Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The U.s. Have Lost The War In Iraq Irreversably  
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2266 times:

looking at the current situation in iraq and afghanistan, one has to wonder if you can fail more than the current u.s. administration.

they have failed to win both wars in every aspect imaginable.
lets take a look at the snafu in afghanistan before analyzing the iraq fubar:

- a unprecedented coalition of the worldwide coalition on terror is built with great momentum

- the taleban get to disperse into the villages and countries because there is hardly any foreign presence of ground troops, bought locals have proven to be unreliable

- after the overthrowing of the taleban regime, afghanistan is back to the medieval control of warlords, pretty similar to the situation where the taleban were in power apart from the public religious supressin

- the lack of commitment of ground forces on a large scale to hold a firm grip on every large city render karzais government to the government of kabulistan since the rest of the country is not under his control

the afghanistan situation is pretty bad, not unrecoverable though when ignoring the situation in iraq. if there had been determination to rebuild the country with an international coalition, had the u.s. used the troops bush needed for the oil war to bring stability to afghanistan, had the u.s. admininstration not burnt bridges with ever western country except italy and the uk, there would have been a realistic chance to give a future without anarchy and ak-47 justice to afghanis.
this was all turned into an impossible illusion when the bush admin figured that they did enough in afghanistan to make the u.s. public happy, propaganda started demonizing iraq in the months during the afghanistan campaign already, clearly showing where the real interests lay.

iraq: worse then vietnam:

- vietnam saw decent support for the u.s., especially in the south. in iraq, there is fringe support at best

- the already low number of supporters will further decline when the u.s. keeps up the counter insurgency bombing of iraqi cities

- bombing civillian areas, as done now, does not win the hearts of the iraqis

- the sunni were mostly pro saddam and have supported the insurgency from the start

- the shiites will want a DEMOCRATIC election, factually giving them full power over iraq. certainly not in the interest of the us. occupation, since that would spawn a iraq similar to iran that will certainly kick out the u.s. troops and might lead to civil war amongst the populations

- if the elections held will not be democratic, the shiites will join the insurgency. current prolbems with al-sadr, who is merely a fringe player, will look like childs play compared to a true shiite uprising

-rumsfeld has hinted that the elections will not be democratic with his statement that problem areas might be left out, to anyone sceptic this sounds like "we will allow elections where the result will be favourable to our interests and use this token democracy to claim that our new iraqi dictator would have been democratically elected"

- if the shiites make their gods state, the kurds will proclaim independence and the turks will invade northern iraq with their "robust" style of not caring about collateral damage and own casualties

so what are the options?

i think there are no good options anymore, only lesser evils.

- the u.s. could "turn iraq into a parking lot" and see unprecedented hostility in the world and possibly dozens of terror attacks(of course the evil muslims would yet again be to blame since the u.s. is always innocent) and no credibility whatsoever left in the world

- the u.s. could pull out, making itself look like a fool and weak and vulnerable, boosting enemys morale in any future conflict

- the u.s. could allow truly democratic elections and accept the fact that there will be a not so pro u..s state in the area instead the beacon of freedom

- the u..s could try to keep the current scheme up, slowly escalating the insurgency since counter insurgency operations only raise the will to resist in the iraqi population, the u.s. west bank would be born

under any case, the bush administration has to admit total defeat.
no flowers for the soliders, no beacon of democracy, only a beacon of failed imperialism and carnage, the al quaeda dream come true: a bunch of new arguments for al quaeda recruiters, a live fire bootcamp the size of france and a truckload of propaganda to choose from with the daily pictures of dead women and children from u.s. counter insurgency operations.

good job dubya, looking forward to "4 more years"


10=2
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

Make you wonder what it really means to be a "superpower"....

User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2242 times:

I think you both miss the point.

The US has some wonderful hospitals but they can't keep you alive if you keep firing bullets into your own head.

We did not take these people to raise as our own children. We removed the Taliban cancer and we removed the Saddam cancer but they've got to rebuild themselves.

Who is being beheaded in Iraq? It is the people who are rebuilding, not the soldiers. And the good citizens on the street are buying DVDs of the beheadings. You cant "save" people so barbaric as to spend what little money they have on "entertainment" like that.

If the situation is lost lay the blame where it belongs, on the primitive, barbaric savagery of the population there. They kill people because they are in love with pain, suffering, blood and death. Those perversions will keep civilization from spreading to that part of the world a thousand years after you and I are dead.






Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2232 times:

I have my own opinions on the current situation on Iraq, but saying it is worse than Vietnam? Please - that's not remotely accurate.

Don't forget Iraq is largely a secular country, and even within Islamic circles there are many, many different groups and interests. None of the geo-physical situation is analagous to Vietnam, which was literally split down the middle, with Uncle Ho in the North wanting to re-unify the country.

" vietnam saw decent support for the u.s., especially in the south. in iraq, there is fringe support at best".

I think any scholar of history or veteran of Southeast Asia would find that statement both sad and hilarious in equal measure.

Iraq is a mess, but it's a mess we have made, and we'll have to just ride the storm.



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2228 times:

@slamclick

you my friend, show the typical "we cant be the bad guys" phenomenom the u.s. seem to have. the insurgents do indeed show signs of being barbaric savages. this is however not genuine to "them arabs", "muslims" et cetera, but normal modus operandi for insurgents. the french resistance and every other insurgency has also been cruel to the occupation forces and ANYONE associated with them, including the own people cooperating.
you totally isolate the "savages" from the invasion. nothing bad about bombing peoples houses i guess.

face the truth, the iraqi governing council is as legitimate as putains vichy france, the attacks on u.s. troops in iraq are as legitimate as the attacks on nazis in paris, the u.s. soliders are the cancer, not the iraqis.



