Questions about the Iraq War

[GalvanizedYankee]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
Q:Do Americans ever compare it with the Soviet-Afghan War?

A: I have from day one. It will undoubtly end the same way as well.

Yep! Sho nuff!




10 minutes of Olbermann http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fat9k3j2MqE

 

[Lemon law]

The issue raised is not that Carter started the aid to the Mujahadeen---the issue is which President---Carter or Reagan---escalated that aid in a big way and really screwed the pooch by giving terrorists Stinger missiles.---and it sure was not Carter.

And by the same token you could blame Kennedy for starting the Vietnam war--after all he first embedded US advisers---but it is and remains LBJ who really screwed the pooch and committed his ego and massive troops numbers to Vietnam. And Nixon then really screwed up and widened the war even more.

After all mistakes come in all sizes----it only the huge mistakes that really damage.

Me thinks that if Kennedy would have lived---he would have cut his losses in Vietnam---in the same manner that he cut his losses in the bay of pigs.

But there is no fool like an old fool.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
to non Prof John,

If we can turn around Anbar, the worst of the worst, then we can make progress elsewhere.

Have we indeed turned around Anbar?----or just temporarily pushed it elsewhere---

Reports are saying 14 of 18 Iraqi tribal cheiftans in that province now oppose AQ and are fighting against them. (IIRC it was 14/18, a big turnaround).

Yes, I would expect AQ to have gone elsewhere with that kind of domestic opposition. That strikes me a very good thing too.

THe so-called "surge" is not just troop numbers. There are also changes in tactics and rules of engangement, and it seems everyone wants to ignore those?

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

To Fern,

Your giant mistake may be in believing that the Iraqi insurgency has much of anything to do with AL-Quida---Right now one of the biggest single person insurgency problems in Iraq is named AL-Sadr---who is Shia---as are a pile of other insurgents---and the Shia and AL-Quida are almost contradictions in terms.

Get a clue---the Iraqi insurgency has little to do with AL-Quida---and more to do with local thugs taking charge.---Sunni and Shia thugs who saw their chance in Iraqi anarchy--and acted to set up their own private fiefdoms.

Just because GWB screams terror terror terror---by now you should realize nothing that comes out of GWB's mouth is anything but a self-serving lie.

Are you really that gullible Fern?

 

[Aimster]

Afghans are thugs.
Don't mess with them if they are armed

good thing they aren't united to get rid of the NATO forces.

& IMO Iraq is nothing like that war.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I think the Soviet-Afghan war is a much better comparison to Iraq than Vietnam...lots of similarities going on with those wars.

So then what do we do?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Get a clue non Prof John---the GWB mini surge is not working---too little too late---now if you can come up with 200,000 extra American troops I will start believing you are something other than a forum troll telling fairy tales.---failing that---watch the birdie.---as Iraq desends into a civil war that will take the whole middle east with it.

And all you offer is more GWB stinking thinking.---how many more must die for his lies?---after four long years----your faith may be inspiring--but totally misplaced.

Did you just totally ignore the article I posted?
If you wish I can find others than point to Anbar having made a drastic change in recent months.

If we can turn around Anbar, the worst of the worst, then we can make progress elsewhere.

That's pretty specious reasoning. Al Anbar has certainly improved, but I see little evidence that it's improved BECAUSE of our presence, or that the reason it improved applies to everywhere else in Iraq. That's the problem with this debate, you guys seem convinced that there is this magic victory sauce that will work wonders if we just give it time. While a lot of us are wondering if maybe it's impossible to fix Iraq by just sticking around for a while.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think the idea of Iran turning into another Afghanistan is the worse case scenerio and the reason why have not given up.
When you move away from the anti-Bush politics and the cry me a river anti-war left you do see that there are very good reasons for us to stay.

1. Iraq turning into a base of operations from which terrorists can strike is a scary thing.
2. A full scale civil war could cause destabilization to the middle east driving oil prices sky high and crippling the world economy.
3. We are already there and making progress. If we were to give up and leave and had to return later it would be more expensive in time and lives spent.

But don?t look at the people around here to admit to any of these things. They would rather post a bunch of cut paste BS about how the war started instead of dealing with the fact that we are there already.

I would certainly be happier with agreeing with a Democrat if the solution was something victorious, instead of an advocacy of a defeat which will make a horrific situation far worse.

I have NOTHING against questioning our leadership, calling it a complete disgrace, and wanting improvements/replacements. However, I will forever always be against the replacement when it offers no solutions and instead calls for our defeat.

Recently, however, I have read from a similar point of view, the reasoning for which staying in Iraq and ?protecting it? from descending into chaos might be, by itself, a stupid mistake when looking at the OVERALL global perspective in the war. Now I shall explain briefly.

Iraq is not why we?re in Iraq. 9-11 is why, and although being lead into Iraq was a mistake there can be no doubt that the global war is far and above Iraq. We have a greater responsibility to combat our opponent?s ideology but I fear we cannot properly do this while our fixation and focus is on Iraq. Therefore, I do now question whether letting Iraq burn is not better for us overall.

