NAV20
Topic Author
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:14 am

Exceptionally wide-ranging and well-written article from the British 'Observer' newspaper - pretty well spelling out the (insuperable?) problems that the USA and its coalition partners now face in Iraq.

"For when Vail and his soldiers return, it will be in the knowledge that the United States that they are going home to is not the one that they left. That in their year-long absence a seismic shift has occurred in support for the war in Iraq. And that the deaths that Colonel Vail must carry back with him to grieving families - deaths that once seemed to Americans to be a necessary cost - now seem to the majority a dreadful and pointless waste.

"It will also be in the knowledge that the battle that they began with such confidence barely four months ago, to secure and then rebuild some of the most dangerous areas of the Iraqi capital, like the campaigns before, has failed.

"With that failure the entire future of Iraq and the US and British-led occupation has been brought to a tipping point of enormous consequence not simply for Iraq and the region, but for the Bush and Blair administrations.

"For despite a massive campaign involving the troops of Vail's unit and others, backed by thousands of Iraqi troops, the US military leadership in Baghdad has been forced to admit that attacks during the holy month of Ramadan have increased by 22 per cent, and that the US death toll for October, standing at 74 at the weekend, will be one of the deadliest for US troops since the invasion in 2003.

"More worrying still is the assessment that both Sunni and Shia nationalist resistance movements have reached the level of being 'coordinated/consolidated' - able to reply to multinational offensives with their own 'push capability'."


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1928616,00.html

In my own brief encounter with the armed services - training only, thankfully - an oft-repeated phrase was, "Get ON with it! Remember, every minute you're not winning, you're losing!" I must admit that. on the basis of what I know, with the limited resources available to them I don't see any way that our small peacetime armies can win from here. Especially because it is clearly much more a matter of 'hearts and minds' than of defeating an army in the field.

Maybe it's time to cut our losses? What does everyone else think?

[Edited 2006-10-22 17:23:21]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:29 am

Well it was definitely a war, at least to start with (admittedly a little one-sided, but the point of a war is to win it quickly, I would think). After that it was a brief but baseless PR exercise (look, we won - Mission Accomplished). Then it became an occupation, and the shit really hit the fan.

Secondly, in terms of actual warfare, so far nobody has won and nobody has lost. In terms of the diplomatic struggle and the moral victory, I don't think it's too soon or too pessimistic to say that the U.S. has, despite valiant efforts by the people on the ground, lost - and lost badly. Best indications are that hostility to the U.S. and the West in general is increasing in the Middle East and across the Islamic world, the U.S. has managed to piss away all the huge outpouring of sympathy and solidarity arising from the 9/11 attacks, and alienate all but the most poodlish of allies, and even amongst the "Coalition of the Poodles", the vast majority of voters are now opposed to involvement in the war. Militant Islam is on the rise, Iran feels confident enough to defy the world on the issue of nuclear weapons, and the threat from Al Quaeda is not significantly diminished.

Meantime, America wallows in its fear, enacting measure after measure to erode the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, trying to regain some illusion of security in a big scary world but with each signature into law, handing another small victory to the terrorists, whose aim (we are informed) was to take away America's freedom. They don't even have to lift a finger - you're doing it all by yourselves.

The war certainly isn't won, it may not have been lost either, but it doesn't matter any more - and that's the saddest part of all.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:33 am

Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter):
Maybe it's time to cut our losses? What does everyone else think?

Not sure how to answer if it is/was a war, but probably yes it was, but now I am not sure it is a war as much as the mixture that you can expect if the population you invade is not too happy you are there.

Leaving obviously leaves a mess, although it might be the case that someone would quickly appear who would sort it out - it might be Saddam II, but if the death rates are what science tells us they are, that might well be preferable.

The likes of Howard keep telling us that Jemaah Islamiyah (which he spent a day pronouncing as Jemaah Ismailia) would regard it as a win. This totally misses the point that Australia is on the nose with moderates in Indonesia and Malaysia just because it has occupying forces in Iraq. If Aus were not there, it might be possible to try to make up that negative.

As far as Muslim Nationalists in Indonesia are concerned, first we went after Timor, and then confirmed our spots by hoeing into Iraq. A withdrawal might allow fences to start to be mended. It is far more important to regain the middle ground that avoid giving JI fanatics a thrill. Our hope of snuffing out JI lies with moderate Indonesians doing it for us.

I am sure similar considerations would apply to the UK and Pakistanis. Certainly the US is irritating most of the Islamic world, but perhaps they have more to do to make up.

And what do you achieve if you stay, more Iraqi and military casualties, no more stability, and in due course a collapse of the much touted elected Government - only a question of time before one of the coalition of Iraqis pull out.

So nothing to gain by staying. Perhaps less to lose by going.

It was never a place that the west should have tried to go. I must say, I thought they would be able to hold Baghdad, and assumed that the resistance would be outside Baghhad - so it is a lot worse than I thought it would be. But then I did not expect Bremer to dismiss the army without disarming them, and then irritate all the low level public servants by dismissing them for being Baath party members. Great start especially with Rummie telling us democracy is messy.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:37 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 1):
The war certainly isn't won, it may not have been lost either, but it doesn't matter any more - and that's the saddest part of all.

 checkmark  One dissenting poodle
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:29 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 1):
Meantime, America wallows in its fear, enacting measure after measure to erode the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, trying to regain some illusion of security in a big scary world but with each signature into law, handing another small victory to the terrorists, whose aim (we are informed) was to take away America's freedom. They don't even have to lift a finger - you're doing it all by yourselves.

With all due respect, when someone slams a loaded airliner into the middle of downtown Paris and kills 3,000 civilians going about their business, I suspect that what passes for civil liberties in la belle Republique would evaporate as fast as last night's frost on the windshield.

Don't presume to sit in judgment of us, sir. Civil liberties in France were not well respected during the Algerian war and the early 1960s, for similar reasons. Yet we did not judge you, but considered it an internal matter for Frenchmen to work out on their own.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:36 am

Was it a war,...yes.

Is it still a war? That all depends on how you define war.

The first 30 days or so was a more or less traditional military-vs-military conflict. For me the definition is dependant on what the decisive factor is. During that period, success or failure was almost exclusively dependant on the application of military force. It was a war.

