The Iraq war viewed by an average joe.

Politics can really sucketh large sometimes.

How many U.N. resolutions were ignored? 17? Why? No tooth to that U.N. tiger. No one in their right mind wanted to open that Pandora's Box.

What do we get? The largest US Embassy in the world? (I've heard it called a Fortressed Palace) Maybe we can give it up to the U.N. once we leave, eh?

What do we get? A new training ground for tomorrows military leaders?

Why do people fight wars? Ideologies, resources, trade, you tried to kill my Dad or thumbed your nose at the U.N. once too often? I guess any of those work if you know how to push the right buttons at the right time.

The US has been fooling around in the mid east since Jefferson's days for one reason or another... usually to quell usurpation on someone's part... protecting US interests in trade, fighting & defeating tyranny... typically. Now it's nation building post usurping a petty tyrant who wasn't playing by the rules laid down after the last incursion.

I consider all of the above to be obvious but minor realities. What did "Deep Throat" tell Woodward and Bernstein? Follow the Money?

What do the big boys get? Conflict breeds Cash Flow. What does the average Joe get? I believe the crude call it "the shaft". I prefer to steal a line from W.E.B. Griffin: You play ball with us or you get the bat violently inserted into the orifice of our choice. (apologies to Mr. Butterworth) Sometimes it works... other times...
 
Driving commercial planes full of civilians into buildings full of civilians to make a point? Cutting people's heads off with dull butcher knives and then airing it on the internet to make their point? Me and the people I know could never justify that. But I guess since myself and the people I know are guilty of being heathens in THEIR eyes we should just willfully lay our heads across the chopping block?
If condemning those acts makes me a heathen in their eyes, than so be it. I don't know which side your on, but if you agree with the enemy that Americans are heathens, then your on their side as far as myself and the people I know are concerned.
Click to expand...

Humorous . . .

At any rate, I would probably be waisting my time to try to explain to you that certain Timothy McDoofus bombed a building with lots of kids in it? How disturbed 'American' children try to blow up their entire schools, how we actually have individuals who rape kill and eat kids, how Americans enjoy watching cannibalism (seen Hannibal?) How Americans enjoy gratuitous violence (see Saw lately?)

Needless to say, they think we are heathens too. No, Timothy does not speak for America. No more so than Osama spoke for those little kids in Iraq who probably just want to grow up and have a decent life without being shot at.

Sorry there amp, I have to call a major BS too.

I believe it is ignorant and moronic to equate someone with the terrorists for pointing out that our side is not perfect either. For trying to see humans as humans, for trying to remember the existence of the human element. Shame on you.

I support bringing my brothers in arms home alive. I support taking care of that American to my left and to my right. I do not support the racist bigotry that seems to be so prevalent in your thinking.
 
Garand Illusion said:
The idea with Iraq was to plant a seed in the Middle East -- a stable, democratic government with secular leanings to set the stage for internal changes in other countries. Fight and change one country so we don't have to fight the rest (plus Iraq has huge reserves of oil, the actual quantity of which is not known but may rival Saudi Arabia).

And, I'm sure, to give us a base larger than Kuwait if we have to hammer one of the other countries in the area again. Iraq touches most of them.

We were already fighting Iraq on almost a daily basis as they shot at our planes, probably schemed to kill a former president, and incited even Billy Clinton to bomb the heck out of them from time to time. So Iraq was also the one country in the region we had sufficient reason to invade.

Given the last 5 years, I wish we'd just maintained the status quo and continued to protect no-fly zones and bomb them on occasion, but we're in it now.

And if we manage to win the real goal (a stable, fairly secular, democratic government in Iraq) it may be one of the most brilliant moves we've ever made. STable oil prices and a real victory against islamic terrorism may be the result (or not).

Only time and history will tell. Though at this point the betting is no better than 50/50 for a total win (which, given that it used to be about 10/90, is not that bad).
Click to expand...

Bravo, as concise and accurate an appraisal as any I have ever seen. Nicely done.
 
Its good to see a growing understanding by people in this country that this war is a utter failure.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as a failure and neither do the majority of people I talk with about it. Perhaps we are a little more aware of what war is like, what it costs and the fact that it will last as long as it lasts. Like the US citizens who fought in WWII, we hope and pray for a swift conclusion but we are in it for the duration regardless.

President Bush told us and the world after 9/11 that we were going after the terrorists and those who finance, aid, shelter or protect terrorists. He also warned us that this would be a prolonged and costly war and so it is. My only hope is that whoever is elected as President in November will continue to keep that commitment.
 
