Revel wrote:occum bill
I think much of what you think about the insurgency just being a minority is what is merely what is being said by our administration or by people who favor the administration and it is not really the reality in Iraq.
Most Stats have the insurgency being perhaps 5% of Iraq's population. Care to share where you get your imaginative opposing stats?
Not only are they a minority, Revel, but a pretty tiny one at that. Don't let the bad apples convince you otherwise. 95% or so of that population is ready for peace, right now.
Engineering design of an airplane doesn't require the sacrifice of our American soldiers and treasure. The analogy doesn't fit; apples and oranges anyone?
ican711nm wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:You've missed some of the most important differences; Japan and Germany were toppled, and they didn't have the insurgency problems we have in Iraq (after major combat was declared over). Japan and Germany did not have tribal differences after the war as we do in Iraq.
I discussed the significance of these tribal or ethnic differences in an earlier post. I also mentioned in an earlier post that the insurgencies in Japan and Germany were, relative to Iraq's insurgencies, short lived.
However, I don't consider these to be the show-stopper differences I infer you do.
Here's a true, old story and relvant story. A school friend, a brilliant top-of-the-class aeronautical engineering graduate, told me this story about himself.
Right after he graduated he went to work for
North American Aviation. His boss, the senior designer, asked him to spend the next year trying to redesign a particular empennage to cut its weight by at least 50% (for you living in the blue states an empennage is the tail assembly of an airplane's airframe). About seven months later my friend completed the design cutting the weight by 49%. He reported excitedly to his boss and announced his success. His boss mumbled, "thanks, now go back and reduce the design's weight another 10%."
My friend said he blew up. He shouted, "Do you realize what I hav accomplished? Do you realize my new design, while weighing less tan half as much, is twice as strong? Do you realize how much time, perseverance, creativity, and just plain hard work went into what I just accomplished in 7 months?" His boss responded, "Want an easy job ...... work for
Piper!"
My friend said that he went back to work and reduced the design weight 11% more.
Moral of the story: You want an easier job than a
democratic Iraq? Move to
France!
I think this is barking up the wrong tree. The US is not engaged in engineering a democratic Iraq. It is trying to form a puppet state, not the same thing at all.
McTag wrote:I think this is barking up the wrong tree. The US is not engaged in engineering a democratic Iraq. It is trying to form a puppet state, not the same thing at all.
Sez you. Squin posted an interesting story that's more reflective of reality a little while ago. I'll grab it for you...
here. :wink:
Rumsfeld warns. Sending more troops, he said, "has the counterproductive aspect of creating additional targets and creating a sense of occupation."
where in the name of god has this guy
been ??
"creating a sense of occupation"???
jesus h. christ...
Inappropriate reaction D.T.O.M.. The 'state required reaction' is
Please consult your 'citiziens book on protocol' chapter seven.verse twelve.
Brother cental now increasing surveillance of citizen 13.2.35.7.35 to 22 hrs/diem with accompanying documentation and profile. Increasing daily tax assesment 2.5 euro dollars.
Long live King George
Good day D.T.O.M..
ican
I just noticed your statement about knowing from personal experience what occurred in Japan and Germany after WW2. Just how old were you in "45? Were you old enough to understand world politics or did you get your view of history from the same publications you deride others for believing.
Let me say emphatically the situation in Germany and Japan after the war was in no way similar to Iraq of today. Note:I was in service in 1948 and knew and know many people who fought in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters and were stationed in those countries at the end of the war.
I am sure that what I have just written will have no effect and you will continue to voice your distortions and political fantasies and subscribe to the Bush book of myths.
From someone who scrolls your nonsense.
au
OCCOM BILL wrote:Revel wrote:occum bill
I think much of what you think about the insurgency just being a minority is what is merely what is being said by our administration or by people who favor the administration and it is not really the reality in Iraq.
Most Stats have the insurgency being perhaps 5% of Iraq's population. Care to share where you get your imaginative opposing stats?
Not only are they a minority, Revel, but a pretty tiny one at that. Don't let the bad apples convince you otherwise. 95% or so of that population is ready for peace, right now.
I am not really talking about stats of which I am beginning to think is entirely depended on who is taking the staticis. I am talking about supportive Iraqi's to the insurgents. The insurgents could not be this successful if they were not getting an awful lot of support as the article I posted noted. That just takes ordinary common sense to figure out.
Well...from what I see written in this thread, it is obvious that the people WHO WERE MOST WRONG about WMD; immenent threats to our country; Saddam ties with Al Qaeda; general reaction of Iraqis to our troops; number of troops need to secure peace...and a host of other issues...
