Iraq, Are Things Even Worse Than We Think?
- Thread starter madmag
- Start date
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Madmag,
From my observation of your posts, I think your quiery and input is genuine.
I honestly don't have an answer. I find it repulsive that many Americans may have the right to dissent, but don't see the ramifications are harsher than keeping their mouths shut. One thing to dissent, another to outright give up on the cause before it's officially finished...
685cmj proves my point...
DesertDawg's comments are a +1 in my book...
From my observation of your posts, I think your quiery and input is genuine.
I honestly don't have an answer. I find it repulsive that many Americans may have the right to dissent, but don't see the ramifications are harsher than keeping their mouths shut. One thing to dissent, another to outright give up on the cause before it's officially finished...
685cmj proves my point...
DesertDawg's comments are a +1 in my book...
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If we want to win, why isn't the President demanding a mobilization and flooding the country with troops?
Hasn't that occured to him?
If we are stopping them from coming here - where is the WWII effort?
We lost the same amount of folks at Pearl Harbour roughly as the WTC and then we put tens of millions of folks under arms.
So explain this to me.
Why aren't GWB's defenders pushing for a real war and not this half assed effort which just loses our men and women?
Hasn't that occured to him?
If we are stopping them from coming here - where is the WWII effort?
We lost the same amount of folks at Pearl Harbour roughly as the WTC and then we put tens of millions of folks under arms.
So explain this to me.
Why aren't GWB's defenders pushing for a real war and not this half assed effort which just loses our men and women?
War on the cheap has been a wet dream of the globalists for quite some time now. Rumsfeldt stuck to his cheap guns and no one in congress of the executive branch want to go on record supporting increasing military spending on things like human beings. No profit in humans.
I am continually amazed at how well the opposition, here or abroad, read and study the NVA playbook. So far we've not seen the Tet Offensive. While a military defeat of the first order it was a spectacular political victory. I will venture a prediction that in the near future we'll see VN engame play in which there will be a sudden spike in military actions, mayhem, death, and television coverage showing just how out of control the situation is (like this thread for example) combined with magically appearing legislation in the US congress sponsored by the usual suspects which will begin the physical pullout of US troops. The legislation will appear out of nowhere and there will be attempts to fast track it through congress because the situation is so dire we just have to act.
I am continually amazed at how well the opposition, here or abroad, read and study the NVA playbook. So far we've not seen the Tet Offensive. While a military defeat of the first order it was a spectacular political victory. I will venture a prediction that in the near future we'll see VN engame play in which there will be a sudden spike in military actions, mayhem, death, and television coverage showing just how out of control the situation is (like this thread for example) combined with magically appearing legislation in the US congress sponsored by the usual suspects which will begin the physical pullout of US troops. The legislation will appear out of nowhere and there will be attempts to fast track it through congress because the situation is so dire we just have to act.
I hope not, but fear that the same type of thinking, or lack thereof, that tore this country apart in the 60's and 70's is at work again. The same sad opinions are at work, and the MSM is still as vitriolic, and full of lies, as ever. What amazes me, is that people here, who casually shrug aside the MSM as unreliable when it suits them, constantly quote them when it fits their purposes. This type of hypocrisy IS the VN endgame.
We won't be beaten by any enemy, but by the gutlessness of our media and their syncophants. People die in a war. During WWII, more people died with the sinking an aircraft carrier than have died in Iraq amongst our forces. Heck, more people die in the United States in large cities from Homicide than have died in Iraq to date, in a single year.
I don't see any know-it-alls here talking about an end-game for the loss of Americans in our big cities, do you? What I DO see is a bunch of Internet Commandos, armed to the teeth with tainted quotes from people who couldn't BUY a clue, telling everyone what experienced people, people who actually have credentials and experience, are doing wrong. It would be so easy to just listen to their suggestions, right? Oh, wait, they HAVE NO suggestions, they only want to apply hindsight and MSM reports to show what was done wrong. That's SOOOOO MUCH like the same parasites that cost us 55,000 dead in Vietnam, and who felt like they had accomplished something noble.
In Vietnam, we fought an enemy on the ground of the country attacked, never on the ground of the attacker. And there are those who wonder why we couldn't stop them. In Iraq, we aren't doing much differently, and there is nobody truly stupid enough to think that our pitiful politicians would touch actually adding troops to Iraq. I seem to remember a furor over the intent to "surge" additional manpower into Iraq. How about you?
"Another Vietnam" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, brought to you by the same self-serving politicians, and brain-dead thinkers of the modern day.