The time since is more poorly defined I think. Although military force is a component, other factors are now decisive. Politics, religion, economics, and other social-cultural factors are the decisive components that will determine the outcome. We cannot "win" the current conflict through the application of military force. In that sense, it's not a war.

Is it lost,... yes.

It is lost politically. It hasn't been a military defeat per se. The insurgents and militias cannot destroy our maneuver units on the field of battle. Nor can they seize and hold physical objectives. By the same standard, we cannot use military force to exert control over political and cultural factors. To suggest that we can is nonsense.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:40 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 4):
With all due respect, when someone slams a loaded airliner into the middle of downtown Paris and kills 3,000 civilians going about their business, I suspect that what passes for civil liberties in la belle Republique would evaporate as fast as last night's frost on the windshield.

And that would be wrong too. What is the point in fighting for freedom if the politicians back home are busy eroding them faster than the terrorists ever could.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 4):
Don't presume to sit in judgment of us, sir. Civil liberties in France were not well respected during the Algerian war and the early 1960s, for similar reasons. Yet we did not judge you, but considered it an internal matter for Frenchmen to work out on their own.

Fair point, but the trouble comes when you set yourself up as a paragon of human rights, and invade other countries on the pretext (second or third pretext, admittedly) that you are liberating them from a dictator, and then go and revoke Habeas Corpus in your own backyard. It excites comment.

Yes it is an internal American matter, but if the actions are denying fundamental justice to the citizens of other countries , then the issue becomes an international one. And please don't just counter by saying "they're terrorists, they don't deserve justice" - until you PROVE it in each and every individual case, they aren't anything, and by assuming their automatic guilt you just gives others the excuse to say "they're Americans, they don't deserve justice".
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:48 am

It most certainly was/is a war. It isn't an "Operation", as the Administration and, sadly, the media still call it. It is the Iraq War. When you invade another soverign nation, that is a war, there is no doubt about that.

Is it a war now? Yes, it is, but a different kind of war. It's the guerilla war that this Administration never even considered back in 2003, so sure were they that the road would be covered with flowers for the liberators.

It hasn't been lost, and it still can be won. Right now, the Bush Administration is FINALLY rethinking the strategy of this war. That should have been done in the fall of '03, but the stubbornness and tunnel-vision of this President, his VP and his SecDef didn't allow that. Now, with the '06 elections all but an assured disaster for his party, he can no longer ignore the reality.

Depending on what the re-evaluation bears out, the war can still be won. It may include going hat in hand, humbly, to the world community for assistance-not so much for the Americans, but for the people of Iraq. It may be a sharp increase in troops strength, before any draw-down begins. Those answers lie with the President, the SecDef, and his military commanders.

It can be won. The effort must be made, for that debt of honor I keep talking about-to the almost 3,000 Americans who have died, and to the Iraqi people, who's lives have been turned into a hell not even imagined under Saddam.

We must continue the effort. We can do no less. We started this mess, and we need to do what we can to make the best of it.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Klaus
Posts: 20687
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:51 am

When Germany was confronted with terrorism in the 1970s, our government resisted the urge to cut down civil rights as the terrorists had hoped they would - and this resistance proved vital to defeating the terrorists.

Be tough on terrorism itself - but never abandon the values you're presumably defending in the process!

The Bush administration has unfortunately chosen to demonstrate how not to deal with terrorism, and the results are horrifying, but also instructive.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:57 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
Depending on what the re-evaluation bears out, the war can still be won. It may include going hat in hand, humbly, to the world community for assistance-not so much for the Americans, but for the people of Iraq. It may be a sharp increase in troops strength, before any draw-down begins. Those answers lie with the President, the SecDef, and his military commanders.

It can be won. The effort must be made, for that debt of honor I keep talking about-to the almost 3,000 Americans who have died, and to the Iraqi people, who's lives have been turned into a hell not even imagined under Saddam.

We must continue the effort. We can do no less. We started this mess, and we need to do what we can to make the best of it.

Hard to see how it can be won, though. Despite all the military effort, and it has been considerable recently, the situation even in areas under nominal coalition control is getting worse. The insurgency is not being beaten back, and internecine killings are on the increase as well. The presence of coalition forces is now part of the problem, and not part of the solution, and there is no loss of honour in recognising this and just up and leaving.

If Iraq all this time was only an artificial construct held together first by British imperialism and afterwards by the Baathist regime, then so be it - if it must fly apart, self-determination is the inalienable right of every group, it will therefore happen. No point striving to keep Iraq together if Iraq doesn't want to stay together. It's a crying shame, because pre-Saddam Iraq looked like it could become a successful, forward-looking, multi-ethnic and secular society. But you can't force people to like each other, and you can't force them to live together. Look at former Yugoslavia - a strongman dictator held it together for 40 years, but it didn't hold after he was gone.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
9V
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:35 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 am

It's interesting. There was a debate on the radio this moring on the BBC asking 'Is Iraq the new Vietnam?'
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:12 am

The war is very much lost. The Admin is now looking to talk with any party with the exception of Al Queda. James Baker is being brought in to craft a "measured pullback" (Commonly known as "cut and run" if a Democrat suggests it) Casualties rates so for this Month are the highest in nearly two years. Civilian death rates are skyrocketing. There is no political will in the US to support an escalation of the military fight.

Bush after Nov 7 will be politcally isolated. His own party is deserting him on this. The only question will be how soon? The Dems are not likely to cut off funding right away. They'll let him hang himself further on this.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:20 am

Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter):
Especially because it is clearly much more a matter of 'hearts and minds' than of defeating an army in the field.

The two go hand in hand. We've been treating these various resistances/terrorists with kid gloves, and that was a mistake from the beginning. The terrorists AND the local population saw our refusal to take drastic steps to put a stop to it as a weakness.

The first step in ending the war in 2003 should have been to make damned sure that the Iraqis know that they are completely and absolutely defeated. That means if anyone shoots at an American, you level the town. You make it known that resistance will not be tolerated, and you will pay if you are even suspected of colaborating with the resistance.

Once you the resistance is crushed (mainly by the locals who don't want to be made homeless in reprisal), THEN you can display your largess and generosity. This strategy worked in Germany and many other places. We thought we could finish the war in a civilized fashion, but war is not civilized, and efforts to pretend it is only results in the shitstorm we have today.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 6):
And that would be wrong too. What is the point in fighting for freedom if the politicians back home are busy eroding them faster than the terrorists ever could.