...are not only absolutely convinced that they know best how to proceed now that things are all f****d up, but that their counterparts, the people WHO WERE MOST CORRECT about all those issues, just don't know what they are talking about.
No wonder they don't see the similarities with Vietnam.
They are selectively blind to reality and are absolutely unable to fathom what Santayana meant when he wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
OCCOM BILL wrote:McTag wrote:I think this is barking up the wrong tree. The US is not engaged in engineering a democratic Iraq. It is trying to form a puppet state, not the same thing at all.
Sez you. Squin posted an interesting story that's more reflective of reality a little while ago. I'll grab it for you...
here. :wink:
Thanks Bill. When the armed forces in Iraq come under an Iraqi supreme commander, you will have won me over to this point of view.
Suppose the new Iraqi authority decides that it wants the US to leave its new bases and go away; what do you think will happen then? Will the US go?
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Best Defense Is a Good Offense
By ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN
Published: December 27, 2004
AMERICANS cannot see a tragedy like last week's attack on a military mess tent in Mosul, Iraq, without wondering how it could ever have occurred - and how it can be prevented from ever happening again. Like the furor over improved armor for trucks and Humvees, the attack rouses the instinct to make force protection the immediate priority for United States forces in Iraq. No American wants Americans soldiers to be vulnerable.
These instincts, however, are wrong. The United States can win in Iraq only through offensive action. It cannot afford to make every American base a fortress, or to disperse scarce manpower and other military resources in force-protection missions. United States forces have to be mobile and able to redeploy where the threat is - even though such redeployments often mean moving forces to vulnerable areas. If the Pentagon concentrates on protecting troops in the short run, the war will last longer and total casualties will be greater. Worse, the United States will simply never win.
This is not a pleasant message for military families and the ordinary soldier in the field. Senior commanders understand its importance, but no one who has just been wounded or seen a friend die does. Experience also tells us that incidents of this kind lead to immediate political opportunism: members of Congress grabbing headlines, contractors rushing forward to sell in the guise of helping the troops. It also leads to instant news media trials of commanders for failing to protect our troops. This happened after the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, and it gave the attackers a major additional victory.
Demanding that American troops keep their distance from Iraqis, or imposing security restrictions that make it difficult or impossible for them to work with the military, is also problematic. The United States cannot possibly achieve its political goals in Iraq - or the goal of reducing its own military presence over time - unless Iraqis are treated as partners. Humanitarian aid, economic assistance, the creation of Iraqi military, security and political forces that can defeat the insurgents and give the new government credibility - all require the cooperation of Iraqis.
War is not about eliminating risks; it is about managing them. America should do everything it can to manage its risks in Iraq, and the military is constantly learning and adapting. So, however, are America's enemies - and they understand they can only win politically, not militarily. This in part explains the attacks earlier this month on Shiites in Karbala and Najaf, which killed 68 Iraqis and wounded about 175. It also helps explains last week's attack in Mosul; the insurgents knew the bombing would receive extensive news coverage in the United States, and they no doubt are aware of the results of recent polls that show rising opposition to the war among Americans. Why not try to divide Americans and Iraqis the way they are trying to divide Sunnis and Shiites?
The brutal reality is that the United States is fighting a "war after the war" that has already killed and wounded far more Americans and Iraqis than the war that drove Saddam Hussein from power. It is an intense war, with some 1,600 to 3,000 incidents and attack attempts a month. Troops are dispersed and sometimes vulnerable. All of this means more attacks are likely before Iraqi elections next month and constant fighting well into 2006. For months and years to come, insurgents and terrorists will continue to try to exploit every fault line in Iraqi society, in American politics, and in regional and international affairs as well.
There is no certainty that the United States will win in Iraq. The war after the war is a far more difficult one than the war against Saddam Hussein. If America overreacts to attacks and lets the enemy drive its agenda, losing the war in Iraq will become not just possible but almost certain.
Anthony H. Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics and Military Lessons."
Cordesman is another one of those with the WMDs:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2002/Cordesman.pdf
He was wrong then.
The US just spent 80 billion dollars on a missile defense system that failed, but we don't have enough money to protect our troops at war. Does the word "incompetence" come to mind?
revel wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Revel wrote:occum bill
I think much of what you think about the insurgency just being a minority is what is merely what is being said by our administration or by people who favor the administration and it is not really the reality in Iraq.
Most Stats have the insurgency being perhaps 5% of Iraq's population. Care to share where you get your imaginative opposing stats?
Not only are they a minority, Revel, but a pretty tiny one at that. Don't let the bad apples convince you otherwise. 95% or so of that population is ready for peace, right now.