I talk with returning vets on a nearly daily basis. Many are not willing to return to Iraq or Afghanistan. They feel that their support has been reduced by the typically twisted reports of the MSM. They have a different report from the battlefields. It's like any other time that you witness an event, and later read the journalists impressions. You often wonder if they were even at the same event. I spent nearly four years in Vietnam, in an area always regarded as unpacified. I saw what the people endured under the VC and NVA, and how much they appreciated our aid. It was a nasty war, much like the Pacific in WWII. It could have been won politically, but we let lies and distortions turn ourselves against us. I've never been particularly proud of my generations selling out to the idiots who became rich and famous as a result, and I can easily see the current generation feeling the same way, not too many years in the future.
Just like Pogo said many years ago, "we have met the enemy, and he is US".:barf::barf::barf:
We won't be beaten by any enemy, but by the gutlessness of our media and their syncophants. People die in a war. During WWII, more people died with the sinking an aircraft carrier than have died in Iraq amongst our forces. Heck, more people die in the United States in large cities from Homicide than have died in Iraq to date, in a single year.
I don't see any know-it-alls here talking about an end-game for the loss of Americans in our big cities, do you? What I DO see is a bunch of Internet Commandos, armed to the teeth with tainted quotes from people who couldn't BUY a clue, telling everyone what experienced people, people who actually have credentials and experience, are doing wrong. It would be so easy to just listen to their suggestions, right? Oh, wait, they HAVE NO suggestions, they only want to apply hindsight and MSM reports to show what was done wrong. That's SOOOOO MUCH like the same parasites that cost us 55,000 dead in Vietnam, and who felt like they had accomplished something noble.
In Vietnam, we fought an enemy on the ground of the country attacked, never on the ground of the attacker. And there are those who wonder why we couldn't stop them. In Iraq, we aren't doing much differently, and there is nobody truly stupid enough to think that our pitiful politicians would touch actually adding troops to Iraq. I seem to remember a furor over the intent to "surge" additional manpower into Iraq. How about you?
"Another Vietnam" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, brought to you by the same self-serving politicians, and brain-dead thinkers of the modern day.
I talk with returning vets on a nearly daily basis. Many are not willing to return to Iraq or Afghanistan. They feel that their support has been reduced by the typically twisted reports of the MSM. They have a different report from the battlefields. It's like any other time that you witness an event, and later read the journalists impressions. You often wonder if they were even at the same event. I spent nearly four years in Vietnam, in an area always regarded as unpacified. I saw what the people endured under the VC and NVA, and how much they appreciated our aid. It was a nasty war, much like the Pacific in WWII. It could have been won politically, but we let lies and distortions turn ourselves against us. I've never been particularly proud of my generations selling out to the idiots who became rich and famous as a result, and I can easily see the current generation feeling the same way, not too many years in the future.
Just like Pogo said many years ago, "we have met the enemy, and he is US".:barf::barf::barf:
Shane Tuttle
Staff
I'm not sure if we have the number of troops to execute this type of offensive, but I have thought of the same reason as you, Glenn.
The other difference, although I might be wrong on this, is the Rules of Engagement is different now than what it was in WWII...
I think one of the key reasons why the war in Iraq has dragged on is the Rules of Engagement. There should be a drastic change. I don't believe the Geneva Convention should apply to the terrorists. It may hurt us on our stance on foreign policy in the short run, but results will come about and better protect our troops and the future of our country.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
I have to agree with you sadly, JR47...
I may have misinterpreted what you meant, Madmag, but I disagree. Congress authorized the war and pushed the button in my viewpoint...all in material, though. Would like to know if I'm understanding you...
I think he did understand: He said time and time again that this war will be a long one.
I also may be wrong, but I believe his statement was drawn out of context. He was implying that the mission was accomplished in the sense of the air strikes etc. Not the ground war.
Powell also held back Schwartzkoff from taking Hussein out in the Persian Gulf War. Imagine what it would be like without Hussein from 1991 on...
As someone recently said on one of these threads. You have to win hearts and minds of the people to win this type of war. I am for wining. I have nothing against using any force necessary that works, but you have to understand the situation. Brute force might even now allow us to take back areas of Iraq, but it will not mean we can win the war.
Not often I want to be proved wrong, but I sure would like to see us and our troops come out winners in Iraq. But one of the hazards of life is if you make really bad decisions then people might not support those decisions. I think that is happening to Bush.
Another issue that we are going to have, whether we like it or not, is that the new President will almost for sure move us out of Iraq. We have talked about not having a time table, but there really is a time table. It seems to me if we are going to have military success we need it to happen in the next 12 months or so. I am sure others have figured this out also.
Comparing things to WWII or other past comparisons doesn't mean much to me. I am a child of the 40's, but I think this war has to be handled based on it's own unique set of challenges. However, even though I have voted Republican most of my life, if I could wish back the old days I would put Harry Truman in charge the day after 9/11. A lot more guys than Saddam would have been hunting up holes to hide in!
Not often I want to be proved wrong, but I sure would like to see us and our troops come out winners in Iraq. But one of the hazards of life is if you make really bad decisions then people might not support those decisions. I think that is happening to Bush.