That is one of my pet peeves. "Fighting for Freedom and Democracy" are overused slogans. We fight for our national interests, period. And our national interests at present include creating a self-sustaining democratic state in the middle east.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
When Germany was confronted with terrorism in the 1970s, our government resisted the urge to cut down civil rights as the terrorists had hoped they would - and this resistance proved vital to defeating the terrorists.

I don't think you can compare the two. The terrorists in Germany were communists, motivated by an economic and political ideology. Discourage them enough, cut off their funding, (such as through the collapse of the soviet Empire), and they eventually give up after seeing that it simply won't work. Plus, Communists don't believe in an afterlife - they don't want to die.

The terrorists we face in the middle east are motivated by religion and tribalism, a motivation much, much more powerful and more difficult to dissuade. Some of them also don't mind sacrificing their lives uselessly, as long as they can take a few infidels with them, due to their religious motivation. Communists don't think like that.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:23 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
It hasn't been lost, and it still can be won. Right now, the Bush Administration is FINALLY rethinking the strategy of this war. That should have been done in the fall of '03, but the stubbornness and tunnel-vision of this President, his VP and his SecDef didn't allow that. Now, with the '06 elections all but an assured disaster for his party, he can no longer ignore the reality.

Depending on what the re-evaluation bears out, the war can still be won. It may include going hat in hand, humbly, to the world community for assistance-not so much for the Americans, but for the people of Iraq. It may be a sharp increase in troops strength, before any draw-down begins. Those answers lie with the President, the SecDef, and his military commanders.

It can be won. The effort must be made, for that debt of honor I keep talking about-to the almost 3,000 Americans who have died, and to the Iraqi people, who's lives have been turned into a hell not even imagined under Saddam.

We must continue the effort. We can do no less. We started this mess, and we need to do what we can to make the best of it.

What the heck? List one foreign policy/military expert that thinks this war can be won besides this small cabal within the Administration? How about a retired General that can speak frankly? Give me one Bush policy success that would allow you to put any kind of faith in their abilities? The US has no pull with other nations on this. It's gone. They screwed up. Smeared any Country that would not cooperate. Now it's their problem. Bush is roundly despised by majority's in most countries. Why would their politicians go out on a limb for him?
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
That means if anyone shoots at an American, you level the town. You make it known that resistance will not be tolerated, and you will pay if you are even suspected of colaborating with the resistance.

Ah so the answer is to commit war crimes in response to attacks? That's exactly what you are suggesting. Fortunately for us. Folks like you that started this war are polling 17% after the senselessness of this war sinks in. You just think we were not cruel enough. The "liberals" held you back....LOL
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:45 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
It may be a sharp increase in troops strength, before any draw-down begins.

What a bad idea. What specific mission are you going to assign those troops Falcon? How is a military response to what is a non-military problem going to lead to anything other than several thousand more casualties? We do not honor our dead soldiers by sending more soldiers to die in a futile attempt to accomplish a mission that is fundamentally not a military mission.

Iraq requires a political solution, not a military one. The only people who can accomplish that are the Iraqis. The Iraqi security forces number more than 400,000, and yet they are incapable of imposing a military solution. That is because there is no military solution.

We cannot force the Iraqis to be civilized and embrace the pluralism, non-violence, and representative government that we advocate. That is something only the Iraqis can decide. Apparently, they don't want to do that, and unfortunately we can't make them.

I believe we have reached the point where we have to ask ourselves if we are spending good money after bad. Is there evidence and a persuasive argument that suggests we are making progress and accomplishing our goals. I don't see it.

It's time to leave and let the Iraqis figure it out for themselves.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:53 am

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 15):
What a bad idea. What specific mission are you going to assign those troops Falcon?

A bad idea? Hell, it's what should have been done in the first place. We should have had at LEAST double the number of troops to start this war than we did. Plus, that good old boy, Paul Bremer, decapitated any security infrastructure that Iraq could have had, with the president's acession, no doubt, as a means of spite instead of good policy.

The first job would be to secure, without question, Baghdad, make it safe to truly rebuild that city, and then go from there. Until we control Baghdad, and then other major cities, it simply won't work.

I certainly don't want more troops there, but I think there's no other choice, in order to make this work.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Klaus
Posts: 20687
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:09 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
The two go hand in hand. We've been treating these various resistances/terrorists with kid gloves, and that was a mistake from the beginning. The terrorists AND the local population saw our refusal to take drastic steps to put a stop to it as a weakness.

After Abu Ghraib, the Steven Green rape and murders and many other incidents, I don't think what the iraqi population needed most was to believe in the credible threat of american brutality.  yuck 

I'm sure that most troops in iraq do not see things your way - or at least I hope they don't!

The reason for it all going down to hell is primarily due to losing the peace by screwing up right from the start of the occupation - pretty much every single step on the way.

After that, any military power becomes next to meaningless - pretty much regardless which country you're occupying!

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
The first step in ending the war in 2003 should have been to make damned sure that the Iraqis know that they are completely and absolutely defeated. That means if anyone shoots at an American, you level the town. You make it known that resistance will not be tolerated, and you will pay if you are even suspected of colaborating with the resistance.

I see you're adopting the SS rulebook for occupation and crushing of any opposition.

Which country were you supposed to be from, again?  crazy 

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
I don't think you can compare the two. The terrorists in Germany were communists, motivated by an economic and political ideology. Discourage them enough, cut off their funding, (such as through the collapse of the soviet Empire), and they eventually give up after seeing that it simply won't work. Plus, Communists don't believe in an afterlife - they don't want to die.

Terrorist extremists are always ready to die, no matter their particular kind of madness.
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:17 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 17):
I see you're adopting the SS rulebook for occupation and crushing of any opposition.

Not to mention Saddam's exact policy when dealing with the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. You would think someone would be ashamed to suggest the Americans do this.

He must really love the USA.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20687
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:23 am

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 18):
Not to mention Saddam's exact policy when dealing with the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs.

Indeed! Some "liberation" that would be!  crazy 

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 18):
You would think someone would be ashamed to suggest the Americans do this.

For some people, saving the face of this particular administration is clearly more important than anything else - their country, their own troops, the iraqis and the whole world can go to hell if just their ideology is preserved!  hypnotized 

Charles has so far been an unfortunate but always reliable example of this kind of attitude.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 18):
He must really love the USA.