If it were to allow us to move on, and begin to focus on the less pressing but FAR more critical matter of the religious ideology that pervades this country and ferments future terrorist attacks against us, then abandoning Iraq to its genocidal fate could be viewed as a necessary move. We may win the battle in Iraq many years from now but the exertion could guarantee our loss in the overall war.

This is something very troubling to consider.

Yes, clearly you were paying attention in neocon buzzword class, but exactly who is "advocating defeat"? I pay pretty close attention, and as far as I can tell, no anti-war folks are saying they WANT the US to lose in Iraq, or for Iraq to slide back into totalitarianism. In fact, the sentiment is quite the opposite, they WANT Iraq to turn out well, but they think that the war has been driven too far off track by inept leadership and that our presence is no longer going to fix things no matter how long we stay. And the anger you see isn't directed at America as a whole, it's mostly against stupid neocon types who think the way to win wars is by strutting around on an aircraft carrier with a stuffed codpiece and a "Mission Accomplished" banner and as long as you have faith, the actual war will take care of itself.

And I'm curious, just which country are you talking about when you say we need to "focus" on the "religious ideology that pervades this country"?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Fern,

Your giant mistake may be in believing that the Iraqi insurgency has much of anything to do with AL-Quida---Right now one of the biggest single person insurgency problems in Iraq is named AL-Sadr---who is Shia---as are a pile of other insurgents---and the Shia and AL-Quida are almost contradictions in terms.

Get a clue---the Iraqi insurgency has little to do with AL-Quida---and more to do with local thugs taking charge.---Sunni and Shia thugs who saw their chance in Iraqi anarchy--and acted to set up their own private fiefdoms.

Just because GWB screams terror terror terror---by now you should realize nothing that comes out of GWB's mouth is anything but a self-serving lie.

Are you really that gullible Fern?

Finally caught the news last night (I'm a tax CPA and been too busy lately). Mort Kondrake (definetly not a neocon or GWB fan if you're familiar with him) was saying sectarian violence is greatly diminished, most now is of the AQ type, in contrast to your assertions.

Fern

 

[dullard]

I have made that comparison many times on these boards. Example, I'm near the bottom. Rarely will anyone respond to me.

That Afghan war is so similar to the Iraq war, that it is uncanny. And we know how well that turned out.

 

[Lemon law]

To Fern--who notes--Finally caught the news last night (I'm a tax CPA and been too busy lately). Mort Kondrake (definetly not a neocon or GWB fan if you're familiar with him) was saying sectarian violence is greatly diminished, most now is of the AQ type, in contrast to your assertions.

Sorry not impressed by Mortie---you can always dredge up a so called expert to support any position---but while you have been busy--so has the Iraqi insurgency---nor is the violence greatly reduced---yes we can heavily patrol one area---it just pushes the violence elsewhere--as soon as we patrol elsewhere---back they come.---both Al-Quida and otherwise---and mostly homegrown types. And even then its irrelevant--its going to take 200,000 more troops to beat the Iraqi insurgency--especially since the Iraqi police and army are missing in action and can't be used.-----------------I still remember all the Vietnam poobahs saying there is light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Sorry not impressed by Mortie---you can always dredge up a so called expert to support any position---

OK, so how about you dredge up someone to refute Kondrake?

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

Yes----me---I read my history books---this Iraqi insurgency is not new---the tactic and weapons change---the human element stays the same---and if you don't understand the people and what motivates them---the occupying power is always doomed.----and as I say---Al-Quida and Shia are contradictions in terms---who can be so crazy as to think AL-Quida can call any tunes in a country more than 50% Shia.

What you are seeing is feudalism in action here--it started after the fall of Rome---and it only took a thousand years of bumping and grinding to get to the birth of the modern state.
And feudalism predates the fall of Rome---and is even older than terrorism---which is 6000 years old at least.---if the occupation does not hit the ground running after the existing government falls---its what forms up---almost always.---and then feeds on itself when the local populace have to go to the local strong man for protection. Add in economic oppression based on religion---and you are in for real trouble.---add in neighboring countries divided on similar grounds or fearful of various minorities---and the degree of difficulty goes up exponentially----------and fools go where angel fear to tread is a perfect description for Iraq and GWB&co.

Oddly, there are some people who get it---at least in Afghanistan---but none of them are listened to by GWB&co.---Afghanistan should have been far easier than Iraq---but GWB&co. went unerring against every historical force that would promote a central government.---and its going to be at least as big of a trainwreck before its over.

 

[GrGr]

The US does not know either it's enemy nor itself. Under such conditions it can never win. Noone ever has.

Delusional faithbased leadership and ignorance, matched with ambitious greed and hybris never made for a winning combination.

 

[fskimospy]

No it's different. There's no Rambo in Iraq. Even if there was, he'd be fighting against us... That doesn't fit with the freedom loving Rambo I knew in Rambo III, so I have to say that they are nothing alike.