10=2
User currently offlineQR332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

We did not take these people to raise as our own children. We removed the Taliban cancer and we removed the Saddam cancer but they've got to rebuild themselves.

Really? I thought you guys went in to build a "better Iraq". Removing a leader/government completley destablilizes a country, it does not just mean the bad person is gone. And anyway, you guys said you were gonna rebuild the country.

Who is being beheaded in Iraq?

Which people are dying everyday and are the majority of dead? Americans or Iraqis?

It is the people who are rebuilding, not the soldiers. And the good citizens on the street are buying DVDs of the beheadings.

The good people of the US are supporting this bloody war where tens of thousands of civilians have lost their lives. If you lost a kid or your wife, you'd probably lose your mind and become desperate too. And even if you didn't, seeing your country being torn up while it did not do anything to provoke the US is bad enough.

You cant "save" people so barbaric as to spend what little money they have on "entertainment" like that.

Who ever said they buy DVDs of it?!

If the situation is lost lay the blame where it belongs, on the primitive, barbaric savagery of the population there.

OK, I'll blame it where it belongs.
I blame it on the US administration, who went in and destabilized the country, who hit many different civilian areas, who have managed to kill tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq, who do not know how to deal with the people, and who have killed the Iraqis.

They kill people because they are in love with pain, suffering, blood and death.

No, they kill them out of desperation, not love for pain. And you guys kill for oil and greed, I see why it is much better now!  Insane


User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

zak.....perhaps you remember the cartoon character that ran around moaning that "we're all doomed!" in a low tone. Or Chicken Little, who though the sky was falling. Think about that for a second.

I'd like you to go read a few blogs from soldiers in the field in Iraq to get an assessment from the ground. Try this one.
http://wordsfromiraq.blogspot.com/2004/08/there-is-still-hope-here.html
Anyone who wishes to say that Iraqis don't want us there should read this. It is not written by a soldier who is blind to reality or a drone of any puppetmaster looking to spread propaganda, look at the other stuff to decide for yourself.

If you missed the prime minister of Iraq's press conference the other day, he interrupted the president and a reporter to explain a couple of things that he said our press tends to ignore. He said that Iraq has 18 provinces and of those at least 14 are pretty damn safe. Some violence overflows from the 3 or 4 that are under attack from terrorists and insurgents, but the rest display a remarkable change from just 18 months ago. You seek to compare him to Vichy France to discredit him, when there is no comparison. Germany invaded France for conquest and control. We have no such desires. We want them to have freedom and most Iraqis want us there.

You wish to call Iraq a failure and remind people of Vietnam because it suits your poltical desires. You wish to insult our allies and work to prevent them from standing with us against terrorists end their supporters because it suits your political desires. You seem to be making this claim as part of your platform stating why the current political leadership should go.

What you refuse to see is that every time someone comes out and publicly decries what we are doing and says lets bring our kids back home, and to hell with the middle east, we are lending aid and comfort to the enemy. I guess this is the price we pay for freedom, and I am willing to pay it. I do wonder about those who have to pay in terms of blood, though.

Having someone like you come up with a litany of reasons to avoid doing what is hard but necessary just so that you can try to discredit your political enemies, but I wonder how the Iraqis who watch a free (and I mean unrestricted in terms of western content) news service (BBC, CNN, Fox, etc) and see all this and not lose hope that we will finish helping them get through this. I wonder how the terrorists and their supporters can watch the same stuff and not take encouragement that they are making headway and they should continue in their efforts.

I know this to be the price of freedom, to give people like you the right to tear down that which we are fighting for, and I am willing to pay the price.....I just wonder if the Iraqis enjoy paying that price as well. I wonder how our soldiers who are fighting the encouraged terrorists and insurgents feel about your lack of restraint. You say there is no good option, and I must say that any option that involves casualties is not a good option, but then again more than a couple of those fighting are friends of mine so I am biased. I completely disagree with what it seems your main premise is....WE ARE MAKING HEADWAY. The average Iraqi wants an end to the violence and support for the insurgents is nil outside of their tribal and religious sect stongholds. We must continue with our assistance to the people of Iraq. We do this and win and we will have started the region down a path of freedom and democracy that will be unstoppable.

BTW Think seriously about it prior to ever calling the US military a "cancer". It is the force that saved the free world three times in the 20th century, and has taken the lead in the fight against terrorists. If we do not take the war to them, they will bring it to us. Thinking anything else is wishful idiocy that will make them stronger and us more endangered.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

If the situation is lost lay the blame where it belongs, on the primitive, barbaric savagery of the population there.

Wrong, it belongs to George W. Bush and his advisors, for opening up this unwinnable Pandora's Box in the first place. THAT is where the blame lies.


User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Still looking to lay blame....you assume the blame for the war originates one place and others see it elsewhere.

I think you have made your point here, why don't you do something more constructive? Why don't you offer a solution to this issue that will work faster and cost fewer lives and less damage than the one being pursued by the administration.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2132 times:

Dl021:

"If you missed the prime minister of Iraq's press conference the other day, he interrupted the president and a reporter to explain a couple of things that he said our press tends to ignore. He said that Iraq has 18 provinces and of those at least 14 are pretty damn safe."

