iraq to Iraqi's-which we should have done in the first place, and not even started this war.

User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1029 times:

Well, I should hope not, because that would be a very disturbing thing for the US which has an army supposed to be able to fight 2 large scale wars and 2 minor scale conflicts at the same time...

Not sure where you are getting your figures from, but the U.S. Military is built to handle 2 different war on 2 different fronts. Not 2 large scale wats and 2 minor conflicts as well.

Adding to what Alpha 1 said as well, in 1998 when I was stationed at Hunter Army Air Field, Saddam was acting up again and showing signs of taking over Kuwait again. The 3rd ID from Ft. Stewart and Hunter AAF were deployed in mass numbers. I believe that from Stewart and other Posts/Bases/Camps that 200-250,000 men were deployed just to deter Saddam. It wasn't long after that, the troops started coming back home and Saddam was stopped again. Now, like Alpha mentioned, we have maybe 200,000 troops to not only fight the war but to keep order as well? And trust me, thats more than enough, IF they could do their job without political interference.


User currently offlineWorldoftui From Sweden, joined Aug 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1026 times:

The UN has peacekeepers, not peacemakers. They can show a presence and help to keep law and order, but the way things are at the moment, I doubt whether their presence is appropriate to the amount of violence and fighting that is going on.

My view is that the sooner the coalition gets out and the sooner the UN goes in, the better. How we get to that point from here is another matter.

Mark


User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1026 times:

So, you'll just let us go along, with this insufficient force, while more Americans get killed, and the war drags on. Is that what you want?

Yeah Alpha that's what I want.

Do you not read, do you not watch the news, or is it only selective hearing, the US has welcomed UN support, however the UN is unwilling to help unless they are in total control and only under their terms. Well if you want the US to be controlled by the UN I guess that fine for you, but its not for most of the military.



"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
25 Alpha 1 : Well if you want the US to be controlled by the UN I guess that fine for you, but its not for most of the military. Give me a break. The far-right fea
26 Worldoftui : Alpha1 Give me a break. The far-right fear of the UN taking "control" of the U.S. What a load of rubbish. As I said, make it a joint command-the U.S.
27 Airplay : We are definitely in over our heads - but what f*cking choice do we have? These animals will keep coming at us regardless of what we do or don't do. I
28 777236ER : The US, and the UK, do not welcome UN support, on this issue at least. The arrogance shown to the UN by the US before the war started was incredible -
29 Worldoftui : 777236ER On the contry, I think that Tony Blair needs UN peacekeepers in Iraq to win the next election. Now that the election is coming up, I am incli
30 KROC : KROC’s suggestion that the US military is not being used “correctly” indicates that what he is really thinking (in my opinion) is th
31 174thfwff : I think the military is working correctly, however a few things... A) Media blows out of proportion the number of US military deaths. Yes, this is ver
32 GDB : The US military always had the gloves off, (what that lame old excuse again?) What do you call using F-16s, M1 tanks, artillery in a built up area ful
33 Post contains images Scbriml : A) Media blows out of proportion the number of US military deaths. Yes, this is very important, however how many of the bad guys have we got in relati
34 Zrb2 : Like it or not the U.S military has a license to kill RIGHT NOW in Iraq. They need to use it effectively and then get the hell out. So many radical mi
35 Airplay : I watch the news from Canada and it is tremendously slanted against the United States. Thats because The Bush administration is (and was) wrong in ent
36 BN747 : Totally in agreement Airplay, The reason for the political indecision and it's partner - military might hamstrung by uncertainty - is because 'again'
37 Boeing nut : Bush treated Iraq like a dog chasing a car. He caught it but now has no idea what to do with it.
38 Post contains images Alpha 1 : So many radical militants/extremists have flocked to Iraq right now (from all over the middle east) it's like bees to the honeycomb. Gee, and I thoug
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Did The UK Keep Its Head In The Sand Pre-7/7? posted Sun Jul 24 2005 02:00:05 by Avek00
5th Typhoon In 2001 On Its Way To Taiwan posted Tue Jul 10 2001 08:54:49 by Jiml1126
Town's Top Cop In Trouble Over Wife's Nude Pics posted Thu Sep 14 2006 03:38:55 by IAH777
Fury In Egypt Over Ghana's Israeli Flag Waver posted Wed Jun 21 2006 01:22:05 by RJpieces
The World Cup In Germany Has Its First Victim posted Tue May 16 2006 22:25:13 by LTU932
Addis Ababa: 20+ Dead In Riots Over Last Election posted Wed Nov 2 2005 17:07:28 by MaverickM11
America In Iraq - We Are Winning posted Wed Apr 27 2005 21:25:33 by UH60FtRucker
Venezuela To Keep Its Head Of State posted Mon Aug 16 2004 15:31:41 by Sabenapilot
Ford In Trouble Over Advertising posted Mon Sep 15 2003 05:01:10 by Captaingomes
Isreal Steps Way Over A Line posted Fri Aug 1 2003 00:04:16 by Alpha 1