I am not really talking about stats of which I am beginning to think is entirely depended on who is taking the staticis. I am talking about supportive Iraqi's to the insurgents. The insurgents could not be this successful if they were not getting an awful lot of support as the article I posted noted. That just takes ordinary common sense to figure out.
Use some of that ordinary common sense to figure out; that only those willing to shoot guns or set off bombs are standing in the way of progress.
Opinions, are as diverse there as they are here... and rightly so. That's the first evidence of freedom, btw. When's the last time you heard opposing views coming out of Iraq?
McTag wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:McTag wrote:I think this is barking up the wrong tree. The US is not engaged in engineering a democratic Iraq. It is trying to form a puppet state, not the same thing at all.
Sez you. Squin posted an interesting story that's more reflective of reality a little while ago. I'll grab it for you...
here. :wink:
Thanks Bill. When the armed forces in Iraq come under an Iraqi supreme commander, you will have won me over to this point of view.
That's a pretty silly statement McTag. While assisting any nation, don't look for our troops to answer to their leader.
McTag wrote: Suppose the new Iraqi authority decides that it wants the US to leave its new bases and go away; what do you think will happen then? Will the US go?
For starters; I think the question is a non-starter because it is very unlikely to happen anytime soon. Before it would, I think we'll more than likely have negotiated some form of a long-term instrument (like a lease) in exchange for our assistance. I'm also guessing that they'll go for it. :wink:
IF, they adamantly want us to vacate their country so they could run it themselves, under a duly elected government; I think we'd declare victory and come home. We'd still have our bases in Kuwait
and no Iraqi will soon forget Saddam's fate
so we wouldn't be treated like impotent wolf-criers like we were in the past. Again, that's not something I expect to see come up anyway. In about a month you're going to have to admit that the majority of Iraqis don't want us to leave. Frankly, McTag, they'd be fools if they did.
McTag wrote: I think this is barking up the wrong tree. The US is not engaged in engineering a democratic Iraq. It is trying to form a puppet state, not the same thing at all.
We agree a puppet state of Iraq and a democratic state of Iraq are not the same thing. We disagree about what the US is trying to do. I think the US is trying to engineer an independent, and self reliant, democratic Iraq. I think that because I think such an Iraq best serves both the short term and long term self-interest of the US. Such a state will be far more likely to achieve stability in securing its own liberty, less likely to require financial subsidy from us or anyone else, more likely to suppress al Qaeda, and more likely to be a free trader in the world market place.
I cannot believe we haven't learned from our failed past attempts that proping up puppet states is doomed to failure. I cannot believe that Bush would be anything but ecstatic if he were to complete his second term with an independent and self-reliant democratic Iraq up and running.
Our country consists mostly of people who root for governments that independently secure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of their citizens. We favor politicians that think the same. We understand that to be able to do our honorable things, we must not only allow, but encourage everyone else to do their honorable things in a global environment of fair competition.
ican wrote
Quote:Our country consists mostly of people who root for governments that independently secure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of their citizens. We favor politicians that think the same. We understand that to be able to do our honorable things, we must not only allow, but encourage everyone else to do their honorable things in a global environment of fair competition.
And we never, support tyrants, dictatorships and despotic governments. We would like to believe that we always wear the "White hat." That is being naive. We do what it is in our national interests to do, as we should.
OCCOM BILL
Quote:Use some of that ordinary common sense to figure out; that only those willing to shoot guns or set off bombs are standing in the way of progress.
Revel: It is not logical to say that only those that are actually doing the shooting and the bombing are the ones standing in the way of progress. If those that are actually carrying out the insurgent acts were not getting support then they could't carry out thier insurgent actions very long before someone either turns them in or stops aiding them by hiding them and so forth. If they were against the insurgents they would fight them by helping us and they are not doing that.
If so many Iraqi's now resent the US as occupiers, how would they feel when we complete 14 military bases and the largest embassy in Baghdad? We continue to influence their politics and politicians, so how can anybody consider Iraq a sovereign country?
Iraq Shia leader escapes car bomb
Injured were ferried to several hospitals in Baghdad
At least 13 people have been killed in a car bomb targeting one of Iraq's top Shia political leaders.
Thirty-nine people were wounded in the attack outside offices of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) in Baghdad.
Sciri leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim was not injured in the blast and has urged supporters not to take revenge.
Violence has been escalating ahead of elections set for 30 January, in which Sciri is likely to play a major role.
Last week a double suicide attack in the Shia cities of Najaf and Karbala killed about 70 people.
Leaders of the majority Shia population said the bombings were an attempt to provoke sectarian conflict in Iraq.
In a separate development, the leader of Iraq's largest Sunni Muslim party said it was withdrawing from elections, having demanded a six-month postponement to ensure broader participation in the vote.
Merry Crhristmas, Ike.
