Thomas wrote:The US missed its most important war goal, to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, because there were no weapons of mass destruction to dismantle.
We know now that Saddam's WMD's were exaggerated... by Saddam. The whereabouts of the WMD's is still unknown.
Quote:The US missed its next most important war goal, which was to weaken terrorism. As a result of America's invasion, Al Quaeda now has a strong base in Iraq, which it hadn't before it.
Strong base? I don't think they have a strong base so much as a presence. Al Qaeda is egging the civil war on, pitting on sect against the other and sowing seeds of discontent. How very Muslim of them.
Quote:The US withdrew forces from Afghanistan to fight the war in Iraq, thwarting its attempts to defeat the Taliban and Al Quaeda there.
NATO has been in command of Afghanistan for some time now. America had to withdraw some forces, true, but did other NATO forces step up and ensure their own safety from future terrorist attacks? Sure doesn't look that way.
Quote:Iraq is sliding into a three-way civil war as a direct result of the invasion
Iraq is in a sectarian conflict because the warlords and mullahs are trying to fill the power vacuum left behind from a violent dictatorship. None of them are willing to live with their fellow Iraqi's and allow their country to be unified because they live in the 15th century still. Unable to get past tribal alliances and Islamic brainwashing.
Quote:Nobody knows the outcome of this civil war, but under most realistic scenarios it will likely be worse than Iraq under Saddam -- and that's saying something.
How can it be worse then under Saddam? Because people are dying by their own decisions instead of Saddam's? They have the freedom to choose their path now and they seem to be choosing violence and death instead of peace and life. They are free now to make these choices instead of living in fear of Saddam dictating every aspect of their lives.
At the beginning of WW2 the US had an ill equipped and untrained armed forces. At one point our troops,draftees were training with wooden guns. However in a very short time we were able to overcome those obstacles and become what was than called the arsenal of democracy. Here we are in the fifth year f this war and we still are unable to provide our troops with the best equipment available. Another example of Bush's support of our troops.
We are at a crisis point'
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
March 21, 2007
With each passing day, the readiness crisis of America's armed forces worsens as the emerging threats seem to multiply. On this crucial issue, there is bipartisan agreement in the Congress.
At last week's hearing of the readiness panel of the House Armed Services Committee, subcommittee chairman Solomon Ortiz, a moderate Texas Democrat, laid it on the line. "I have seen the classified Army-readiness reports, and based on those reports," Mr. Ortiz declared, "I believe that we as a nation are at risk of major failure" if the Army is "called to deploy to an emerging threat." Liberal Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie, who also serves on Armed Services, told The Washington Post, "We are at a crisis point across the board."
In a secret analysis sent to Congress last month, according to a recent report by the New York Times, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that the military now faces a "significant" (upgraded from "moderate") risk of failing in carrying out its tasks in Iraq, Afghanistan and emerging threats elsewhere. "As you look around the globe, it's hard to see where, in the near term, our commitments will diminish," Gen. Pace told the full House Armed Services Committee in early February. "You can start anyplace, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, Colombia, Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, North Korea, back around to Pakistan -- and I probably missed a few -- there's no dearth of challenges out there for our armed forces." But there clearly is a dearth of equipment for the nation's war fighters.
Unfortunately, as America's armed forces begin their fifth year in Iraq and significantly increase their presence in Afghanistan as the sixth anniversary of operations in that country approaches, our military readiness strains intensify. "It's not an issue of affordability," Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, told the military-readiness subcommittee. "This is the richest country in the world with a $13 trillion economy. It is really an issue of national priority."
At the same hearing, Marine Gen. Richard Magnus told Congress about $3.8 billion in "unfinanced requirements" involving 6,200 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, which, he said, "have proven on the roadways of Iraq to be up to 400 percent more effective than the up-armored Humvees in reducing injuries and deaths." The Marines were seeking 3,700 MRAPs by the end of fiscal 2008 and the Army had ordered 2,500. "But the truth is," Gen. Magnus told a stunned committee, "we are $3.8 billion unfunded for that." Moments earlier, Gen. Cody shocked Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor, telling him, "[The Army] put the requirement [for 2,500 MRAPs] into the '07 budget, the main sup[plemental], and it did not stick."
It did not stick? Military readiness is an imperative and, as Gen. Cody said, "an issue of national priority."
McGentrix wrote: We know now that Saddam's WMD's were exaggerated... by Saddam. The whereabouts of the WMD's is still unknown.
So what? The US still has missed this major war goal.