Another issue that we are going to have, whether we like it or not, is that the new President will almost for sure move us out of Iraq. We have talked about not having a time table, but there really is a time table. It seems to me if we are going to have military success we need it to happen in the next 12 months or so. I am sure others have figured this out also.
Comparing things to WWII or other past comparisons doesn't mean much to me. I am a child of the 40's, but I think this war has to be handled based on it's own unique set of challenges. However, even though I have voted Republican most of my life, if I could wish back the old days I would put Harry Truman in charge the day after 9/11. A lot more guys than Saddam would have been hunting up holes to hide in!
I am saying this. Congress cannot push any buttons. Congress cannot call any person or persons to execute military actions. Not the Judicial, or even the vice President, or generals...It's the way it works. By definition Bush had to be the only one to push the button. It's one of the good/bad things about the executive branch. Not saying I would change it because sometimes you simply have to make quick decisions. And we all know how fast Congress makes decisions. Had Bush said at the last minute this is a bad idea, then nothing would have or could have moved...period.
This power is I think quite awesome. I was in an Army unit that had nuclear weapons. We went to full alert during the Berlin Wall Crisis. They got us in a room and read a direct order from the President authorizing us to deploy our nukes to the field. This included pre-arming preparation. Not the highest general in our command could issue that order....only one person.
You might be correct. I guess I am not giving him much credit. But from other things he said I thought he really believed the whole war was won.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Point taken...
Have to believe that we need to brace ourselves no matter what the future will hold...
Have to believe that we need to brace ourselves no matter what the future will hold...
I admitted it needs to change long ago. Not a retreat, surrender, or pullout but a change to make our guys effective.
Glenn, I've been begging for the prez to get down and dirty and put a fatal end to the insurgents movement. I have emailed and written my president multiple times on this issue and his retarded border policy. Sadly I feel that the liberals have rendered him lame. If he gets dirty they will protest the carnage. If he stays the course the protest the losses. He just can't win. Still I expected him to do what it takes to win. If that means killing civilians to get to the enemy hiding amongst them so be it. Whatever it takes to win and keep our guys safe.
Iraq was a failed effort before the first boots hit the ground, mainly because our elected leadership never internalized the lessons of Vietnam. Rumsfeld is interchangeable with McNamara, Dubya with LBJ, the Congress then & now. The VC, the terrorists. Same goals, same tactics.
Back then our stated goal was to stop the spread of communism, today it's radical Islamic terrorism.
They had to learn the hard way that fighting a war against a concept is much different than fighting against an enemy. It was our troops who had to pay the price for their blunder, not them.
Even to this day, there are people who will foolishly proclaim that the 'brute force' approach is effective against a covert enemy, hidden amongst a populace that doesn't want us there. They will tell you that concepts like freedom and democracy can be instilled 5.56 millimeters at a time. They won't acknowledge that the people over there ultimately determine whether the society will succeed, and it's impossible to win hearts and minds while simultaneously razing villages.
Thirty years since the fall of Saigon, and they haven't learned a darn thing.
The big difference between the two "wars" is that losing Vietnam had no long-term strategic repercussions for American national security.
Back then our stated goal was to stop the spread of communism, today it's radical Islamic terrorism.
They had to learn the hard way that fighting a war against a concept is much different than fighting against an enemy. It was our troops who had to pay the price for their blunder, not them.
Even to this day, there are people who will foolishly proclaim that the 'brute force' approach is effective against a covert enemy, hidden amongst a populace that doesn't want us there. They will tell you that concepts like freedom and democracy can be instilled 5.56 millimeters at a time. They won't acknowledge that the people over there ultimately determine whether the society will succeed, and it's impossible to win hearts and minds while simultaneously razing villages.
Thirty years since the fall of Saigon, and they haven't learned a darn thing.
The big difference between the two "wars" is that losing Vietnam had no long-term strategic repercussions for American national security.
Yeah. That about sums it up.
"mission accomplished"
I get very agitated every time Bush gets nailed on this. What happened was the Air Wing Commander (CAG) went to the ships Captain and asked what the Air Wing could do to welcome the CINC. The "mission accomplished" banner was one of the results. Dubya DID NOT order the banner put up. When he got aboard he simply acknowledged the banner and was referring to the ship and it's air wing as having done the job they were assigned successfully.
He also said something to the effect that "major" combat operations (i.e. division sized) were over. They were. We no longer had entire divisions maneuvering across the country.
"Nattering Nabobs of negativism..." can always find something to chatter about.
I get very agitated every time Bush gets nailed on this. What happened was the Air Wing Commander (CAG) went to the ships Captain and asked what the Air Wing could do to welcome the CINC. The "mission accomplished" banner was one of the results. Dubya DID NOT order the banner put up. When he got aboard he simply acknowledged the banner and was referring to the ship and it's air wing as having done the job they were assigned successfully.