At any rate, I would probably be waisting my time to try to explain to you that certain Timothy McDoofus bombed a building with lots of kids in it? How disturbed 'American' children try to blow up their entire schools, how we actually have individuals who rape kill and eat kids, how Americans enjoy watching cannibalism (seen Hannibal?) How Americans enjoy gratuitous violence (see Saw lately?)

Needless to say, they think we are heathens too. No, Timothy does not speak for America. No more so than Osama spoke for those little kids in Iraq who probably just want to grow up and have a decent life without being shot at.
Click to expand...

Your analogy fails on several points. What was McVeigh's popularity for his actions? None, hatred of him everywhere. Osama, broad popularity among Muslim populations. Palestinians dancing in the street. That's the difference. McVeigh, no refuge; Osama, lots of safe harbors among like-minded populations.
 
Originally posted by HKuser:

Osama, broad popularity among Muslim populations. Palestinians dancing in the street. That's the difference. McVeigh, no refuge;
Click to expand...

Have you actually been on patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan? I'm talking foot patrols day in day out for 8-9 months?
 
I am curious, what difference do you think that makes?
Click to expand...

With out having actually had ones boots on the ground, the conclusion that Osama draws the grassroots majority in Iraq or Afghanistan would be all to easy to make if one had not been there and used our biased media as ones major source of information.

The Iraqis and the Afghanis are people too just like me and you. I have held a dying Iraqi girl in my arms and cried for her. I'm a big 6'5" inch 220lb horse, and I don't cry. Her family was sitting in their house minding their own business like 90 percent of the families over there want to do. Not sure where people get off on thinking her family must have been a full on Osama supporter.

What about this? hmm, 4000 American boys dead, 100,000 Iraqi's killed and injured, habeus corpus down the drain, torture is legal, gun grabbers around the corner . . .

This all started with me being annoyed by the heathen comment made by amprecon. Well, we have problems that need fixing too, and I don't think it is fair to throw out comments of pure hate and bigotry when we are by no means perfect ourselves.
 
With out having actually had ones boots on the ground, the conclusion that Osama draws the grassroots majority in Iraq or Afghanistan would be all to easy to make if one had not been there and used our biased media as ones major source of information.
Click to expand...

Bush, Cheney, and even General Petraeus have not spent 8 to 9 months on foot patrols in Iraq, and they are our leaders.
 
Before I dive into a possible stirring of the hornets' nest, I want to make clear the following:
1. I appreciate the ones that served during this conflict.
2. Most of my questions are of earnest, not to be combative.
3. I mean no disrespect, just have sometimes very direct rebuttals.

With that....

Quoted by copenhagen:
They think we're heathens too . . .
Click to expand...

I think the point is the culture of islamofascists is vastly different than ours...

Minus all of the propaganda, have you all asked yourselves what we are really getting from the war in Iraq? Stability? Don't see it. Cheap oil? Don't see it.
Click to expand...

What are we getting on a positive note? I don't see much immediately.
What Iraq is getting appears to be absolutely free security from our very own troops. I can't even claim that they're mercenaries as some claim because at least mercenaries are well paid...

We pulled out of Vietnam. Was it the right decision? I don't know, but I am darn glad we are not still there. Bad ideas have a way of burning themselves out. Communism did. I hope this war does as well.
Click to expand...

My thoughts in detail would entail a response too long to read without pain. In short, I truly think it was the wrong decision. But, I don't think we had much of a choice because we went in the wrong method, executed wrong, and handled the public wrong.

Maybe bad ideas do have a way of buning themselves out. But, not without heavy prices. Communism didn't burn out, IMO. Look at China and North Korea. The general public and our govt. appears to think China is an ally. I see it different. North Korea's quite the hostile country. I see them as a viable threat to our country. Just because they haven't physically done anything military wise now doesn't mean they won't. Japan comes to mind...

Quoted by Unregistered:
It is not in our interest to promote democracy in a nation where most of the voters would not be pro-US. They will vote for radicals that hate us. This is the situation in Iran.
Ultimately what we will need in Iran is a pro-US, strong national leader who will rule the various groups with an iron fist, and quickly resort to extreme violence for those who attempt to question his authority. Either that or let the country divide up into seperate sectarian nations.
Click to expand...

I don't want our country to be allies with a dictatorship that you appear to describe whether he's "pro-US" or not. That very method of leadership you state is NOTHING of the philosophy of America.