It's a pitty Mr Allawi didn't say which 14 provinces were "pretty damn safe", but I bet he refers to the one's with the least people (and the biggest deserts). Of a total population of some 26 milion, the province (governate) of Baghdad (unsafe) has 5,605,000, Nineveh / Ninawa where Mosul is 1,739,000, Basrah 1,337,000 and An-Najaf (Najaf) 563,000. Add those up, and you have 35% of the entire population. Nice try, Allawi!

"You wish to call Iraq a failure and remind people of Vietnam because it suits your poltical desires."

His 'whish to call Iraq a failure' is an observation; it is your desire his intentions are political.

"You wish to insult our allies and work to prevent them from standing with us against terrorists end their supporters because it suits your political desires."

Which 'allies' are those? Angola? Azerbaijan? Dominican Republic? Eritrea? Ethiopia? Iceland? Latvia? Palau (total polulation: 20,016. Imagine their annual defense budget!)? Rwanda? Solomon Islands? Uganda?

"What you refuse to see is that every time someone comes out and publicly decries what we are doing and says lets bring our kids back home, and to hell with the middle east, we are lending aid and comfort to the enemy. I guess this is the price we pay for freedom, and I am willing to pay it."

-----> https://usmilitary.com/secure/RecruitSignup.asp

"I do wonder about those who have to pay in terms of blood, though."

-----> http://www.immigration.ca/ ?

"but I wonder how the Iraqis who watch a free (and I mean unrestricted in terms of western content) news service (BBC, CNN, Fox, etc) and see all this and not lose hope that we will finish helping them get through this. "

To be able to view those "free and unrestricted news-services", they'll first need electricity!

"I know this to be the price of freedom, to give people like you the right to tear down that which we are fighting for, and I am willing to pay the price...."

Iraqis now have the freedom to say they don't like the US occupying their country and to say they don't like Mr Allawi as their interim president. But as nobody seems to be listening to all those things they are able to complain freely about now, what's the bloody point of their regained freedom?

"The average Iraqi wants an end to the violence and support for the insurgents is nil outside of their tribal and religious sect stongholds."

Facts please.

"52 percent said those attacks [on U.S. Forces] could be justified some or all of the time.", CNN, April 28 Poll (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/)

"We do this and win and we will have started the region down a path of freedom and democracy that will be unstoppable."

There must be something seriously wrong in your approach when only 2% of the Iraqis view the US as Liberators and 97% as occupiers (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=7752&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported)

"It is the force that saved the free world three times in the 20th century, and has taken the lead in the fight against terrorists. "

It is also the Nation that created and trained Osama bin Laden. Think about that...

"Thinking anything else is wishful idiocy that will make them stronger and us more endangered."

So now even by thinking one is helping the enemy? Wow dude, Hitler would have been proud of you!



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

So, as I see it, Zak, QR332 and Falcon84 define "stability" as being under the domination of the Taliban or Saddam Hussein. You accuse us of "destabilizing" the region by taking them out. I'd say the region is unstable by virtue of the nature, the character of the people living there.

This war may have been about oil prices. Neither you nor I know that. But what is the beheaders' war about? What will the country be like if they prevail? Anyone here planning on buying a time-share there?

If you think that grabbing a truck driver or an electrician and sawing his head off with a pocket knife is a natural and predictable response to insupportable grief then you are a savage, a barbarian.

The sale of the beheading DVDs was shown on the evening news here on or about the 22nd of September.





Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2126 times:

why does every thread about the iraq war have the usual bipartisan crap in them?

i have posted various reasons why the situation is, apart from the body count, more severe than the vietnam scenario without even taking the larger scenario in the middle east into account.

i have laid out various scenarios that describe why there is no exit strategy and why under EVERY option possible, the u.s. engagement will be a failure.

so please avg joe bush apologist, instead of posting random "it will work" propaganda gibberish, do everyone a favour and give us a "why the u.s. enagement in iraq will not be a defeat" roadmap that the conservatives all seem to vigirously defend on every occasion.
i have yet to see a convincing "roadmap to success in iraq". all the pro war bunch is able to come up with are bumper sticker lines that just state that the war was good and saddam is gone. they lack the following:

- STRATEGY TO WIN THE WAR, its not over yet as the casualty numbers are steadily on the rise, both civillain and allied military

- POSTWAR SCENARIO AND STRATEGY THAT TURNS IRAQ INTO A PROPSPEROUS COUNTRY something the u.s. administration never had

i know that none of the pro war bush apologists will be able to supply the curious public with such strategies, but i invite you to try.
(something like "lets turn iraq into a parking lot and let god sort them out, its their fault that they didnt appreciate that we got rid of saddam so who cares if they die" is not a strategy to win the war )



10=2
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

Zak I've known guys like you all my life. You (rather like the people of the Middle East) delight in discord, disharmony. You pretend to be opposed to this war, but in fact it gives you most of your reason for living - or at least for posting.

I've never had much respect for the cheapshot artist and that is all I see here. Of course it is a quagmire. I'll agree it had more to do with Halliburton's profits than with humanitarianism. In another administration it would have been the same thing - different corporate players.

Remember the "Ron Brown crash" in the former Yugoslavia? He, and those traveling with him were not on a "humanitarian mission" as was reported. They were going over to make their company bids on the rebuilding. It was about profits for their companies. That was under Clinton. It is not partisan, if it is anything it is about multinational conglomerate profits.

What would be a good outcome? For starters, the sewers, schools, electrical grid, hospitals roads, bridges, irrigation systems and, yes, oil production facilities would be up and running. People could go to work and shop and go to school or mosque (and church and synagogue) without fear of being kidnapped and beheaded OR a smart bomb landing on them. When differeces arise they would be taken up in the next election. That would be a good exit trigger.