No, I think he is just really, really scared!
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:34 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
A bad idea? Hell, it's what should have been done in the first place. We should have had at LEAST double the number of troops to start this war than we did.

There was an opportunity to do that three years ago, I'll agree with you on that. My problem here is that I just don't think we can put that particular cat back in the bag at this point.

There's too many munitions floating around because we didn't secure that shit when we went in, and three years of killings and counter-killings to fuel a rage and hatred that will last for decades.

In your view is there a point at which the cost of this conflict out weighs the benefit? If we have to stay 10 years and suffer 10,000 KIA are you okay with that? What about 20 years?

Is it reasonable to expect some progressive measure of success, or is it reason enough to simply say that we cannot leave until we "win" whatever that means?

Should we continue to advocate "staying the course" when the ship's Captain and his various navigators are plainly incompetent and have produced nothing but failure? That seems to me to be a little like keeping a quarterback in the game after he's thrown ten interceptions. It's just plain stupid.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:12 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 1):
Well it was definitely a war, at least to start with (admittedly a little one-sided, but the point of a war is to win it quickly, I would think). After that it was a brief but baseless PR exercise (look, we won - Mission Accomplished). Then it became an occupation, and the shit really hit the fan.

The "war" part was resolved quickly, and a success. We did remove Saddam and his dictatorship.

The occupation hasn't been a success, and is becoming a failure, because we haven't been able to stop the slow slide into a full blown civil war.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 1):
Secondly, in terms of actual warfare, so far nobody has won and nobody has lost. In terms of the diplomatic struggle and the moral victory, I don't think it's too soon or too pessimistic to say that the U.S. has, despite valiant efforts by the people on the ground, lost - and lost badly.

Diplomatically, I'd agree. Although I'd qualify the lost "badly" comment. I know it is popular among liberals in this country to say that this conflict has irreparably set back US relations with our allies, but that just isn't true. I work frequently on law enforcement matters with colleagues from a wide range of nations, and I can tell you that there has been virtually NO blowback from Iraq on law enforcement cooperation. Despite what you read in the "liberal" media.

Morally, I'm not so sure I'd assign this to the "loss" category for the US. Most of the violence has been Iraqi on Iraqi, and if anybody in this debacle deserves one in the loss column on the moral scoreboard, it's the Iraqi people. And let's not forget the fact that we are having a very hard time getting the same countries who bitch about Guantanamo to take back their nationals that are currently being held.

You don't like us holding them, but you sure aren't in any hurry to take them back.....

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 1):
Meantime, America wallows in its fear, enacting measure after measure to erode the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, trying to regain some illusion of security in a big scary world but with each signature into law, handing another small victory to the terrorists, whose aim (we are informed) was to take away America's freedom.

 rotfl  Every time I read comments like this, I can't help but laugh. There has been no erosion of the Bill of Rights or the rule of law - but by all means keep swallowing the leftist line.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 6):
Yes it is an internal American matter, but if the actions are denying fundamental justice to the citizens of other countries , then the issue becomes an international one.

Given that our Supreme Court has affirmed the right of the Gitmo detainees to fundamental justice, just how are we denying this right?

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
The two go hand in hand. We've been treating these various resistances/terrorists with kid gloves, and that was a mistake from the beginning. The terrorists AND the local population saw our refusal to take drastic steps to put a stop to it as a weakness.

The first step in ending the war in 2003 should have been to make damned sure that the Iraqis know that they are completely and absolutely defeated. That means if anyone shoots at an American, you level the town. You make it known that resistance will not be tolerated, and you will pay if you are even suspected of colaborating with the resistance.

Once you the resistance is crushed (mainly by the locals who don't want to be made homeless in reprisal), THEN you can display your largess and generosity. This strategy worked in Germany and many other places. We thought we could finish the war in a civilized fashion, but war is not civilized, and efforts to pretend it is only results in the shitstorm we have today.

Mistake # 1 was the inane idea to disarm the Iraqi army. Years from now this will likely be taught in warfare classes as the best example of how to fu*k up an occupation following a military campaign.

I agree that your suggestion to have dealt with the Iraqi population more harshly would have been effective. Problem is, that is a strategy that can no longer be utilized in the day of 7/24 media and embedded reporters. Look at the first gulf war - if there had been no media coverage of how decisively we were hammering the Iraqi army, we'd have occupied Baghdad then. What worked in WWII worked in part because the tactics we employed were virtually invisible to the rest of the world.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 15):
Iraq requires a political solution, not a military one. The only people who can accomplish that are the Iraqis. The Iraqi security forces number more than 400,000, and yet they are incapable of imposing a military solution. That is because there is no military solution.

Right now, I don't believe there is political will in Iraq for any outcome except for a civil war and partition. The Sunnis hate the Shia who hate the Kurds who hate the Sunnis.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 11):
Bush after Nov 7 will be politcally isolated. His own party is deserting him on this. The only question will be how soon? The Dems are not likely to cut off funding right away. They'll let him hang himself further on this.

While you may be right that Bush will be isolated, I can't believe you are validating the oft heard charges that the democrats would prefer a US defeat because it would advance their own political aims.

At least you are being honest, I guess.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
9V
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:35 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:14 am

 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:24 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 17):
I see you're adopting the SS rulebook for occupation and crushing of any opposition.

It was also the American method used in Germany at the end of WWII. You have no idea of the horrors that went on at the end in order to rein in the rogue SS units that continued to snipe and sabotage right up until 1948. But in the end, we put a stop to it by making the Germans themselves turn the bastards in because they were more afraid of what the allies would do than the Nazis.

Of course TV is a whole new element. Back then we had censorship. Today, the bleeding hearts would think that this was something new, and demand that it be stopped.

War is ugly, and the way to end it is by making the other side scream for mercy. There is no such thing as a civilized war, and the delusion that it can be civilized only ensures that it will not be won.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 18):
He must really love the USA.

I do, but not in the overt way you think. I don't have US flag bumper stickers and a flag on my door.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
For some people, saving the face of this particular administration is clearly more important than anything else - their country, their own troops, the iraqis and the whole world can go to hell if just their ideology is preserved!

