Why are we in Iraq?

Iraq is bad. Very VERY bad. We need to get the hell out and let them be....they are going to continue to fight after we're gone anyway, why lose more of our kids? NO MORE IRAQ!
Click to expand...

If you think they are just going to stay there to fight, IMO you're mistaken, since they are importing fighters to fight the U.S. those fighters will decide they have to go to other places to fight the U.S. hhhhmmmm.......wonder where they could find large populations of U.S. infidels;)

FACT......IRAN HAS THE NUMBER ONE LARGEST MILITARY FORCE IN THE WORLD.
Click to expand...

Quantity doesn't equate to quality and in nine years of training various middle east armies I haven't seen a quality one yet.
BUT, lets just be thankful 'ol "G-dub" doesn't plan to invade Iran! Have you folks ever taken a look at Iran's military? It is HUGE and just as advanced as we are. THAT is a terrifying thought........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iran
Click to expand...

Just as advanced, umm no. Having a lot of toys you can't maintain doesn't make you advanced. Having mediocre abilities to operate what you do own doesn't make you advanced. Actually needing suicide bomber brigades doesn't make you advanced, it makes you desperate. When you look at nuclear weapons as your only equalizer as the rest of the world has trimmed their arsenal, you're desperate. When your main goal is to eliminate one of the smallest nations in the world and all you do is "talk" because you fear that nation, you're desperate and weak.


Just my .02
And before you ask, no I couldn't support us invading Iran at the present time. Our plate is a little full, killing others that need killed at the moment.
 
Good words and opinions Don.

Although the very fact that they HAVE suicidal folks seems pretty significant in and of itself......you know what, this topic was about Iraq, not Iran so if you could PM me I would love to trade some thoughts and questions with you instead of turning this thread into my own! Iran has my curiosity rather piqued lately :)

I just think were past due to get the hell out of the worlds biggest litterbox. If mexico or canada were to try and invade tomorrow? That would be a justified war in my eyes.:eek:
 
While I will say that Rumsfeld was an idiot, and the strategy of "war on the cheap" was one of the most profound strategic blunders of the past two millenia, if not further, we cannot simply "leave".

We needed FAR more troops initially to maintain order. You can't just break stuff and expect that the masses will comply. It's been that way forever. Once conquered, boots, sandals or feet on the ground were needed to maintain order as an occupying force. We didn't have that. We got chaos. We lost antiquities that were the basis of ALL western civilization in that chaos.

But we cannot just go. If we do, Iran will annex Iraq as an Islamic Republic, only even more unstable, filled with more terrorists, nuts, and others, an even greater threat to us in the long run....with more oil fields as well.

If we do not fight the insurgents there, the terrorists, they will have a free country with oil resources, and will only grow stronger...and then attack us here.

Remember, they WANT to destroy America, and that's not going to change. Time and again, clerics, imams, and guys in caves have called for Islamic law in the United States once conquered.

That's never going to change until that sort of terrorist is utterly wiped out, much as the British wiped out the Thugee cult. So, for now, there is no alternative.

The strategy was, and still is asnine. But the need is sound.
 
Don,
If you think they are just going to stay there to fight, IMO you're mistaken, since they are importing fighters to fight the U.S. those fighters will decide they have to go to other places to fight the U.S. hhhhmmmm.......wonder where they could find large populations of U.S. infidels
Click to expand...

That argument is nonsensical (which is probably why I hear it from Dubya every 3 days).
If those "imported fighters" just want to attack us, there's certainly nothing stopping them. They're extremist but not stupid; if the main objective is to kill infidels then it's far more profitable to set up shop in a target-rich environment of unarmed infidels.
So why aren't they streaming into America and setting up roadside bombs in Duluth and Corpus Christi?

There *is* a grave consequence to losing this war (Read ManedWolf's post above) , but what you have postulated is nothing more than a fairy tale.

