The Stab a Soldier in the Back Act 2007

Peace at any cost is not peace. It's surrender.

Isn't that what Bush is suggesting. Peace at any cost
Billions of dollars - no problem
Thousands of lives - no problem

We have a surplus of both..keep sending them.
 
Gonz said:
Which is part of the bigger picture. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out is one way to win a war. Probably the only way to decisevly win one. However, after witnessing the destruction of the 40's, folks are trying to have kinder, gentler wars.

It ain't working.

Civilization & warfare do not mix well.
Click to expand...


You considering becoming a muslim then Gonz? :D

In more seriousness, civilization, or rather both the ancient and modern worlds as we know them, have largely been formed by warfare to a large extent.

Depends what you mean by 'working' - if as you noted earlier it is the relatively few US and UK lives lost, then it has it's points.

At least your guys had boots and body armour - our lads were scandously ill-equipped - and according to reports were trying to ' beg and borrow' stuff all the time.

what constitutes winning here though?

I genuinely am not sure - the toppling of saddam was achieved - he was hung.

This led to a power vacuum and essentially internal and viscious sectarian / religious civil war - our boys are pretty much just caught in the middle -

what does constitute victory?

how much is it still a war, and how much a messy policemans' role?
 
viscious sectarian / religious
Click to expand...

There has always been a religious battle going on Saddam being a Sunni oppressed the Shiite majority and gassed the Kurds,so except for getting rid of Saddam and thereby strengthening the Shiites( who align themselves with Iran ) and allowing them to take revenge what else has been accomplished.
 
2minkey said:
you guys is so funny when you try to sound all 'grand strategy' as post hoc rationalization.
Click to expand...

This war ultimately has been for strategic location in the Middle East. We're after Iran, and we've BEEN after Iran from day one. To do that, we needed to be in Iraq. We needed staging areas and logistical support centers that are OURS and that can't be denied to us when we need them. Turkey, for instance, said no when we wanted to use their ports and airspace at the start of the war.

Could we have gone to Iraq saying we needed to drain the swamp of terrorists and establish a foothold in the ME to be ready for future conflicts? Most of the American public doesn't have the stomach for such harsh realities, but can't comprehend that we don't live in a world of nice people, even when reality comes to slap them in the face.

You don't turn "ancient cultures" into civilized people with respect for others in a short period of time. You can't change people's attitudes in a few weeks, a few months, or a few years. Given time, however, and the support of the people of this nation, the situation will come around.

Unless we want to lose every freedom we've gained and the rights that so many on here say that they cherish so much, we don't have much choice. We must fight and fight to win.
 
A.B.Normal said:
There has always been a religious battle going on Saddam being a Sunni oppressed the Shiite majority and gassed the Kurds,so except for getting rid of Saddam and thereby strengthening the Shiites( who align themselves with Iran ) and allowing them to take revenge what else has been accomplished.
Click to expand...

I don't know. But I can tell you one thing it should have accomplished, yet didn't.

Joe and Mary Citizen still do not believe in their hearts that it can happen here.
 
Cerise said:
Most of the American public doesn't have the stomach for such harsh realities, but can't comprehend that we don't live in a world of nice people, even when reality comes to slap them in the face.
Click to expand...

well it's a good thing we've got big, brave guys like you that understand shit like that, then.

for the rest of us, we'll just accept that we're too dumb or too much of pussies to understand or handle the truth, and lap up the comic book stories that we're fed.
 
A.B.Normal said:
There has always been a religious battle going on Saddam being a Sunni oppressed the Shiite majority and gassed the Kurds,so except for getting rid of Saddam and thereby strengthening the Shiites( who align themselves with Iran ) and allowing them to take revenge what else has been accomplished.
Click to expand...

Iraq%20voting.jpg
 
vote along rigid ethnic and religious lines are robbing last week's Iraqi election of its acclaimed certainty as a building block in Washington's democracy plans for the Middle East.
Click to expand...

And of course that is so different than our elections. Right, Rev. Jacksahhhnnnnnnn?
 
chcr said:
That was when they had funding and full government "support."
Click to expand...

Nope. That was going to war with what you had, and not what you wanted. Happens in every conflict. The armor was in the works when the shooting started, but manufacturing and shipping take a lot of time. I blame the press for that one.
 
Cerise said:
This war ultimately has been for strategic location in the Middle East. We're after Iran, and we've BEEN after Iran from day one. To do that, we needed to be in Iraq. We needed staging areas and logistical support centers that are OURS and that can't be denied to us when we need them. Turkey, for instance, said no when we wanted to use their ports and airspace at the start of the war.

Could we have gone to Iraq saying we needed to drain the swamp of terrorists and establish a foothold in the ME to be ready for future conflicts? Most of the American public doesn't have the stomach for such harsh realities, but can't comprehend that we don't live in a world of nice people, even when reality comes to slap them in the face.

You don't turn "ancient cultures" into civilized people with respect for others in a short period of time. You can't change people's attitudes in a few weeks, a few months, or a few years. Given time, however, and the support of the people of this nation, the situation will come around.

Unless we want to lose every freedom we've gained and the rights that so many on here say that they cherish so much, we don't have much choice. We must fight and fight to win.
Click to expand...


Wow, It sounds like you actually want your leaders to lie and deceive the public in order to further their agenda We can all recognize the lies the administration has used (well most of can) but your blatant support of the corruption is a rare type of honesty.
 
MrBishop said:
Peace at any cost is not peace. It's surrender.

Isn't that what Bush is suggesting. Peace at any cost
Billions of dollars - no problem
Thousands of lives - no problem

We have a surplus of both..keep sending them.
Click to expand...

I thought it was all about finishing what we started. First thing they should do is make the press leave, or grant 100% access.....with waivers from being rescued.
 
spike said:
Wow, It sounds like you actually want your leaders to lie and deceive the public in order to further their agenda/e can all recognize the lies the administration has used (well most of can) but your blatant support of the corruption is a rare type of honesty.
Click to expand...


Then it's probably better to let the Iranians strike first. What's the worst that could happen? The oceans will protect us.
 
Gato_Solo said:
I thought it was all about finishing what we started. First thing they should do is make the press leave, or grant 100% access.....with waivers from being rescued.
Click to expand...

Would've been better to know what you started before starting, providing the right equipment/people for the job, going in, doing the job and getting the hell out.

Looks more like going in blindly, not knowing the goal, going cheap on equipment and people because of underestimation, going in..still in, still in, still in, change the goal, add to the goal, lengthen the goal..and now, add more troops to speed up the race towards the goal....all the while looking for other targets.

What's the goal again?
Depose Saddam - check
Free elections - check
??
 
MrBishop said:
Would've been better to know what you started before starting, providing the right equipment/people for the job, going in, doing the job and getting the hell out.

Looks more like going in blindly, not knowing the goal, going cheap on equipment and people because of underestimation, going in..still in, still in, still in, change the goal, add to the goal, lengthen the goal..and now, add more troops to speed up the race towards the goal....all the while looking for other targets.

What's the goal again?
Depose Saddam - check
Free elections - check
??
Click to expand...

The last one is called 'stabilizing Iraq', which means a reliable infrastructure and no 'insurgency' to deal with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top