I am the least ideological person you could meet. You guys are certainly more idealogical than I (or at least idealistic). I am practical and logical. Define your mission which benefits the country, and do what you need to get the job done. No (or very few) restrictions.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:44 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 6):
Fair point, but the trouble comes when you set yourself up as a paragon of human rights, and invade other countries on the pretext (second or third pretext, admittedly) that you are liberating them from a dictator, and then go and revoke Habeas Corpus in your own backyard. It excites comment.

Habeas corpus has not been revoked. Your information is incorrect. I doubt a Frenchman even knows what the writ of habeas corpus is, and I doubt whether it even exists in French law. So don't presume to lecture us about things of which you know little except what you're read on google news.


Ordinarily I might be tempted to agree with you, but as long as we're injecting irrelevant material into this debate why don't you start by explaining France's role in the Rainbow Warrior??? That excites comment too, y'know.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:49 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24):
Habeas corpus has not been revoked. Your information is incorrect. I doubt a Frenchman even knows what the writ of habeas corpus is, and I doubt whether it even exists in French law. So don't presume to lecture us about things of which you know little except what you're read on google ne

Habeas Corpus is alive and well in the US, despite what the media would like you to believe.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:53 am

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24):
Habeas corpus has not been revoked.

Effectively, it has. All the state has to do is declare a person an enemy combatant or as having their status as illegal combatant under review, and bye-bye habeas corpus. And they could do that to absolutely ANYONE. I am astonished you're giving them a pass on this. This is fascism, pure and simple. I don't like you, so I lock you up, THEN I decide what to do with you.

I have no idea if they have Habeas Corpus in French law, I suspect there's something like it in laws relating to the European Convention on Human Rights passed in France, so whatever.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:15 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 26):
All the state has to do is declare a person an enemy combatant or as having their status as illegal combatant under review, and bye-bye habeas corpus.

Only for foreigners, not for American citizens. The US is not the guarantor of the rights of foreigners. If the subject is, say, a Pakistani citizen, it is up to the government of Pakistan to negotiate particular treatment of that subject if it so wishes.

From wiki:

Quote:

The text of the law states that its "Purpose" is to "establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission." Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their detention. [8] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [9] CBS Legal expert Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad" and that "it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted".
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:19 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 27):
Only for foreigners, not for American citizens.

Oh well THAT'S all right then. Damn foreigners - don't deserve human rights.  Yeah sure
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:35 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
Oh well THAT'S all right then. Damn foreigners - don't deserve human rights.

Not our problem.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:35 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 26):
Effectively, it has. All the state has to do is declare a person an enemy combatant or as having their status as illegal combatant under review, and bye-bye habeas corpus.

you are presuming that enemy aliens had habeas corpus rights in the first place.

As Hamdi v. Rumsfeld reconfirmed, US citizens have a right to habeas corpus protection even when declared an enemy combatant.

With regard to aliens, what the Court ruled is that the particular rules set up by the Administration to strip non-citizens of their right to habeas corpus weren't justified by existing law. Thereafter the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, a bill that suspends habeas corpus for any alien determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States," which was signed into law on October 17, 2006. An effort to remove the suspension of habeas corpus failed by a vote of 48-51 in the Senate.

I know it probably rankles you to realize this, but we are under no international legal obligation to provide aliens with the same legal protections provided to US citizens.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 28):
Oh well THAT'S all right then. Damn foreigners - don't deserve human rights.

Not at all. Hamdi noted that we do owe all foreigners at least the basic protections afforded by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Your suggestion that we give foreigners the same procedural rights as US citizens is breathtakingly arrogant.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:39 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 30):
Your suggestion that we give foreigners the same procedural rights as US citizens is breathtakingly arrogant.

I thought the thing said "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal"

I see no mention of "all US Citizens are created equal" in there.

Justice is universal, or why bother ? If I go to the U.S. and break the law, I would imagine I would receive the same right to due process etc etc, as any U.S. citizen. Or would they just shoot me on the spot to save tax dollars ?
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:49 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 31):
I thought the thing said "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal"

I see no mention of "all US Citizens are created equal" in there.

Are you suggesting that residents of Somalia, France or China be subject to US law, benefit from US welfare checks, or that the US should protect their right to own firearms?

The US deals with their own, as should other nations. If the US is unhappy about the way a US citizen is treated in, say, France, it is up to the US government to take up the issue with the French government and vice-versa.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:59 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 31):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 30):Your suggestion that we give foreigners the same procedural rights as US citizens is breathtakingly arrogant.
I thought the thing said "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal"

I see no mention of "all US Citizens are created equal" in there.

You don't see it because the phrase you've cited is from the declaration of independence, not the Constitution. And Habeas Corpus is largely a statutory protection, not a primarily Constitutional protection.

The "constitutional" writ of habeas corpus applies only to those held in custody by officials of the executive branch of the federal government, and not to those held by state governments, and then only to those within the jurisdiction of the court. This latter point is key, since federal courts do not have unlimited jurisdiction.

Under 28 USC 2241, federal courts may issue writs of habeas corpus to release prisoners held by any government entity (state or federal) from custody, but only when held in violation of the Constitution.

28 USC 2254 is the primary habeas corpus vehicle used to challenge the constitutionality of a state court conviction.

28 USC 2255, although not a "true" habeas statute, provides similar relief to federal prisoners.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 31):
Justice is universal, or why bother ? If I go to the U.S. and break the law, I would imagine I would receive the same right to due process etc etc, as any U.S. citizen. Or would they just shoot me on the spot to save tax dollars ?

If you come to the US as a tourist or on business, and commit a crime, you would receive the same habeas protections as a US citizen.

Why should we give enemy alien combatants the same rights?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:05 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
You don't see it because the phrase you've cited is from the declaration of independence, not the Constitution. And Habeas Corpus is largely a statutory protection, not a primarily Constitutional protection.

I know it's part of the declaration of independence, but it's a good principle nonetheless, and not to be lightly thrown away.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
If you come to the US as a tourist or on business, and commit a crime, you would receive the same habeas protections as a US citizen.

Why should we give enemy alien combatants the same rights?

If you are planning to put them on trial (no matter how kangaroo that trial may be), shouldn't they be treated as any other foreigner charged with a crime in the United States ?
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:12 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 34):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):You don't see it because the phrase you've cited is from the declaration of independence, not the Constitution. And Habeas Corpus is largely a statutory protection, not a primarily Constitutional protection.
I know it's part of the declaration of independence, but it's a good principle nonetheless, and not to be lightly thrown away.