McGentrix wrote:Al Qaeda is egging the civil war on, pitting on sect against the other and sowing seeds of discontent.
So what? The US still has missed its major war goal of weakening terrorism.
Quote:NATO has been in command of Afghanistan for some time now. America had to withdraw some forces, true, but did other NATO forces step up and ensure their own safety from future terrorist attacks? Sure doesn't look that way.
So what? The US, as the largest NATO country, still has missed its major war goal of quashing the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan.
McGentrix wrote:Iraq is in a sectarian conflict because the warlords and mullahs are trying to fill the power vacuum left behind from a violent dictatorship.
So what? Iraq is still sliding into a three-way civil war, which it wouldn't do without the American invasion.
McGentrix wrote:How can it be worse then under Saddam?
Imagine that the war ends with a Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, with Iraq's Shiite regions governed by an Iranian puppet regime, with its Sunni regions governed by a Baathist regime supported by Syria's Baathists. Having imagined this, add border conflicts between the three, one of which may soon possess nuclear weapons. On balance, is this better or worse for the US than dealing just with Saddam?
Although I disagree with many of your factual assertions, I won't contest them because it's pointless in the context of Jeremiah's question. Even if every factual assertion in your last was true, the verdict on Iraq would be "the invasion of Iraq is a failure, but that's partly the fault of other nations." So what? Jeremiah didn't ask whose fault it is that the invasion of Iraq is a failure. The invasion of Iraq still is a failure.
NickFun wrote:I suppose the Iraq war COULD be viewed as a success. We have succeeded in killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. We have succeeded in destroying a nation. We have succeeded in making ourselves the enemy of the entire world. We have succeeded in spending hundreds of billions of dollars. You see? As someone mentioned, it's just you definition of "success".
An honest person could admit that we've succeeded in removing a Mass Murdering Tyrant from power, assisted a people to free elections for their first time ever, and given a society a
chance at freedom that looked utterly impossible a few short years ago... while still considering the overall effort a failure.
The odds of a successful transformation occurring anytime soon are slim indeed, but it is still too early to judge the totality of the effort, since it is still ongoing. I would agree completely that Iraq is no success; but I think it premature to call it a failure. I refuse to believe that the majority of Iraqis don't desire a peaceful life of self determination and I wholeheartedly believe the efforts of the United States have given them the opportunity... which is a possibility that simply didn't exist under with Saddam Hussein (or his equally murderous sons) in power.
Cycloptichorn wrote:O'Bill, why don't you get a clue and realize that having the most powerful force manking has ever known doesn't mean dick if you can't use that force to accomplish the objective. Which you know we aren't doing.
Many of our objectives have indeed been accomplished... while others
appear to remain impossible. Perhaps our objectives will prove unrealistic, or perhaps we collectively lack the commitment to see them through. It may well be that no force on earth can prevent the sectarian infighting... anymore than they can convince Israelis and Palestinians to live together in peace. There is certainly room for disagreement over whether the lives of the people thousands of miles away and no threat to us are even worth the effort... but neither success nor failure in the endeavor would provide a shred of evidence to support NickFun's completely idiotic notion that we've "proven the weakness of the U.S. Military". That is what I responded to Cyclops... and in that context I made my point in spades. I doubt very much that you even disagree with me; if you give the context it's proper due.
Another gripe I have with so-called liberals; is the focus on expense. For half a century we've had the capability of virtually eliminating an enemy like Iraq in the proverbial blink of an eye, at relatively little expense or risk to American Soldiers. Each degree between near outright extermination and a near perfect record of eliminating collateral damage; costs additional time, money and American casualties. Increases in efficiency are inextricably bound to increases in collateral damage and Vice Versa.
For this reason; unless the sum total of these things are used as an argument against the entire action; the individual considerations are a poor measure as the scale is ugly on both sides of the fulcrum. I for one will gladly pay my share of additional expense in reducing the collateral damage. I'll also continue to view an avoidance of the ugly equation altogether akin to abandoning people in need in favor of greed. I don't consider this anything but a reflection of my own rational self interest as I believe Kennedy was right when he said: "This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."
While some will declare that goals of eliminating tyranny, hunger and disease are unrealistic to the point of futility; I for one will continue to support efforts in those directions. Billions are spent combating Aids, thus far to little affect... while the more easily managed diabetes and malaria continue to ravage citizens of this planet in horrific numbers. If you view this as an argument against combating Aids; you're badly missing the point.