He also said something to the effect that "major" combat operations (i.e. division sized) were over. They were. We no longer had entire divisions maneuvering across the country.
"Nattering Nabobs of negativism..." can always find something to chatter about.
ibfestus,
If you believe that, I've got some WMDs I'd like to sell ya.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html
If you believe that, I've got some WMDs I'd like to sell ya.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html
Joliet Jake
Moderator
Airstrike on al Qaeda kills 7 childrenthreegun said:
"Blowback" is a CIA term first used in March 1954"
Your want, the blood of children, is Bush's command. Read how they identified the target.
Ever wonder why EVERYONE is al qaeda now? The same sunni's the US is providing military arms too now. According to the Bush administration propaganda it went from a small group of real terrorists to almost everybody now. "We're fighting them over there so they don't come here." Does anyone really believe that after seeing all the illegals WALK right in? You TOLD me too and I guess I'll have to believe it after there's another terrorist attack because the back door is still wide open. We fight them over there but we're not even looking for or remotely trying to stop them from coming here? Who's bs'n who? Would VC sabateurs be labeled al qaeda in nam because their tactics are guerilla style?
To those that are pro "war", what would it take specifically to win against al qaeda and separately against the insurgents that fight us and only want us out of their country? Be specific. Nuke em? ww2 overwhelming force and occupation with soldiers on every street corner? Covert cia and bounties paid to civilian contractors? Train em? You say it's winnable. Don't just attack me, stand up for what you believe. Tell us how?
But I keep saying to myself, "they don't want us there". Not even the sects that wanted Saddam ousted wants us there. We are the infidels. I know I said myself not to make comparisons, but in WWII we did not care if the people in the cities or countries were on our side. We were taking areas for their military importance. We needed launch sites for the next operation. Once we won the overall battle we could walk away from any city that didn't like us and still have victory. We had to cripple their large armies to win. There are no large (formal) armies in Iraq left to defeat. These people have been fighting this religious war for thousands of years, and now we are in the middle. Even if we use a lot of force and clear an area house to house, it's like water against a dam. Soon as we take a step back the flow will start again. If we don't win hearts & minds we can't win the war.
Yes, I am coming up with problems and no solutions...and I don't like that either. I agree you have to plan to win, not to lose. So, how to win? If we can't win then I don't want to see more of our troops die for what may be a lost cause. I don't think Bush can say the plan to win is to just hang tough for a while. We probably don't have a while due to the next election.
I have a suspicion that the actual default plan is going to be us leaving and claiming some sort of victory, and Al-Qaida saying they drove us out.
Yes, I am coming up with problems and no solutions...and I don't like that either. I agree you have to plan to win, not to lose. So, how to win? If we can't win then I don't want to see more of our troops die for what may be a lost cause. I don't think Bush can say the plan to win is to just hang tough for a while. We probably don't have a while due to the next election.
I have a suspicion that the actual default plan is going to be us leaving and claiming some sort of victory, and Al-Qaida saying they drove us out.
JJ, I would rather the enemy give up and lay down its arms. Since this isn't fantasy land (to all of us) we know this isn't happening. So we have to kill the enemy.
Seems like our guys did everything possible to avoid innocent loss of life. The enemy OTOH seems to hide behind or use the children as sheilds and or political ammunition when they are killed. What your point?
Note the several militants killed and 2 captured part.
Seems like our guys did everything possible to avoid innocent loss of life. The enemy OTOH seems to hide behind or use the children as sheilds and or political ammunition when they are killed. What your point?
Note the several militants killed and 2 captured part.
If America is to survive in the modern world we must rethink our position,
do we try to solve all problems of other countries, build nations, becoming
the police force for the world is high risk in my opinion, I believe we would
be much better to take a strong defense position and if attack retaliate
with such force that the idea of hitting us again would be unthinkable.
This war can not be won in the manner we approach it, not unless your
willing to kill everyone over the age of 10 in Iraq. Harsh, sure is but war
is terrible and in truth there never are clear winners.
Simply my idea is hit hard and remove yourself from the battlefield. If we had
did that in the beginning we could have save over 3000 lives and thousands
of wounded.
do we try to solve all problems of other countries, build nations, becoming
the police force for the world is high risk in my opinion, I believe we would
be much better to take a strong defense position and if attack retaliate
with such force that the idea of hitting us again would be unthinkable.
This war can not be won in the manner we approach it, not unless your
willing to kill everyone over the age of 10 in Iraq. Harsh, sure is but war
is terrible and in truth there never are clear winners.
Simply my idea is hit hard and remove yourself from the battlefield. If we had
did that in the beginning we could have save over 3000 lives and thousands
of wounded.