MW,
History is replete with examples of major nation-states pitted against terrorist insurgencies. We know what works against them and what doesn't. If we wish to destroy terrorism as a viable philosophy, we need to adopt policies that work in our favor and drop policies that work in their favor.
First on the chopping block: The concept that we can ever destroy terrorism with force.
In a very real sense that's like advocating killing the Hydra by lopping it's heads off faster.
 
That argument is nonsensical (which is probably why I hear it from Dubya every 3 days).
If those "imported fighters" just want to attack us, there's certainly nothing stopping them. So why aren't they streaming into America and setting up roadside bombs in Duluth and Corpus Christi?

There *is* a grave consequence to losing this war, but that certainly ain't it.
Click to expand...


GS,
That statement doesn't even deserve an answer, but are you implying it's easier to get into the U.S. than into Iraq at the moment. People just like water and electricity will take the path of least resistance, and right now contrary to some people's belief our boarder is more secure than the borders of Iraq.
So tell me, what is the answer. You always seem to claim to have it, but I never see it produced. I hear a lot of president bashing, and flapping of the wings, but it never seems to produce much more than squawking and a warm breeze.
 
Islamic Law?

That can't be too bad. We all can get some more wives. Also, gays are not well tolerated by Islamic law. San Francisco will cease to exist as we know it. You always need to look on the bright side of things.:D
 
But we cannot just go. If we do, Iran will annex Iraq as an Islamic Republic, only even more unstable, filled with more terrorists, nuts, and others, an even greater threat to us in the long run....with more oil fields as well.
Click to expand...
I wonder who gave Iran the ability to annex Iraq? Maybe the same group of people that got rid of their greatest enemy?


Remember, they WANT to destroy America, and that's not going to change. Time and again, clerics, imams, and guys in caves have called for Islamic law in the United States once conquered.
Click to expand...
Yeah the whole reason they want to destroy America is so they can institute sharia law.:rolleyes:

Get real. The main reason they want to destroy the USA is because we have screwed them for decades.


If the US really wants to stop islamic terrorism here, it needs to stop messing around in the Middle East. We won't win until then because they will always have a reason to attack us. In the meantime, they could do other things to prevent successful terrorist attacks. They could arm pilots and secure the border with Mexico, those would be 2 things that could prevent terrorists from being successful in attacking the US.
 
More

Under Islamic Law Hillary and Nancy will become things of the past. Our prison overcrowding will also be a past problem.

Now I wonder what their stance on gun control is?::confused:
 
GS,
That statement doesn't even deserve an answer, but are you implying it's easier to get into the U.S. than into Iraq at the moment. People just like water and electricity will take the path of least resistance, and right now contrary to some people's belief our boarder is more secure than the borders of Iraq.
So tell me, what is the answer. You always seem to claim to have it, but I never see it produced. I hear a lot of president bashing, and flapping of the wings, but it never seems to produce much more than squawking and a warm breeze.
Click to expand...
:confused: and somehow bringing troops home to secure our borders even more will make it easier for the "terrists" to get in here?? wtf?

His statement is perfectly accurate. If they wanted to get in here they could, otherwise we wouldn't have so many people bitching about how our open border with Mexico allows everyone from the hardworking Mexicans to the scary "evildoers" to come in with nukes. If they wanted to come in, they would. It's not hard. At all.

Fighting them there is not stopping them from coming here. Not one bit.
 
You know, I never stopped to count the subforums on TFL. That's good to know. Are you certain about the number or do I need to count them myself?
Click to expand...

That was a quick count, could be off. I also didn't count a few that may or may not be strictly firearms related. Either way, plenty to choose from when you're in the mood to talk about guns.

Pretty sure? That's it? Should I check back tomorrow in case you change your mind again?
Click to expand...

Well, when judging the motivations of others "pretty sure" is about as good as it gets. Unless you actually want to take at face value the reasons given by those that started this war...I know I don't. And I haven't changed my mind since 2003, so I don't know where that "again" is coming from.

It's very simple. First it was all about oil, then it wasn't all about oil.