Abandoning the people of Iraq (and the ME for that matter) today would be no more palatable to me than abandoning the people stricken by Aids. I understand that many people feel our actions will result in a net increase in human suffering and I reasonably disagree. I can not understand why people think a lack of success to date equates to failure. Cancer continues to ravage the citizens of this planet despite vast sums and effort aligned against it. Aids continues to splinter into an ever increasing number of strains that are resistant to this or that. The ends of these battles are nowhere in sight, but I'll be damned before I consider them lost causes... or unworthy causes. The plight of my fellow man is very much a matter of self interest to me.
I believe that enough eat, reasonable preventative medicine, and freedom of self determination should be considered the birth-right of every citizen of this planet. I don't believe for one fleeting second that the difficulty (even if impossible) of any of these goals in any way affects the merits of same. If 6 billion people signed a petition in disagreement; that would prove to me that 6 billion people were wrong.
Bill, Bill. You say that you are for:
Quote:enough eat, reasonable preventative medicine, and freedom of self determination....
and combating aids, and the such... but I'm not sure I believe you, as you vote for people (according to you) who are decidedly
against such things both at home and abroad.
How do you square up support for the Republican party with their positions on issues such as AIDS (no support for African countries unless they don't teach condom use), preventative medicine (no universal health care) and feeding the needy (welfare cuts and low-income assistance cuts across the board).
As for the military issue, I don't disagree that we have the most powerful military on the planet. I do disagree that we have the most intelligent people running it, that reasonable goals were set, that competence is utilized in managing the attempts to reach these goals. Doesn't matter how big a rifle you have if you don't know how to shoot it; or when to shoot it; or how to clean and maintain it. We're faced with all three of these problems currently.
Cycloptichorn
O'Bill, all of the Iraquis who can leave Iraq have now left or are trying to leave. 1.5 million of the middle classes are in Jordan and Syria and elsewhere.
Life for them under "Saddam and his murderous sons" was at least bearable....it's not bearable now. It's not safe to go out. No civilised life is possible, and no improvement in the situation is discernable.
Add up the body count and the waste and the cost, and you're looking at a pretty good example of failure imo.
Why are conservatives such complete hateful cocksuckers? Why do they get such joy from death? We should export you worthless pricks to Iraq. Then some good might come out of it.
McGentrix wrote:
How can it be worse then under Saddam? Because people are dying by their own decisions instead of Saddam's? They have the freedom to choose their path now and they seem to be choosing violence and death instead of peace and life. They are free now to make these choices instead of living in fear of Saddam dictating every aspect of their lives.
The insurgency, by definition is the people fighting against their own government, a government they see as being controlled by the US
Make no mistake about it all the death and killing, since the illegal invasion by the US, lies fairly and squarely at the feet of the Bush regime, the blood is on their hands.
As for Iraq being worse now than under Saddam Hussein is not the way the Iraqi people are seeing it, at least then it was secular state, Sectarian problems didn't exist, Sunni co-existed with Shiite and the US was then friendly with the Saddam, they even supplied him with weapons to wage war against Iran. Why do you support and make excuses for the wrongs the Bush regime has perpetrated, you are certainly not helping the once respected US, the Bush regime has demonized your country in the eyes of the world; this has never happened before and it is very sad to see?
The object in the First World War was to defeat the "Central Powers"--Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, and Bulgaria. That was accomplished.
The object of the Second World War was to defeat the "Axis," of Germany, Italy and Japan. That was accomplished.
The object of the American Civil War was to preserve the Union, and to end slavery. That was accomplished.
This administration has not even been able to offer a coherent and consistent objective for Iraq. At first, it was to prevent the development of and the deployment and use of (remember that Blair claimed the Iraqis could launch womds within 45 minutes) of weapons of mass destruction. Before the invasion, UN inspectors said there was no evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, or programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. No evidence has been found subsequent to the invasion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, or active womd programs. There was a sub rosa implied objective, touted indirectly by the President of Vice . . . er, i mean the Vice President, to the effect that Iraq was in league with the September 11th terrorists. No evidence of that has been found, and the September 11th Commission appointed by the administration has declared that they had found no evidence of any such collusion.
With the womd and terrorists connection excuses deflated, the administration, and its conservative cheerleaders have switched the claim to one of freeing Iraq from a murderous dictator. Leaving aside that murderous dictators are a dime a dozen, but that only one sat atop the second largest proven reserves of light, sweet crude oil in the world--although that dictator may be gone, Iraqis are dying at a higher daily rate that was the average from 1978 until the Ba'athist regime was overthrown in 2003. It would be difficult to suggest that the Iraqis are better off today, and there is no good evidence that there is a coherent government which represents all Iraqis and has a good opportunity and the expertise and good will to assure peace and stability in Iraq.