I could give a crap if Iraq is in shambles. Last time I checked we have our own shambles to take care of. I am sick and tired of this globalist propaganda that tells us somehow that we now have or ever had a responsibility to police the earth or even take part in foreign affairs.
We need to take care of our own at home. Council on Foreign Relations, UN, NATO, etc. etc. are anti-American sovereignty organizations pushing agendas that will ultimately destroy our Constitution and all our rights as Human Beings.
Click to expand...

I care that Iraq is in a mess. Since we're in the middle of it, there needs to be an honest attempt to clean it up. What that definition is an entirely different story altogether.
I do agree that we do need to take care of ourselves and quit being the worlds' police. When we first went to war with Iraq, I was on the bandwagon. Now, after the light has been shed a bit, I've learned that I was quit naive on many issues. On the other hand, I don't want our country to be an isolationist either. Very complicated to balance between the two...

Quoted by amprecon:
You wanna fight terrorist in Iraq or would you rather have them blowing sh*t up right here in our backyard? Regardless of whatever reason contrived to go in, I'd rather them be blowing sh*t up over there and drawing those heathens out into the open there and taking care of business than all that drama happening here.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that we can prevent every single terrorist act from here to eternity. BUT, my thought is this. What if Law abiding Americans were able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights with no exclusions? If you can recall, there were NO ARMED CITIZENS ON BOARD THOSE PLANES.

Surprisingly enough the Iraqi Army isn't ready yet, hence our continued presence traing them. So it did not go as Maliki hoped and here we come with British air support, to jump in.
Click to expand...

I've been patient enough until recently on training the Iraqis. Now, my patience is wearing thin. Bush said to the tune of the low 100,000 range the number of Iraqis will be trained and ready to defend for themselves by December 2006 (I think). Now, it's about April 2008. Our very own was trained and ready in months and went into WWII. This excuse that the Adm is using is done for me...

Bush, Cheney, and even General Petraeus have not spent 8 to 9 months on foot patrols in Iraq, and they are our leaders.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. But, they get their information from others that are...
 
With out having actually had ones boots on the ground, the conclusion that Osama draws the grassroots majority in Iraq or Afghanistan would be all to easy to make if one had not been there and used our biased media as ones major source of information.
Click to expand...

And, of course, I didn't say this. I don't think bin Laden has ever had a majority of Muslims but he does have a very broad, persistent, minority base of support. McVeigh had absolutely zero support, except, perhaps, a few of his wacko buddies. Osama had millions worldwide, not an insignificant, some who still harbor him. You made the quite inapplicable argument that McVeigh and bin Laden make the U.S. and Islamists equivalent. I pointed out that there IS a difference. You respond with a straw man argument tinged with children's blood. Pointing to a unpleasant fact is not bigoted but you claiming that McVeigh makes Americans the same as terrorist supporters is so. It's beneath you.
 
defection to the other side

So how many of the new Iraqi army have to defect to the other side as they did this past week to fight for the Mahdi Army before we accept the fact these people are not happy with the US plan?

Some want to point to both Germany and Japan after WWII and use their current levels of democracy as examples of how things changed after the war and the US remained as peacekeepers. Except that we never heard of a major faction of either Germany or Japan that was fighting against its own people. There in lies a very significant difference: the Iraqi people are killing their own while both the Germans and Japanese never did. Neither Germans nor Japanese joined in force with the US to kill others in thier own country to bring the American plan to their country.


This past two weeks things in Iraq have not been peacefull if you can not walk/drive or otherwise safely be in Bagdad and other major cities. There is only signs of peace in Iraq while American forces enforce it.
 
I haven't heard any numbers on turncoats. If there were significant numbers you can bet we would here them. It seems a fresh oportunity to focus on, then work to amplify, a small event in an attempt to define the entire event in that light. We've seen the left do it enough times that the smell of it preludes it's arrival. Got any numbers or is it, like in Germany and Japan, the last throws of an internal resistance to change. Both germany and Japan had such groups. Difference today is that then they were shot, not sympothized.

It has been aprox. ONE week, not 2 BTW. And Basra is were the problem is, not Bagdad, or 'other major cities'. One day of strife in Bahgdad does not a lose of control make. You see the odor of I was refferring to before? Difine by misrepresentation in lieu of factual accounting. Get the fix in before the general public learns the facts. You would think there was another Petraeus report due soon or something. OH wait......April 9th is it?