Ain't gonna happen.

Why?

Not so much to do with the US military liking it over there. More to do with the default mode of the people of that culture. If you don't like someone or some thing - kill somebody. Sorry to be so blunt and so non-PC but it is the absolute truth.

The westerner who probably understood the Arab better than perhaps any other was T. E. Lawrence. He said of them: "They are comfortable only in extremes. They inhabit superlatives by choice."

Friendly discourse is just not in their nature yet. It needs to be the preferred method for their own internal quarrels before there will be "peace" whatever the hell that really means, in the region.

One last thing. Don't think that because I am not on your side that you can guess my politics, religion or anything else. I do my own thinking, thank you very much.





Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

I just will say that Bush's Administration is, the fact, the worst US-administration in many many years.
The book "The Bush and the Saud" by Craig Unger promise be very interesting...


User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

@slamclick

i applaud your skill at totally ignoring the issue, instead you chose to attack me and whatever you assume who and what i might be.
i guess when you cant attack the arguments, attack the guy that made them, a striking similarity to u.s. election campaigns to an alert observer.



10=2
User currently offlineCommander_Rabb From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 771 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

In today's "everything has to be now fast food society" people expect things to happen NOW. Well, in war and battle, that just does not happen. Things like this are not going to be finished with the snap of a finger. How unrealistic of you!

You mentioned Afghanistan and how the situation is and I quote "pretty bad". What the hell are you talking about? Have you been there? I can personally tell you the successes are huge considering what was going on there 3 years ago. Gains are being made. You make it sound like a resounding failure.

Chicken little is alive and well. It's you zak. I hope you feel that's a good title because you deserve it with that hopeless rant of despair and gloom. I would be so embarrassed with that post.

Sheeesh!


User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2083 times:

Schoenarama To answer your points in line. You can go straight to the bottom to see my response to your last line.
"If you missed the prime minister of Iraq's press conference the other day, he interrupted the president and a reporter to explain a couple of things that he said our press tends to ignore. He said that Iraq has 18 provinces and of those at least 14 are pretty damn safe."

It's a pitty Mr Allawi didn't say which 14 provinces were "pretty damn safe", but I bet he refers to the one's with the least people (and the biggest deserts). Of a total population of some 26 milion, the province (governate) of Baghdad (unsafe) has 5,605,000, Nineveh / Ninawa where Mosul is 1,739,000, Basrah 1,337,000 and An-Najaf (Najaf) 563,000. Add those up, and you have 35% of the entire population. Nice try, Allawi!


Does that mean that 65% of the country is safe? Is your glass always half empty? Is it not possible that the 35% not so safe to dangerous is made so by a small minority who is taking courage by your reaction to their tactics?

"You wish to call Iraq a failure and remind people of Vietnam because it suits your poltical desires."

His 'whish to call Iraq a failure' is an observation; it is your desire his intentions are political.


His written conclusion is a politically motivated diatribe, an observation draws no conclusions.

"You wish to insult our allies and work to prevent them from standing with us against terrorists end their supporters because it suits your political desires."

Which 'allies' are those? Angola? Azerbaijan? Dominican Republic? Eritrea? Ethiopia? Iceland? Latvia? Palau (total polulation: 20,016. Imagine their annual defense budget!)? Rwanda? Solomon Islands? Uganda?


Not that I am ignoring the contributions of our smaller allies, such as those you have mentioned...who not incidently have a deep understanding of the difference between freedom and dictatorship..(you must have forgotten the principle that the smallest of friends can be the greatest of allies)..but I was more referring the the UK, Australia, Denmark, The Netherlands, Italy, The Ukraine and other countries of more than small size you chose to ignore in an attempt to discredit my point by mockery of our allies.

"What you refuse to see is that every time someone comes out and publicly decries what we are doing and says lets bring our kids back home, and to hell with the middle east, we are lending aid and comfort to the enemy. I guess this is the price we pay for freedom, and I am willing to pay it."

-----> https://usmilitary.com/secure/RecruitSignup.asp


3 yrs C/307EN ABN 82d ABN, 2 yrs H/122 IN (LRS)(ABN) I did my share, and if called upon, even in my present aged and decrepit condition would do so again. In the meanwhile I will continue to run my company here and shore up the economic homefront.

"I do wonder about those who have to pay in terms of blood, though."

-----> http://www.immigration.ca/ ?


My mother the immigrant has no idea what Canada has to do with the point I was making. I was referring to the people who have to face the terrorists every day in their own back yards. THe Canadians are relatively isolated, and have been protected by us for the last hundred years or so from any type of invasion. They have certainly played their role in their defence, as well as been great allies when we needed them (Vimy Ridge, Dieppe, Normandy, NORAD, Iranian hostage smuggling, and PPLI infantry support in Afghanistan just to name a few). I am just wondering how you think they impact the point I was making.

"but I wonder how the Iraqis who watch a free (and I mean unrestricted in terms of western content) news service (BBC, CNN, Fox, etc) and see all this and not lose hope that we will finish helping them get through this. "

To be able to view those "free and unrestricted news-services", they'll first need electricity!


More people in Iraq have electricity than when Saddaam was in charge. THe local economies are growing, and they even have a stock exchange in Baghdad that is growing at the rate of 5 IPO's per week.

"I know this to be the price of freedom, to give people like you the right to tear down that which we are fighting for, and I am willing to pay the price...."