Come to the United States as a friend through entry on business or pleasure, you will enjoy the same rights as a citizen. Take up arms against the United States, you get what you deserve.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 34):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):If you come to the US as a tourist or on business, and commit a crime, you would receive the same habeas protections as a US citizen.

Why should we give enemy alien combatants the same rights?
If you are planning to put them on trial (no matter how kangaroo that trial may be), shouldn't they be treated as any other foreigner charged with a crime in the United States ?

Absolutely not.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
cairo
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:41 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:20 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
That means if anyone shoots at an American, you level the town.

This worked so well when the Nazis tried it in WW2 - all resistance was stopped, people just went along with what the Nazis said, and the Nazis ended up winning the war because they did this. The French Resistance, the Czech resistance, Jean Moullin and Lucie Aubrac are fictional characters.

When deciding on foreign policy, a good yardstick for the Bush administration seems to be, "Would Hitler do it?"

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
will pay if you are even suspected of colaborating with the resistance.

A brilliant way to ensure respect for America - kill the innocent.

Your cute little argument that this is what America did in post-war German is a> wrong, and b>irrelevant, since Nazi Germany had no 1.3 billion ideological allies the way the Iraqis do in the Muslim world.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
And our national interests at present include creating a self-sustaining democratic state in the middle east

...whether the people living there want one or not.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
The terrorists we face in the middle east are motivated by religion and tribalism,

No, they are motivated by US policies in the Middle East that kill or torment Arabs and Muslims, as the Pentagon confirms.*

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 15):
It's time to leave and let the Iraqis figure it out for themselves.

The desire for self-determination is valid only where it exists for Americans, for everyone else it must be crushed.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
There has been no erosion of the Bill of Rights or the rule of law - but by all means keep swallowing the leftist line.

If you don't think wiretapping the overseas phone calls of Americans without a warrant is an unreasonable search and if you don't think that permanent residents aliens (or lawful visitors to the US) deserve the same protections as American citizens...sure the Bill of Rights is fine.

For those of us who think eavesdropping an Americans without a warrant is wrong and think that legal residents and the foreign-born deserve the same protections as an American in an American court, then the Bill of Rights has been eroded significantly in the name of security.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
prefer a US defeat

The team mentality, the win or lose mentality, the ego of some and the inability to recognize mistakes are all the hallmarks of those who still hang on to such a huge disaster like the American presence in Iraq.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 23):
Define your mission which benefits the country, and do what you need to get the job done. No (or very few) restrictions.

Once you decide on something - do it until you kill everyone else and kill yourself if necessary, but never re-evaluate yourself and never, ever admit that you were wrong.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24):
Habeas corpus has not been revoked.

Except for the ten million legal resident aliens in the United States and the fifty million legal visitors who come to America every year.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 27):
Only for foreigners, not for American citizens. The US is not the guarantor of the rights of foreigners. If the subject is, say, a Pakistani citizen, it is up to the government of Pakistan to negotiate particular treatment of that subject if it so wishes.

No.

An American deserves the same protection from a foreign government in a foreign nation as that foreign nation gives its own citizens. Legal residents and visitors to America should enjoy the same rights as Americans while they are in America - at least when they are defendants in a crimianl prosecution. The law of one's country doesn't follow them around, the law of the country stays in that country for anyone who finds themselves there.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 29):
Not our problem.

This belief you have is why you have failure.

Start thinking that their probelms are your problems and you will come closer to solving everyone's problems.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 30):
I know it probably rankles you to realize this, but we are under no international legal obligation to provide aliens with the same legal protections provided to US citizens.

The US regularly demands that Americans arrested overseas be treated no less than the citizens of that country get treated when they are arrested. The State Department regularly fights criminal actions brought against Americans overseas that discriminate against the accused based on his American citizenship.

American liberties and protections in a criminal matter should apply to all who are legally in America.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 30):
Your suggestion that we give foreigners the same procedural rights as US citizens is breathtakingly arrogant.

No, it is breathtakingly arrogant to suggest only Americans deserve the Bill of Rights protections in a crimainal matter brought by the American government. You are quick to want to spread your brand of 'democracy' to the Arab-Muslim world, but you aren't so quick to live by the spirit of this ideal by securing the same rights in America for legal visitors as Americans themselves have in a criminal matter. It's hypocrisy and is a big reason why the entire world doesn't believe the US government.

Cairo



*
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:45 am

Quoting Cairo (Reply 36):
If you don't think wiretapping the overseas phone calls of Americans without a warrant is an unreasonable search and if you don't think that permanent residents aliens (or lawful visitors to the US) deserve the same protections as American citizens...sure the Bill of Rights is fine.

Drop me a note once the Supreme Court strikes down any of the post 9/11 legislation on the grounds that it violates the BoR and we'll talk.

Just how have permanent residents and legal visitors been denied the same rights as US citizens? I do believe the Hamdan case ratified that US citizens have a right to habeas corpus protection even when declared an enemy combatant, and I suspect that would apply to legal PR's and visitors with visas.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 36):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 30):I know it probably rankles you to realize this, but we are under no international legal obligation to provide aliens with the same legal protections provided to US citizens.
The US regularly demands that Americans arrested overseas be treated no less than the citizens of that country get treated when they are arrested. The State Department regularly fights criminal actions brought against Americans overseas that discriminate against the accused based on his American citizenship.

So by all means, reject the State department requests if your country has laws that treat citizens different from enemy combatants. Or even if the American at issue is a visitor who has just comitted an "ordinary" crime. I'm not asking that we be treated any differently than we treat others.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 36):
American liberties and protections in a criminal matter should apply to all who are legally in America.

Not to enemy combatants - sorry.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 36):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 30):Your suggestion that we give foreigners the same procedural rights as US citizens is breathtakingly arrogant.
No, it is breathtakingly arrogant to suggest only Americans deserve the Bill of Rights protections in a crimainal matter brought by the American government. You are quick to want to spread your brand of 'democracy' to the Arab-Muslim world, but you aren't so quick to live by the spirit of this ideal by securing the same rights in America for legal visitors as Americans themselves have in a criminal matter. It's hypocrisy and is a big reason why the entire world doesn't believe the US government.

 rotfl  and your country's protections apply to all noncitizens as well?

There is nothing hypocritical about treating enemy combatants differently than citizens or lawfully admitted aliens.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:01 pm

Their are only 2 options now.