Why do most "liberals" view Iraq as a failure?
Well, duh . . . because not only are the objectives not clear, and subject to revision whenever the administration gets embarrassed, but we have not even come close to achieving any of the objectives which were alleged as our goal.
anton wrote:McGentrix wrote:
How can it be worse then under Saddam? Because people are dying by their own decisions instead of Saddam's? They have the freedom to choose their path now and they seem to be choosing violence and death instead of peace and life. They are free now to make these choices instead of living in fear of Saddam dictating every aspect of their lives.
The insurgency, by definition is the people fighting against their own government, a government they see as being controlled by the US
Make no mistake about it all the death and killing, since the illegal invasion by the US, lies fairly and squarely at the feet of the Bush regime, the blood is on their hands.
As for Iraq being worse now than under Saddam Hussein is not the way the Iraqi people are seeing it, at least then it was secular state, Sectarian problems didn't exist, Sunni co-existed with Shiite and the US was then friendly with the Saddam, they even supplied him with weapons to wage war against Iran. Why do you support and make excuses for the wrongs the Bush regime has perpetrated, you are certainly not helping the once respected US, the Bush regime has demonized your country in the eyes of the world; this has never happened before and it is very sad to see?
Anton, you bring up a great point, one that Bill and other Bush apologists consistently ignore:
Under Saddam, Iraq was a secular state. Sooner or later Saddam had to go. But this Islaamic fundamentalist state we've replaced it with? That will
never go. It isn't grounded in one person or group of people, but an ideology.
It is fair to say that an Iraqi had a much better chance of getting an education which wasn't run by religion, having the freedom to practice the religion he chooses, and women probably had much greater rights than now. Saddam was brutal and terrible but just a man. We've replaced him with an idea which is just as brutal and terrible to the very causes we purport to support.
Cycloptichorn
By the way, it is not just "liberals" who consider the Iraqi military adventurism to have been a failure.
Cycloptichorn wrote:It's posts like this:
chiso wrote:War is different now. It's fought with political correctness.
If we (US) fought this war the way we did WWI and WWII it would have been over the same calendar year it started.
IF we're going to fight a WAR - I say fight to win it and end it, as soon as possible. Take names and questions later.
War is grave and ominous, an ultimate declaration. Whether I agree with the reasoning of the declaration or not - if we're putting our troops lives on the line - we owe it to them to fight it, win it, and end it. As soon as possible. But we don't do that any more.
Chiso, who should we attack with more force? Should we kill indiscriminately? Should we just blow up entire neighborhoods where we expect insurgents and terrorists to live? How do we tell the good guys from the bad guys?
I'd like to know exactly who you propose we kill, and what we should do in order to secure Iraq and turn them into a peace-loving democracy - remember, the
objective. Specifically. It's easy to talk about taking the gloves off, but difficult to talk about how that would actually help.,
Cycloptichorn
You're interpreting what I said and then crediting me with the words of your interpretation. Irrelevant whether or not I agree with the interpretations.
Cyclops, I'm certain that you're liberal. If you're about 20 years old that's great, if 30 or older then I'm truly sorry. Anyway, being liberal you may not have a firm grasp on what "fighting a politically correct war" means. There are a hundred things we should have done, or can do differently. I'm not going to make a list for you.
But let's take one example. How would a 1940's US military have handled terrorists in the Sunni Triangle?
1) Immediately.
2) Harshly.
3) With the sole objective of defeating them.
Maybe give them 72 hours to evacuate and then pound the entire three cities to rubble, secure the perimeter and exhaustively search all reentrants? I don't know, maybe something else. Two things I do know: It would have been a plan giving 100% consideration to defeating and disarming the terrorists in that region; it would have given 0% consideration to whining and
Quote:how moronic some people can be
Okay, so how do you tell the terrorists from the regular citizens, when you don't speak the language and they look the same, hmm? Do you just kill them all? What forces do you propose we use to ensure that the terrorists don't just wait until we leave, and go get the guns they hid outside of the cities? How will we feed, employ, house, and educate the civilians who now have no town, homes, or jobs to go back to?
Yaknow, it's really easy to have pat answers to extremely complicated questions when you don't give a damn about the actual details involved in answering those questions.