Iraqis now have the freedom to say they don't like the US occupying their country and to say they don't like Mr Allawi as their interim president. But as nobody seems to be listening to all those things they are able to complain freely about now, what's the bloody point of their regained freedom?


The average Iraqi, when asked by a real, non-partisan pollster will say that while they do not want any foreign troops in Iraq, but wants us to stay until the job of transformation is finished. They are growing very tired of the car bombs and terrorist acts. They want to live without fear of saying the worng thing about a cleric or govt official and ending up as fertilizer under a palace or flotsam in the Shatt-al-Arab.

"The average Iraqi wants an end to the violence and support for the insurgents is nil outside of their tribal and religious sect stongholds."

Facts please.


Refer to the latest press conference from Bush and Allawi. I realize you are dismissive of them, but Allawi is there, and was not Bush's 1st choice for the position. He was elected by the Iraqi members of the transitional authority and is the best source of information we have. But, if you want better facts, I encourage you to interview people who are there now. Go to the bloggers who are posting from there. Go ask the soldiers returning and see what the majority of them are saying. I tell you what, go to Iraq and see for yourself. It seems that you are inclined to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you so perhaps you should lay your own eyes and ears on the subject.

"52 percent said those attacks [on U.S. Forces] could be justified some or all of the time.", CNN, April 28 Poll (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/)

"We do this and win and we will have started the region down a path of freedom and democracy that will be unstoppable."

There must be something seriously wrong in your approach when only 2% of the Iraqis view the US as Liberators and 97% as occupiers (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=7752&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported)
.

Pick and choose quotes and polls that suit you. Look at the overall picture and suggest a better means to proactively combat terrorism and its supporters. I already addressed the issue of polling and pollsters. You can frame every answer with the question and the way it is phrased. I'll bet the Germans (your country?) looked at us as occupiers too. We sure brought them real democracy such as they had never known. It seemed to have a good effect on the surrounding nations.

"It is the force that saved the free world three times in the 20th century, and has taken the lead in the fight against terrorists. "

It is also the Nation that created and trained Osama bin Laden. Think about that...


We did not create Osama, we used him certainly, but his training came at the hands of the Madrassas and his start came from his family who gave him the time and money to use in any way he wished to fight the great enemies of islam. Most Islamics looked at the Godless invader of Afghanistan as an enemy of God. We simply gave him the tools to fight a mutual enemy. Yes he did turn against us as well, but hindsight is definitely 20/20 there.

"Thinking anything else is wishful idiocy that will make them stronger and us more endangered
So now even by thinking one is helping the enemy? Wow dude, Hitler would have been proud of you!


Not suggesting that thoughts be moderated or controlled. I am simply pointing out where your thinking is leading and what the reactions others will have is.

BTW Comparing me to Hitler is a personal attack of the most despicable kind that you are using to attempt to distract people away from the merits of my points. You have adopted the ways of Hitler by throwing outrageous accusations hoping that others who are sympathetic to you will paint me with the same brush. My family has personal experience with being attacked by that genocidal maniac and his minions, and some of them are still in German camps as part of the landscape. They were attacked and slaughtered by Germans who really knew how to do the job, and your attempt to link what I said to that behaviour is beyond my ability to verbally excoriate properly. I encourage you to find another way of expressing yourself. I would respond in a manner that would make me feel better, but I would not like the ensuing banning and you would not have the personal courage to physically stand up for your words anyway.

[Edited 2004-09-26 19:58:47]


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSolarix From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2066 times:

If there's any reason I'm voting for George Bush, it will be just so I can piss off people like you.

Do you have anything else better to do than to surf the Airliners.net forums all day posting anti-US topics. Every single thread you start is in some way attacking my country.

If you hate the US so much why don't you do the world a favor and board the next flight from Vostok Station to Baghdad to fight the evil Americans. Go and see how your luck is against the so called "cancer" in Iraq.

By the way Zak, have you EVER heard of the SHIFT KEY???


User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2068 times:

Zak...To answer your question in re strategy and course.

First I disagree with your premise that things are totally beyond salvage. I think things are getting better for most of the country and can point out news reports that back that up. We have increasing levels of violence in the three provinces that are home to the most violent actors, but the only thing to do is to defeat them and continue to provide hope and service to the average joe Iraqi, who will see that the better way is the path of self-determination and freedom, as the other way leads to terror and subjugation. There is no easy way, and while I see SLamClicks point, I do not think it is all about corporate profits.

BTW SLam Click...Libertarian?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2020 times:

Zak, attacking the guy who made the arguments may be a fair and wise tactic. Your character imbues the very fabric of your arguments. Everything you say and the words you use come from your position. You filter everything through your obvious hate, anger and defiance. I mean really, refusing to use proper capitalization and punctuation as a political statement is pretty weenie!

But if you will think about it, I did attack your arguments too - deeming them to be without merit because they were based in an assumption that the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan are the fault of the USA. How many centuries from now will it still be our fault? Are those people ever going to take some personal responsibility for the way THEY ARE BEHAVING?

So you see, your statements, which you call arguments are not that at all, they are merely a rant. You, sir, are a cheap shot artist. That is all you are and I dismiss you.

To everyone else, I say this. There is little that the USA or the UN can do for Iraq or Afghanistan that can protect them from the barbarism of a substantial number of their own countrymen. They, not the USA, they need to be less violent. If a relative of mine was a beheader-for-a-cause, I would turn him in to the authorities because that kind of action will not ever make things better.