1. Pull out and let the peace loving citizens oppressed by the US kill themselves.

2. Reinforce with everything available and disarm every militia and clear as many weapons as possible. Zero tolerance for having weapons. Commit to a all out effort to clear house by house , block by block every weapon. Establish complete martial law. Re-identify every citizen under control of the Iraqi government , anyone that resists is well "re-educated".This of course is what should have happened from the beginning , But miscalculations were made, that is it.
Either the Iraqi people can put away their differences in order to establish a central government or it will have to be forced on them.. their is no middle ground. It sucks ! pretty much a giant shit sandwich and get in line.

Of course option 2 will never happen , so I guess its option 1.

The war is only won or lost when the Iraqi people decide it is... It is up to them not the US to end this.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:20 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 26):
I have no idea if they have Habeas Corpus in French law, I suspect there's something like it in laws relating to the European Convention on Human Rights passed in France, so whatever

You don't know jack shit about your own laws and you presume to lecture us about ours? Then for Christs's sake stop bitching until you know enough about your own damn country to speak intelligently. So whatever.




 talktothehand   talktothehand   talktothehand   talktothehand 
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:26 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 34):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
You don't see it because the phrase you've cited is from the declaration of independence, not the Constitution. And Habeas Corpus is largely a statutory protection, not a primarily Constitutional protection.

I know it's part of the declaration of independence, but it's a good principle nonetheless, and not to be lightly thrown away.

United States Constitution Article 1, Section 9(5).

Drag out your pocket constitutions everyone. That's as far from statute as you are likely to get...and because of that, this recent escapade of the Bushites will ultimately land in the Supreme Court where it will be consigned to the dustbin of other Republican ideas LOL.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:31 pm

Quoting Cairo (Reply 36):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 24):
Habeas corpus has not been revoked.

Except for the ten million legal resident aliens in the United States and the fifty million legal visitors who come to America every year.

A presumptuous statement. Please, sir, when you've finished lecturing the rest of the world will you tell me your source for this most interesting revelation? Does it apply in Egypt?

And finally, would you tell me what habeas corpus really means in practice? I mean, from all your knowledge and experience on this subject.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:22 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
The "war" part was resolved quickly, and a success. We did remove Saddam and his dictatorship.

The occupation hasn't been a success, and is becoming a failure, because we haven't been able to stop the slow slide into a full blown civil war.

Which rather misses the point, an invasion cannot be a success if the follow up is an unmitigated disaster.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 23):
It was also the American method used in Germany at the end of WWII. You have no idea of the horrors that went on at the end in order to rein in the rogue SS units that continued to snipe and sabotage right up until 1948. But in the end, we put a stop to it by making the Germans themselves turn the bastards in because they were more afraid of what the allies would do than the Nazis.

And you are going to provide a reference to this truly awful campaign that my brother totally failed to notice during his years in Germany? I would send him a remonstrance about this except I cannot.

Yes, I know the German Mayor of Aachen (or was it Krefeld, but I think Aachen) was killed by a werewolf gang, but IIRC that was before the surrender. Then again, if they had killed the US administrator of Krefeld (HK) how much better off might have been SE Asia and Chile, perhaps Iran too?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
Take up arms against the United States, you get what you deserve.

But nobody arrested under this charge has the right to challenge the assumption that they took up arms, THIS is the point of this argument, which of course you and Bush will continue to ignore.

Quoting Cairo (Reply 36):
Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
will pay if you are even suspected of collaborating with the resistance.

A brilliant way to ensure respect for America - kill the innocent.

Yep, worked every time for the SS, look how young UK Royals still look up to them and how well it goes down with the press.

The occupation is clearly lost. Just look at the surveys of whether Iraqis want the occupying forces to stay. They do not - PERIOD
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:49 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter):
Was It A War, And Is It Lost

Yes, it IS a war.

No, it is NOT lost.

Quoting NAV20 (Thread starter):
Maybe it's time to cut our losses? What does everyone else think?

Cut our losses, no. Manage the situation better, yes. Get Rumsfeld outta there and get someone in the DoD that will LISTEN to the folks with boots on the ground. And give the appropriate - and non-partisan asskissing - advice to PotUS based on field commanders input rather than the party line, or his own (Rumsfeld's own) skewed, warped, out of touch version of what is reality.

I dare say, I believe with a different SecDef in the Pentagon things would have gone markedly different. Who perhaps? McCain maybe. Cohen again. Those two pop immediately to mind as being able to speak their mind and get the job done. Although Cohen supported Pres. Clinton's drastic, killing fields downsizing of the military as a whole, he put the brakes on a lot of things Pres Clinton wanted to cut instantly because he knew better based on input from the field.

Replace the idiot in the SecDef office. That is the ONLY way we're going to progress from our status quo.

Now, on to the thread:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 5):
The first 30 days or so was a more or less traditional military-vs-military conflict

And that's when the DoD fucked the dog. No plan after the initial attack. Or atleast not one on the books, because as you know, Rumsfeld threatened to FIRE anyone that suggested one would be needed . . . . that's been documented.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 5):
It is lost politically. It hasn't been a military defeat per se. The insurgents and militias cannot destroy our maneuver units on the field of battle. Nor can they seize and hold physical objectives. By the same standard, we cannot use military force to exert control over political and cultural factors. To suggest that we can is nonsense

I would agree with this perspective. No military loss. But politically, it's a disaster.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 15):
Iraq requires a political solution, not a military one.

Start with eliminating religious bullshit from the politics in the country. Very hard to do, yes of course it is. But essential if there is to be any headway on the part of the Iraqi government.

As long as religious influence and infighting exists, nothing will change.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 15):
What a bad idea. What specific mission are you going to assign those troops Falcon?

A bad idea? Hell, it's what should have been done in the first place. We should have had at LEAST double the number of troops to start this war than we did.

Exactly - and now we're back to Rumsfeld again . . . do it on the cheap, send in two Divisions, that'll do it. Classic example of lack of total understanding of the Operational Art of War. An offensive with 1/3rd the necessary troops. Rumsfeld strikes yet again.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 18):
You would think someone would be ashamed to suggest the Americans do this.

For some people, saving the face of this particular administration is clearly more important than anything else - their country, their own troops, the iraqis and the whole world can go to hell if just their ideology is preserved!