Hurry, get the mud!!!!!!!
 
Care to Google

I haven't heard any numbers on turncoats.
Click to expand...
40+ Police turncoats in Basra. Probably the Iraqi government is keeping a tight lid on the actual numbers. The attacks have happen from Basra to Baghdad. There where several attacks in the green zone last week. All this started when Sadr's militia went back to war against the Iraqi gov. Even though he has called a ceasefire it seems he has lost control of some of the militias in Basra. They are continuing to fight. THis is also a black eye for the Iraqi Government which had to accept Al-Sadrs offer of a ceasefire. The Iraqi military is having a very difficult time in fighting the militias by itself. No word on the causalities but I suspect they are quite high. It does mean the US and British troops will have to bail out the Iraqis once again.
 
I'm glad to see it's only 40+. A significant number would be a bad sign.

The situation is unfolding even now. Basra, not major cities throughout Iraq, is where the fighting is. As more information becomes available we will be better able to asses the actual situation. It's premature to make conclusions at this point. To start the sensationalism would be non-credible hyperbole. That odor has already been detected.

Thank you also for pointing out that Iraq's military still remains unready for independent operations. This has been stated repeatedly and now we see it is true. Maliki made a very bad call here. One that will likely render him impotent unless he quickly resolves this. That American and British forces had to invervene may have sealed it already however. To a culture that respects strength this has the potential of lifting Sadr's status and diminishing Maliki's.

Maliki may be running against Sadr in the next election, and may lose. THAT, not a rebellion Army, would be an action I could respect.

I did find it a bit ironic that Sadr claims his main problem is American 'occupiers'. That is his perception. And has stated that he will only lay down arms to a government committed to America leaving Iraq BUT only has the freedom to make such a stand BECAUSE the Americans and British have tolerated his presence and activities where Saddam would have killed him, his followers, their families, and potentially their entire village at the mere utterance of a dissenting opinion let alone ACTION.

Sadr's Iranian connection undermine his credibility substantially however. It is coming out that Iran is the source of his arms. Iran's fingers in armed opposition to Iraq's government is something that a zero tolerance stand needs applied to.
 
It should be obvious to everyone by now that Al Sadr is in charge down there, not us. All the hype about the effectiveness of the surge was just that; hype. We have no choice but to "tolerate" him, as he has the hearts and minds of the people.
Iraq is, and will remain, only as stable as he wants it to be.
 
YEAH !!! Iraq still needs work and fights are starting again !!! WOOOOOoooHOOOooo
Click to expand...

I guess that is your way of saying the surge failed, and that our overall mission in Iraq has failed. At least we agree on that. We will be paying for this with more blood, and money for decades. Our Government is near bankruptcy with this failed war. At least the American people are understanding this now, and in Nov will vote accordingly. Ending this war, and bringing the troops home is the only sane option left.


Surprisingly enough the Iraqi Army isn't ready yet, hence our continued presence training them. So it did not go as Maliki hoped and here we come with British air support, to jump in.
Click to expand...

All the time and money spent on training these people has proven to be waste, since the militias have beaten the Iraqi army into a stalemate. We train these people then they run off with their issued weapons, and body armor to fight us in the streets. Brilliant plan. Maybe we should stay their for another 100rd years then maybe they will be an effective fighting force.
 
Last edited:
The way the fighters are constantly shifting sides in Iraq makes it difficult to tell who is the enemy. Not just Sadr's Shiites but also the Sunnis.

There was an interesting article recently in the Wash Post about the police chief in Falluja. He was an Sunni insurgent fighting against us until he decided the Al Qaeda faction was getting out of hand and started fighting them - which instantly made into a "good" guy to our side. He rules Falluja with heavy hand, employs torture, a mini-Saddam, but is considered to be on our side... for now. Who knows if at some point he decides to go back to killing Americans.

This police chief said that there will never be democracy in Iraq, and when the Americans leave he will feel free to more "hard" on the people.

The people who are on our side in Iraq don't neccessarily have the same intentions as we do. They often have their own agenda, and ally themselves with us only as a calculated move to achieve their own ends.
 
Has anyone considered that maybe they do not want iraq stabilized? As long as its unstable it somehow justifys our prescense there. From what I've read we're building 3 or 4 huge bases there. Not the actions of someone who plans to leave anytime soon.

We help one side...(someone) helps the other side...fighting continues...presence justified...lets build them bases boys. Iran next, need a base of operations.

But what do I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top