You have no actual answers. You say that
Quote:There are a hundred things we should have done, or can do differently. I'm not going to make a list for you.
You can't make a list. You have zero ability to do so, and I specifically challenge you to do so. Your last response was pathetic.
Cycloptichorn
That's rather a simple-minded point of view, and there is no good reasons to equate operational doctrine of the 1940s with that of today. When German cities were occupied, there was no "insurgency" which then attacked the Allied forces. It is true that the Allies attacked indiscriminately--a good example if "the Transportation Plan." Eisenhower secured approval to divert strategic bombing resources to attacking the transportation infrastructure of western Germany and of France. But by the time the troops were landed in Normandy, there simply weren't any targets left--the railroad and highway bridges were destroyed, rail yards were destroyed, crucial intersections all over France and Germany were destroyed.
So the RAF and the 8th Army Air Force just started dumping bombs on any crossroads in France, and especially behind German lines in Normandy. The Germans learned within a few days of the landings that they could not move in the daytime, and that they needed to avoid roads. The 6th Falschirmjaeger (paratroop) Brigade walked from Brittany to Normandy when their transport was destroyed in the first day. So, the bombing just killed French civilians. Not surprisingly, both the French people and the Free French military command resented this and protested. Then, in the 1950s and the 1960s, when the French turned their backs on an American alliance, conservatives whined about the duplicitous French, and have been whining about the French ever since.
We had ample opportunity to forecast what would happen in Iraq, based on the experience of the English in the 1920s. The idiots on Pennsylvania Avenue took no measures to secure the country after the invasion, and had no plans to govern that country after the invasion. Now conservatives whine about a lack of support for the Idiot in Chief, with his complete failure to effectively plan, or to deal with the situations which have arisen.
Comparing our experience in Iraq to the occupation of Germany or of Japan is not an effective analogy. A better analogy would be to compare our experience in the Philippines after the Spanish War in 1898. We were fighting those suckers for many, many years after we invaded, and after we pulled out, their government continued to fight them. The Huks were only "defeated" in the early 1960s, almost 70 years later, and then largely because the government of the dictator Marcos unbent far enough to institute land reform. The Moros have never really been effectively dealt with, and now we call them members of al Qaeda.
That was truly a witless attempt at an analogy, and shows a sad, but predictably childish and simplistic view of history and its lessons.
This time I'll interpret your words: "I'm a liberal, therefore I whine."
And there you go, whining about the clean up, essentially saying we should do what is politically correct first, and try to win the war second. I'm ok with building another Japan. Whatever.
Fighting a politically correct war severely and drastically impedes the possibilities for success. If you're going to do something, especially something as grave and ominous as declaring war on another country, f'ing do it right.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't with whiny liberals. I would have much preferred we pounded half the country into oblivion and dealt with the whiny liberals then, rather than still be dealing with you now.
chiso wrote:blah blah blah I'm a big tough guy you all are girly men
What a maroon. If you don't want to be bothered with discussing specifics and backing up your statements, don't even be bothered with coming to the politics forum. I will call you out each and every single time I see you post so poorly.
Cycloptichorn
first, send the reporters home.
then, put another 30,000 troops in.
War over (we win) by summer 2008.
The left wouldn't support Bush if he crapped gold nuggets and gave them to the poor, so who cares what they think?
Boy, the intellectual geniuses from the Right really are laying their complex and well-thought out plans for victory in Iraq out on the line today, whew
Cycloptichorn
Cyclops, interpreting is one thing. A blatant lie is another.
Is there something in the Terms of Service about that?
No, wait - you probably are a moderator here in liberal land.
Exactly, who gives a crap.
We have three choices: A, B and C
All three are entirely different and distinct from one another, except that all three end with liberals whining.
chiso wrote:Cyclops, interpreting is one thing. A blatant lie is another.
Is there something in the Terms of Service about that?
No, wait - you probably are a moderator here in liberal land.
Exactly, who gives a crap.
We have three choices: A, B and C
All three are entirely different and distinct from one another, except that all three end with liberals whining.
Well, that's what happens when you advocate and execute idiotic plans which rely upon force but no intelligence, which rely upon strength but no agility, which rely upon aggression but no introspection. Both those who run the war and those who support it such as yourself are equally guilty of making the same idiotic mistakes over and over again.
You are apparently incapable of forming an actual, well-written and coherent argument, so why are you wasting your time posting? I mean, I appreciate it - it provides my office mates and I a good laugh - but I don't really see how it is productive for you.
Cycloptichorn