We in the US have made efforts, such as they are, to eliminate privately owned assault weapons. In those two countries they are formal wear. They bring them to weddings. What does the world expect? Group hugs? They are, by nature an angry and violent people. The first thing the entire Middle East needs to do, all the countries, is to stop massing in big crowds and shouting slogans and firing rifles into the air everytime something bad happens. It breeds hate out of nothing but thin air. There is a start.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2002 times:

- the lack of commitment of ground forces on a large scale to hold a firm grip on every large city render karzais government to the government of kabulistan since the rest of the country is not under his control


Blaming the US for this is wrong considering many European troops have restrictions regarding their fighting use eg Germany.


- if the shiites make their gods state, the kurds will proclaim independence and the turks will invade northern iraq with their "robust" style of not caring about collateral damage and own casualties

Once a plausible prediction but given Turkey's current political direction(even taking in account last week's diplomatic fun)there is 0 chance of this occuring.


User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1977 times:

Slamclick

The only thing that will change this behavior pattern is a consistent growth in freedom and economic development. If the people in the violent areas see the people in the peaceful areas getting ahead they will modify their behavior.

That or attack the people doing better than they are so equality will prevail. Kind of like some liberal democrats in the US.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1971 times:

Yeah DIO21 chaos is the great equalizer. As a matter of historical fact, it has always been easier to create than to destroy.

Oops, that was a quote from Mr. Spock regarding the "genesis device."

Maybe I'll come up with something original on the next thread.





Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1967 times:

Live Long and Prosper

Remember!

ok Star Trek geeks like me will get that, everyone else will assume I'm a couple bricks short of a wall.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1948 times:

Dl021:


"Does that mean that 65% of the country is safe?"

No, it means that 35% of the Iraqi population life in those 4 unstable provinces.

"Is your glass always half empty? Is it not possible that the 35% not so safe to dangerous is made so by a small minority..."

Oh, that certainly is possible, but that's not what Mr Allawi said. What he said was misleading as he did not mention that those 4 unstable provinces are the most dense populated, a tiny 'detail' which is important in the whole discussion. It's like comparing NY state crime-rates with those of Alaska to someone who assumes both states have the same amount of inhabitants.

"...who is taking courage by your reaction to their tactics?"

Excuse me, but I can't bury my head in the sand. When I see something, I call it by it's name. You might be used to that under the current Administration, but I am not and I am not planning to change that little "habit" of mine.

"His written conclusion is a politically motivated diatribe, an observation draws no conclusions."

An observation calls no conclusions as long as the 'operation' is still ongoing. However, we've already seen several 'Iraqi chapters' being closed without a clear Bush Administration success (search for WMD's, 'Iraqis greeting the US liberators enthusiastically', Saddam's links with al-Qaeda, ...). I'd say that the posters' observations that Iraq is a failure so far is much closer to reality than your observations, so far.

"Not that I am ignoring the contributions of our smaller allies, such as those you have mentioned"

Your smaller allies, like the ones I mentioned, contributed very little: Azerbaijan: 151 troops, Latvia: 122, Tonga, 45 (1). They are theoretical allies. They're only there the make the Allies List longer. Your 'real' allies are just a handfull: the UK, Australia, Italy, Poland, Ukraine and the Netherlands. The Whitehouse might gloat about the list of allies ("The Coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe." (2)), the reality is that most of these allies contribute very little if anything at all. It's a bit like Allawi stating 14 out of 18 Iraqi provinces 'are pretty damn safe' Smile/happy/getting dizzy.

"...who not incidently have a deep understanding of the difference between freedom and dictatorship..."

Then how come the "Coalition of the Willing" includes countries known because of their Human Rights abuses by your own State Department's annual assessments (Albania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia and Uzbekistan, to name just of few of your 'allies')?

Don't you think its a bit ironic that some of your allies 'fighting to remove Saddam who tortured and killed his own people' are doing exactly the same in their own countries?
Applying Mr Allawi's statistical logic, one can assess that 39% of the "Coalition of the Willing" tortures their population is the same way as Saddam did. And you complain about the press not informing 14 out of 18 Iraqi provinces are 'pretty damn safe'!(3)

"...(you must have forgotten the principle that the smallest of friends can be the greatest of allies)..."

...specially when the smallest can gain from being/becoming/remaining a friend, like those that want to become a member of NATO (Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, and Slovakia)!

"...but I was more referring the the UK, Australia, Denmark, The Netherlands, Italy, The Ukraine and other countries of more than small size you chose to ignore in an attempt to discredit my point by mockery of our allies."

I am not ignoring these countries, I was rather pointing out that your little 'Coalition of the Willing' is not as large or 'peaceful' as you seem to believe, given their track-records on Human Rights, Democracy and total troops send to Iraq. What's the point in stating, over and over again, that Kazakhstan is an ally of the "Coalition of the Willing", when they only have 29 (TWENTY-NINE) troops in Iraq?

"3 yrs C/307EN ABN 82d ABN, 2 yrs H/122 IN (LRS)(ABN)"

I fail to see how working 3 years for a Dutch bank equals to serving for your country  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

"More people in Iraq have electricity than when Saddaam was in charge."

That doesn't mean a thing. US/UK warplanes have been bombing electricity plants and similar in the US/UK imposed no-fly zones for more than a decade. When comparing, then please do so with 1990s levels.

"THe local economies are growing, and they even have a stock exchange in Baghdad that is growing at the rate of 5 IPO's per week."

Which is another empty statement. It doesn't say a thing as long as you don't compare it with a realistic pre-war, pre-bombing, pre-sanctions situation.

"The average Iraqi, when asked by a real, non-partisan pollster will say that while they do not want any foreign troops in Iraq, but wants us to stay until the job of transformation is finished."

How do you know? Are you a real, non-partisan pollster?

"They are growing very tired of the car bombs and terrorist acts."

You've forgotten about the insurgents...

"They want to live without fear of saying the worng thing about a cleric or govt official and ending up as fertilizer under a palace or flotsam in the Shatt-al-Arab."

Don't you think that they'd also like to be listened to? To be able to rule their own country the way they want without any foreign intervention?

"Refer to the latest press conference from Bush and Allawi. I realize you are dismissive of them, but Allawi is there, and was not Bush's 1st choice for the position."

No, Mr Ahmed Chalabi was the first choice, which says enough about the second choice!

"He was elected by the Iraqi members of the transitional authority and is the best source of information we have."

Best source of information as in Allawi saying: "Well, I assure you if Saddam was still there, terrorists will be hitting there again at Washington and New York, as they did in the murderous attack in September; they'll be hitting also on other places in Europe and the Middle East"??? Allawi is still linking Saddam with 9/11, an accusation even the Bush Government has dropped time ago. (4)

"But, if you want better facts, I encourage you to interview people who are there now. Go to the bloggers who are posting from there. Go ask the soldiers returning and see what the majority of them are saying. I tell you what, go to Iraq and see for yourself."

Why should I read what soldiers tell when I can read polls of Iraqi people, when I can watch the BBC and other media? I gave you the results of a poll and all you do is 'shoot the messenger'. You know something, you won't see those poll results in the pro-Bush/pro-War media because it simply doesn't suit their political agenda. They, and you, prefer to ignore reality and stick your heads in the sands of the Iraqi desert deeper and deeper.

"I tell you what, go to Iraq and see for yourself. It seems that you are inclined to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you so perhaps you should lay your own eyes and ears on the subject."

So I can't have an honest and good opinion because I haven't been there? Then what about you?

"Pick and choose quotes and polls that suit you."

Those polls and quotes don't suit me! I'm merely reading them, finding out about them. Rather then those quotes and polls suiting me, they don't suit you! You and your Bush Administration prefer to stick your heads in the sand and ignore those 'highly unsuitable quotes and polls'.

"Look at the overall picture and suggest a better means to proactively combat terrorism and its supporters."

Openly admitting that the War on Iraq for the reasons given (terrorism, WMD's) was an error might be a good start. Look, I am not a pro-terrorist as you probably believe. All I think, and many with me, is that the invasion of Iraq for the reasons given, the actual situation in Iraq right now and the current stance of the Bush Administration regarding its long time allies, is not helpfull at all and even completely counterproductive in the War on Terrorism. Terrorism needs to be fought, but not by invading a nation which had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism nor 9/11!!! Saddam was a terrible dictator who needed to be removed but not because of the reasons given by Bush. It is very good Saddam is gone, but the false reasons given has enraged many people in the region. That's not something you want when fighting terrorism! In fact, it's the worst thing that could happen when fighting terrorism.

"I already addressed the issue of polling and pollsters. You can frame every answer with the question and the way it is phrased."

If you think that happened with the poll(s) I mentioned, then please indicate exactly where and in which question. I get the impression you not only tend to 'shoot the messenger' when the info doesn't suit you, you also question the pollsters' professionalism when the outcome is negative. By the way, the poll which stated that only 2% of Iraqis see the US as "Liberators" was requested by the Coalition Provisional Authority (5)

"I'll bet the Germans (your country?) looked at us as occupiers too. We sure brought them real democracy such as they had never known. It seemed to have a good effect on the surrounding nations."

Like East-Germany, Poland ...? Your little 'domino-effect' theory is complete madness! The US, together with other real allies sure liberated Europe allright, but don't make me believe 'democracy suddenly poored into the region' after the liberation because it didn't. Asssuming this will happen in the Middle East is nothing more than wishfull thinking, another form of sticking your head in the sand.

"We did not create Osama, we used him certainly, but his training came at the hands of the Madrassas..."

Osama fought the Soviets in Afghanistan through his group the MAK (Maktab al-Khidamar) which received extensive aide from the Pakistan security services (ISI) which, in return, 'was the CIA’s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow’s occupation' as MSNBC's International Editor Michael Moran wrote. (6)

"Most Islamics looked at the Godless invader of Afghanistan as an enemy of God. "

Most Afghans simply didn't like their country invaded by Soviets, regardless of their religion.

"Not suggesting that thoughts be moderated or controlled."

Yes you where, even in your reply # 17 you did it.

Again, I cannot stop myself from thinking the things I think. It comes natural. It's something by which Human Beings differentiate themselves from animals (like ostriches).

"BTW Comparing me to Hitler is a personal attack of the most despicable kind that you are using to attempt to distract people away from the merits of my points."

You were saying that having a "different opinion" is not only wishful idiocy, but "also makes the enemy more stronger and us more endangered." You do not want me nor anyone else to have a different opinion than yours. You don't want people to dissent. In that, you are comparable to Hitler, whether you like it or not!

"You have adopted the ways of Hitler by throwing outrageous accusations...

I wasn't accusing you of being a Nazi, dude. I was stating Hitler would have been proud of you given your opposition to other peoples opinions, particularly when these are different than yours.

"... hoping that others who are sympathetic to you will paint me with the same brush."