Charles has so far been an unfortunate but always reliable example of this kind of attitude.

Klaus, ArtiePuffer and I actually agree here  faint . I would be ashmaed of an American to suggest the things CFalk suggested. No, the military does NOT think this way. There are the individual morons out there, but eventually they get caught and prosecuted . . . as they should be.

Shameful Charles. You don't destroy a town because a few people don't like you. Go read history on Vietnam and you'll see how that doesn't work . . . at all.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 34):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):You don't see it because the phrase you've cited is from the declaration of independence, not the Constitution. And Habeas Corpus is largely a statutory protection, not a primarily Constitutional protection.
I know it's part of the declaration of independence, but it's a good principle nonetheless, and not to be lightly thrown away.

Come to the United States as a friend through entry on business or pleasure, you will enjoy the same rights as a citizen. Take up arms against the United States, you get what you deserve.

Gawddamn right. War against us, you deserve nothing more than the basic requirements of the Geneva Convention. Illegally enter this country, you deserve shit . . . a bus ride back to where ever.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:28 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 42):
Just look at the surveys of whether Iraqis want the occupying forces to stay.

Yes, let's do that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061023/...p_on_go_ca_st_pe/surveying_iraq_10

Poll: Iraq Arab youth want U.S. to leave

"The poll has its shortcomings; regional samples are small..."

"The analysis was headlined "Youth In Iraq's Arab Sunni Regions Not Eager to Enlist in National Army, Police" and highlighted views from those areas."(Are Sunni's not the minority in Iraq?)

"Yet in its assessment of the broader picture for Iraq, which includes Kurds and Arab Shiites, there were pieces of good news: A majority of young Iraqis would be willing to join the security forces or support a family member who did, the survey found."

"On the contrary, 70 percent of young Iraqi Kurds see the multinational forces as a liberating force." (Why wasnt this news?)

Sounds like a lot of Sunnis were the one who were asked the question.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:44 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 39):
You don't know jack shit about your own laws and you presume to lecture us about ours? Then for Christs's sake stop bitching until you know enough about your own damn country to speak intelligently. So whatever.

That's a tad defensive, don't you think ? The exercise here is not to compare the laws in the U.S. and in France or Egypt, it is to discuss the recent changes to the laws in the U.S., once held up as a paragon of human rights legislation, in principle as well as in fact. If you are content to see these rights eroded in order to satisfy some cheap short-term political opportunism, that's your choice. But any pretence at being a bastion of liberty starts to ring hollow.

P.S. France isn't "my" country. I just live here.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:29 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 44):
"On the contrary, 70 percent of young Iraqi Kurds see the multinational forces as a liberating force." (Why wasnt this news?)

Totally UNsurprising, but the Kurds however admirable they may be are NOT a majority in Iraq.

It is not all that clear if the Shia areas were surveyed. But in the Arab areas (which possibly was only the Sunnis) 90% said go home, here is your hat what is your hurry?

But we know how much Moqtada wants the US.

So what is your point? The article seems to say most Iraqis want the occupying forces out. The Kurds are not a majority. And they are another type of problem, because the reason they want the US there is to stop the Turks invading. Have a nice (new) war!
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1680
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:28 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 43):
Start with eliminating religious bullshit from the politics in the country. Very hard to do, yes of course it is. But essential if there is to be any headway on the part of the Iraqi government.

"Lt. Talyor move 1st Platoon to the right over there. Establish an overwatch position on the objective and provide suppressive fires on that enemy religious ideology."

"Lt. Smith and Lt. Ryan, you will be the assault force. I want your platoons to bound by the left to seize and hold the theology and cultural traditions located in the objective."

"Remember gentlemen, the S-2 has identified several sectarian allegiance positions in this area. These units are known to be unreasonable and often cling to ancient tradition.

It is vital to identify these positions quickly and concentrate our representative government teams on them.

Make sure you troops have extra issue of pluralism and plenty of rule-of-law"

"Taylor, once we've cleared to objective, move your platoon up to the right and establish a new base of civility and rational social order.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:47 pm

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 47):

Very well done.

And I see the point here.

It's not the US or the military that will solve the problem of the Religious Zealotry there . . . tis only the people of Iraq that can get beyond that and deal with their own issues on a level that doesn't include all the religious infighting. Hell, we had it in this country 300-400 years ago. And lets not forget about the Crusades. On and On and On . . . but we got by it, and only then could we get down to the business of getting along.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Iraq - Was It A War, And Is It Lost?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:01 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 40):
Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 34):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
You don't see it because the phrase you've cited is from the declaration of independence, not the Constitution. And Habeas Corpus is largely a statutory protection, not a primarily Constitutional protection.

I know it's part of the declaration of independence, but it's a good principle nonetheless, and not to be lightly thrown away.

United States Constitution Article 1, Section 9(5).

Drag out your pocket constitutions everyone. That's as far from statute as you are likely to get...and because of that, this recent escapade of the Bushites will ultimately land in the Supreme Court where it will be consigned to the dustbin of other Republican ideas LOL.

I'm well aware of the Constitutional origins of habeas corpus, which I noted in an earlier post. The fact is, the majority of habeas litigation in federal courts comes from statutory, not Constitutional, habeas protection.

Recent challenges to statutory provisions limiting the right to successive Habeas petitions have generally failed. See Felker v. Turpin 518 U.S. 651, 116 S.Ct. 2333 U.S.Ga.,1996.

Quote:
Provision of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act preventing Supreme Court from reviewing Court of Appeals order denying leave to file second habeas petition by appeal or by writ of certiorari does not, by implication, repeal Supreme Court's authority to entertain original habeas petitions, which thus obviates any claim that Act deprives Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction in violation of exceptions clause.



Quoting Baroque (Reply 42):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
Take up arms against the United States, you get what you deserve.

But nobody arrested under this charge has the right to challenge the assumption that they took up arms, THIS is the point of this argument, which of course you and Bush will continue to ignore.

Sure they do. They will be able to challenge the designation in the tribunal that will be conducted under the rules that Congress recently passed and the President signed. Assuming they don't again go to the SC to challenge the new tribunal like Hamdi did, if they are convicted they will have a limited ability to challenge the results of that tribunal on appeal.

Don't like the "lesser" quality of justice afforded to enemy combatants? Don't become one!
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tom32286, TWA772LR and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos