I have a question for the war supporters..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why don't these types of stories get more play in the U.S. media? The Washington Post ran one the other day, but that's been about it around here. John
__________

From The Sunday Times [LONDON] March 18, 2007

Iraqis: life is getting better
Marie Colvin

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.



Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times.

© Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd

This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
 
More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.
Click to expand...

This is a biggie. I'm assuming they meant "soon." Not in a couple months, of course...but not in a few years either.

To back off the argumentativeness for a second, I should probably clarify: I don't think we've done no good in Iraq. I think if we finish mopping up and leave, it's very possible Iraq and Iraqis will be better off then before we showed up. But I don't think we did much good as far as fighting terrorism goes. I think 100K more troops in Afghanistan might have done more good on that front. And I don't think an indefinite presence there is good for Iraq either...I think we need to start focusing on doing what we still can and then getting out.
 
While you may not agree with Bush he at least has the guts to stand-up for his decision and not change his policy so that it mirrors public opinion. The Democrats also wanted to use military force against Iraq and did authorize it. Now that the war is unpopular they are playing political games, pretending like they never said what they did. The worst thing to me is when politicians politicize something as serious as a war. When you send troops to war you support them and give them everything they need. You don't belittle their effort and say that they have lost the war(Reid) while they are still fighting.
Click to expand...

If the conditions weren't changing, then I would agree it would be foolish to change your mind simply due to public opinion. However, your tactics and strategy need to reflect the current environment and situation, not just the initial conditions.
 
My name is Donald Rumsfeld. Of course I haven't served. . . I'm the freakin' SecDef! I send others to put their butts on the line. But why do you hate the troops.
Click to expand...
That was a useless comment to a proper question, sir. Running low on logic?
Click to expand...

See, time and time again I forget that subtlety is completely lost on this board. I was referring back to the statement that this is an "open board" and was entertained by the question itself, which wouldn't need to be asked if it actually were open.

And no, it isn't a proper question, it was in fact a loaded question. For if I say I am in the military, then my opinion shouldn't matter and I should subsume my identity in my rank and role, and if I say I am not, then "I couldn't possibly understand", and if I say I am no longer in the military, then the response is that this is a post 9/11 world blah blah blah.

So. . . . . "Running low on logic"? Hardly.
 
This is a biggie. I'm assuming they meant "soon." Not in a couple months, of course...but not in a few years either.

To back off the argumentativeness for a second, I should probably clarify: I don't think we've done no good in Iraq. I think if we finish mopping up and leave, it's very possible Iraq and Iraqis will be better off then before we showed up. But I don't think we did much good as far as fighting terrorism goes. I think 100K more troops in Afghanistan might have done more good on that front. And I don't think an indefinite presence there is good for Iraq either...I think we need to start focusing on doing what we still can and then getting out.
Click to expand...

We've accomplished our goals, now it is time to leave. Of course, we turned a non-secular state into a secular one (based on the new Iraqi constitution) but you can't win them all.

Are we really still continuing on the "when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" mentality? I don't see them standing up... they need to be pushed into doing that, not coddled.
 
Secdef, Bush is to be commended for being steadfast in our fight against terror including the fight against terrorists gathered in Iraq. Unlike many democrats and a few republicans Bush has refused to allow political pressure to sway his decision to fight an enemy hell bent on our destruction.

He is to blame for refusing to change tactics sooner and allowing our soldiers to suffer because of this steadfastness. Then again hindsight is 20/20.
 
Secdef, Bush is to be commended for being steadfast in our fight against terror including the fight against terrorists gathered in Iraq. Unlike many democrats and a few republicans Bush has refused to allow political pressure to sway his decision to fight an enemy hell bent on our destruction.

He is to blame for refusing to change tactics sooner and allowing our soldiers to suffer because of this steadfastness. Then again hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...

We stopped funding the units searching for Obama.. you know, the guy who was hell bent on our destruction. Again, the number of terrorist attacks is rising throughout the world. I also think there is a disconnect in your statement when you say the "terrorists gathered in Iraq" as the vast majority of these terrorists are homegrown. (Unless you have evidence to the contrary? More than happy to hear it.. last i saw was that 90% of all the terrorist in Iraq were Iraqi)

Commend him for what again? A fight against whom?
 
He is to blame for refusing to change tactics sooner and allowing our soldiers to suffer because of this steadfastness. Then again hindsight is 20/20.
Click to expand...

You're correct, hindsight is 20/20. If only somebody had had the foresight to know that our plan/tactics wouldn't work out right off the bat.
 
Never been a war that everything went as planned dude. You being a former warrior should know that. The sign of a great leader is the ability to adapt to changes. Rumsfeld/Bush didn't adapt fast enough hence our current trouble in Iraq and Afganistan.
 
But we captured the guy who was the master-mind. Al Qaeda is a very complex organization and simply capturing Bin Laden will do next to nothing in regards to hindering their ability to coordinate attacks. Do you have a source that says that funding has been completely stopped? As far as I know there are still resources devoted to intelligence in Afghanistan and tracking Bin Laden. It might have been possibly decreased but I doubt it has stopped in its entirety.

We stopped funding the units searching for Obama.. you know, the guy who was hell bent on our destruction. Again, the number of terrorist attacks is rising throughout the world. I also think there is a disconnect in your statement when you say the "terrorists gathered in Iraq" as the vast majority of these terrorists are homegrown. (Unless you have evidence to the contrary? More than happy to hear it.. last i saw was that 90% of all the terrorist in Iraq were Iraqi)
Click to expand...
 
Never been a war that everything went as planned dude. You being a former warrior should know that. The sign of a great leader is the ability to adapt to changes. Rumsfeld/Bush didn't adapt fast enough hence our current trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

First, the problem is that it did go as planned. They planned it in a way that was bound to go poorly, at least one knowledgeable person told them publicly that it was going to go poorly, and then...it went poorly.

I also find it somewhat amusing that you can commend him for his steadfastness then blame him for not adapting to changes...it's just two results of the same trait. You seemed to admit as much in your previous post.

I don't think Colbert was far off the mark when he said Bush was the kind of guy who believes the same thing on Wednesday that he did on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday. You commend him when it comes to the war on terrorism because you ascribe this to some sort of refusal to bend to political pressure. Personally I'd say it's more a refusal to listen to any opposing viewpoints, change your mind regardless of any evidence presented, or adjust to changes in situation/reality.

In other words, a general refusal to change his mind or change course for anything. Sometimes this may be a good thing, but overall I'd say it's done more harm than good.
 
Who are we fighting in Iraq?

Al Qaeda is surging against us, and I think that’s happening globally. I think that al Qaeda is funneling all of the resources it can into defeating us in Iraq, and it is funneling all of its resources in Iraq to creating spectacular attacks against us, and against innocent Iraqi civilians, both Sunni and Shia. And they’re indiscriminant in their killing. This isn’t really sectarian killing. This is just terrorism, plain and simple. And they are surging to try to break our will, and I hope to Heaven that we won’t let them.
Click to expand...

According to Fred Kagan we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. I guess this is part of the war on terror after all........Al Qaeda are terrorists correct? Funneling all resources into iraq. Resources that would have been used to fund an attack on our soil perhaps. Thank you Mr. President for making the right decision the tough decision.

http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.99,filter.all/scholar.asp
 
But we captured the guy who was the master-mind. Al Qaeda is a very complex organization and simply capturing Bin Laden will do next to nothing in regards to hindering their ability to coordinate attacks. Do you have a source that says that funding has been completely stopped? As far as I know there are still resources devoted to intelligence in Afghanistan and tracking Bin Laden. It might have been possibly decreased but I doubt it has stopped in its entirety.
Click to expand...

No doubt, plus we've caught the number 2 guy like 17 times :D

However, I was referring to the CIA unit that was defunded as they have the best chance of finding him regardless of location in the world. There is almost certainly military in Afghanistan looking for him, and we do pay Pakistan $1 Billion per year to look for him. Of course, we don't ask for any progress or care how they spend the money, and it has shown to be completely ineffective (we still ain't allowed into Pakistan our own selved)

I don't think capturing the guy who masterminded 9/11 is as important as capturing the guy who leads the group. There are lots of smart people out there that can make plans, very few who have the ability to charismatically lead a movement. (I assume it is charisma, as it is logically folly.. but then, maybe it is just that thing that most CEOs tend to be tall and have good hair)
 
No ones perfect. The alternative though is the democratic phylosophy known as flip floppin.
Click to expand...

How is adjusting strategy flip flopping? Flip flopping is bowing to public pressure, not to reality. Hannity? Is that you?!!? ;)

Besides, Mitt and McCain have used us this century's quota of flippy floppying.
 
Assuming that quote is from Fred Kagan, there are some followup questions...

a) doesn't talk about how many al qaeda are in iraq. What % of the terrorist attacks are from al quaeda? No doubt that there are some there, but no way they are devoted all their resources there.. that would be silly strategy to a 2nd grader.
b) it implies that there ISN'T a civil war.. and if so, we can just leave, right?

Fred Kagan is a neoconservative. He has about as much credibility as Bill Kristol or Wolfowitz. PNAC doesn't have a tremendously good track record for truth. I'd love if you could find some honest to goodness facts about al quaeda in iraq would could discuss.
 
I'm only slightly bothered that some would question my ability to do my job. But I am simply appalled that some would try to insinuate that I am just a poser.

I have been in the Army since 22 May 1997. I can say that I have had the pleasure of being in Colorado for all of that time with the exception of my OSUT training at Fort Sill, OK and a year in Korea.

It's pretty rare to be station at on post for so long but I am glad because it's given my kids the stability that many army kids do not have. I've grown to like Colorado very much and I wouldn't mind ending my career there.

I was 26 when I enlisted. Kinda late in life but I needed to make some drastic changes in my life and the military seemed like the place to do it. I had a rough time at first. I think that joining when I was older was harder because I was a bit more set in my ways. I went for Basic Training and AIT from May though September of 97 and then was assigned to Fort Carson. I went to Bosnia early in my military career and then several years later I came down on orders for Korea. It sucked, but not as badly as I thought it would.

While I was in Korea I was promoted to sergeant. I returned to Colorado from Korea in March, 2003. This was the same month that the Iraq conflict kicked off. They tried to send me to Iraq almost immediately upon my return to the States but I went online, did my research, and come back with the Army's own policy which (at that time) guaranteed me six months at home with my family after an overseas tour to Korea. The policy has since been revoked. I was able to spend most of six months with my wife and kids before they revoked the policy and sent me to Iraq. I was there from October 2003 to March 2004. I returned to Iraq in December of 2005 and was there once again until November, 2006.

I was completely apolitical before joining the Army. But there was always something in me that wanted to rebel against the system. I knew I had the feelings but never had an outlet for them. Less so after I joined the Army.

However, in 1998 I read a book by Claire Wolfe, "101 Things to Do till the Revolution." The politics appealed to me. It was also the first time I had ever heard of the Libertarian Party. I joined almost immediately.

So, now I am sure you can image why I don't toe any party line. I am a born agitator. I am not an anarchist..but most definately a minarchist. I hate stupidity. I hate tyranny. I realize that the military isn't the best place for me when viewed from that aspect but I still do my job to the best of my ability. My personal views do not keep me from fulfilling my duties as a Soldier. Sometimes is does make it harder to to my job..but I do in nonetheless.

I stay because I think that sometimes for the sake of our families we may have to do things that we would rather not. I also stay because I believe that I may have more opportunities to make a real difference in MY country as long as I am in the military. It can be a good place to work from so long as you don't shout too loudly and in the wrong places. (in the middle of a battalion formation would be a bad place...here in these forums is a good place)

This is where I vent because I cannot freely do so at work. I still say that all you haters need to pick up a rifle and join me at this task if you think it's so important. If not..shut the hell up. (If you have already done(for this conflict or any other) so then you have my sincerest thanks for your service to our country.)
 
Secdef, Thats the problem the demoncrats didn't adjust anything. They haven't given any alternative other that surrender or quit. They supported the war when they gave Bush authority to use force. I have quotes from many touting how Iraq was a danger to the U.S. and how they had WMD's. Now they are against the war only because they felt it would get them the majority and possibly the whitehouse.

BTW 90 percent of the media are liberals do we discount everything they say?

Fred's Professional Experience

-Associate professor of military history, 2001-2005; assistant professor of military history, 1995-2001; United States Military Academy (West Point)

Education


B.A., Soviet and East European studies; Ph.D., Russian and Soviet military history, Yale University

Being conservative doesn't mean being a liar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top