I don't give a sh!t what others, sympathetic to me or not, paint you with. I do care however that others can express their opinions freely, something you want to undermine.

"I encourage you to find another way of expressing yourself. I would respond in a manner that would make me feel better, but I would not like the ensuing banning and you would not have the personal courage to physically stand up for your words anyway. "

How can I find another way to express myself when everytime I say something you don't like, you state I encourage the enemy? My family died too during WWII and one of the greatest lessons that my generation has learned from that terrible episode is that any form of radicalism starts with people's opinions being addressed as dissent.

"They also knew that open dissent was impossible in Nazi Germany, especially after the start of World War II. Most Germans took the traditional position, that once war breaks out, it is the duty of the citizen to support the troops by supporting the government. But Hans and Sophie Scholl believed differently. They believed that it was the duty of a citizen, even in times of war, to stand up against an evil regime, especially when it is sending hundreds of thousands of its citizens to their deaths." The White Rose: A Lesson in Dissent by Jacob G. Hornberger (7)

You were, and still are, stating that my opinions encourage the enemy. You want to limit or stop my dissent, in the same way as Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Idi Amin did.


Sources: (1) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
(2) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-4.html
(3) http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/COERCED2.pdf
(4) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/allawi_9-23.html
(5) http://www.showmenews.com/2004/Jun/20040617News029.asp
(6) http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bin_laden_comes_home_to_roost.html
(7) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/rose.html



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
25 Solarix : ...a nation which had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism... So funding Hamas militants to blow up little children is not supporting terrorism?
26 Northwest717 : Personally, I think the war in Iraq sucks. People who support it say that we "had" to do it because no one else would. They said the UN wasn't working
27 Boeing7E7 : Zak, Falcon and the like. Thanks for going to war college for all of us. What a joke. BTW... Kerry didn't go to war college during his four month stin
28 Zak : Zak, attacking the guy who made the arguments may be a fair and wise tactic. Your character imbues the very fabric of your arguments. Everything you s
29 Schoenorama : Solarix: "So funding Hamas militants to blow up little children is not supporting terrorism?" He didn't fund Hamas militants, he paid money to the fam
30 Post contains images Northwest717 : Schoenorama: Finally, I statement I fully agree with. Thank you. Glad to know somebody agrees with me. -Tim
31 Post contains images Slider : SlamClick- Great posts...appreciate your reason. Zak- Look out! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!! Woe is you! BWAHAHAA!!
32 Jaysit : "We removed the Taliban cancer and we removed the Saddam cancer but they've got to rebuild themselves." You did? Really? The Taliban is still running
33 Mrniji : Jay, why wasting your time here.. no way that these people will ever learn and think beyond the media analysis and hence public opinion in the US...
34 EA CO AS : Assume for a moment that the 22nd Amendment never existed, and in 2000 President Bill Clinton ran for and won a third term in office. Now let's assume
35 Post contains images Klaus : EA CO AS: Assume for a moment that the 22nd Amendment never existed, and in 2000 President Bill Clinton ran for and won a third term in office. Now le
36 EA CO AS : That is the whole point: With Clinton still in office, it is practically certain that the whole Iraq detour from the fight against terror would never
37 Schoenorama : EA CO AS: "With all due respect, you've sidestepped my question. Assuming EVERYTHING - 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Abu-Ghraib, etc. - has taken place und
38 EA CO AS : Gentlemen, you're both altering the conditions of my question in an attempt to avoid answering it.
39 ScarletHarlot : Northwest717 - wow. Thanks dude.
40 Post contains images Klaus : EA CO AS: With all due respect, you've sidestepped my question. Since your question is completely pointless, I have no qualms about sidestepping it wh
41 Prebennorholm : Hey, it took fifteen years to rebuild Germany, or the 75% in the west (Marchal Plan etc.) and de-nazifization still lags slightly after 59 years (rece
42 Post contains images Klaus : Prebennorholm: Hey, it took fifteen years to rebuild Germany, or the 75% in the west (Marchal Plan etc.) and de-nazifization still lags slightly after
43 Post contains images Northwest717 : ScarletHarlot, No problem. I'm just excited that nobody is screaming at me yet for being "un-American". I am glad there are those like you that share
44 SlamClick : Hey Northwest717 there are a lot of us out here who agree with you. That war sucks and I'm glad my son is not over there. I wished, at the time that I
45 Sccutler : SlamClick: Nicely dealt! === We can never know if what was done was right or not. History is full of military interventions which went poorly, and oth
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...
US Report About The War In Iraq posted Mon Sep 25 2006 10:03:18 by Sebolino
War In Iraq, The Most Foolish War Since 2000 Years posted Wed Nov 30 2005 09:07:17 by Oldeuropean
A Marine's Report On The War In Iraq posted Thu Nov 17 2005 04:47:22 by PROSA
6 In 10 Americans Oppose The War In Iraq posted Wed Jun 22 2005 00:07:33 by Greasespot
My Biggest Problem With The War In Iraq posted Mon Sep 6 2004 20:53:33 by Tbar220
The Cost Of War In Iraq posted Wed Jun 2 2004 14:04:05 by Flying-Tiger
The War In Iraq And What You Dont See On Foxnews posted Fri Feb 27 2004 20:49:58 by Zak
Have We Reached True Civil War In Iraq? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 20:36:10 by Falcon84
He Lost An Arm In Iraq; The Army Wants Money posted Sat Dec 11 2004 04:37:04 by Clickhappy
Photos Of The MIG25 Found In Iraq posted Sat Jan 17 2004 20:15:33 by MidnightMike