Not a stable government to take their oil and save the Kurds and keep Saddam from attacking Iran again or Kuwait again, but "to take their oil"

Then it was "You are correct, though, that it isn't just about oil. But I'm pretty sure oil is a major factor."
Click to expand...

You realize you're intermixing quotes/arguments from two different people, right?


EDIT: Oh, and I'm on board with what Redworm said right above this. Also, our military (even in its current state) would have little trouble decimating the Iranian military. The only problem would be, once again, what the heck to do afterwards.
 
Very noble right?

But the troops ARE in harm's way trying to stop the insurgents and ensure democracy. If it was just about the oil....we could let them all kill themselves, and just take it.

Instead, we're trying something more noble.
Click to expand...


Yes, invading and telling a country what kind of government to run is a good way of promoting it. Just like when Spain came to America to "tame the savages" just like when the British came to India to bring "order for god and country" Please, if you want a democracy you certainly can't do it by shoving it down people's throats, this is especially true if you don't know how to work with people of that region. So if America is all about democracy, why aren't we telling Saudi Arabia to stop being unjust to its people? Simple, because they give us what we want and in return America lets them abuse their people. Sure, let's go to Iraq under the guise of democracy. I think Ron Paul said it best, because he's the only one with enough brass to say it in public, that if China were to occupy the United States there would be fighting everywhere because of the fact that Americans would not stand for another country to take them over. Are we so hellbent on "winning" something all the time that having nothing to compete over is worse than losing? That must be the case if we're always fighting a damn war every few years.


Epyon
 
I'm no expert in politics and can't say why we went to Iraq or whether we should or should not have gone. I think we are in Iraq NOW is because when we destroyed Saddam's government there was nothing to keep the Sunni's and Shiite's from killing eachother. Right now we're trying to keep a civil war from breaking out. At the same time they hate us because we are seen as invaders. I know if I were in their shoes I wouldn't happy...or maybe I would, I guess it depends on who I would be. Interjecting my own opinion I think the country is going to remain unstable indefinitely and whether we leave next year or 20 years from now there's still going to be a civil war.
 
right now contrary to some people's belief our boarder is more secure than the borders of Iraq.
Click to expand...

Just so I've got this straight: You seriously suggest that the reason the terrorists are attacking our armed, trained and motivated troops in Iraq as opposed to the decadent masses of unarmed infidels here....is because it's too *difficult* to cross our borders?
See...that's why it's so difficult to argue this subject with folks like yourself; you so desperately cling to your position that you'll say anything, no matter how irrational. I suppose next you'll say something about "emboldening the enemy" (as if it's possible to "embolden" someone who's prepared to *DIE* for his cause), or how we have to "fight to honor the fallen", or how I'm not "supporting the troops"...
Your entire argument is irrational; devoid of logical coherence. But if you spew enough of it long enough I'll eventually give up. And honestly, statements like the one above do give me a migraine.
But I'll continue anyway.


So tell me, what is the answer.
Click to expand...
The *answer* is to alienate the extremists from their popular support. No popularity with the locals equals no recruits to blow themselves up for Allah, no money to operate, and less likelihood of operational security.
The answer is to win the battle of hearts and minds. That has always been the answer and will always be the answer. And it's kinda hard to do when you're meddling in their affairs, sitting on their holy lands, and refusing to distinguish between the sheep and the goats.

I could go into further detail, but really...why bother? Anyone here who actually understands the nuances already knows exactly where I'm coming from and you are either unable or (much more likely) unwilling to grasp the concept.
 
and somehow bringing troops home to secure our borders even more will make it easier for the "terrists" to get in here?? wtf?

His statement is perfectly accurate. If they wanted to get in here they could, otherwise we wouldn't have so many people bitching about how our open border with Mexico allows everyone from the hardworking Mexicans to the scary "evildoers" to come in with nukes. If they wanted to come in, they would. It's not hard. At all.

Fighting them there is not stopping them from coming here. Not one bit.
Click to expand...


Is it impossible to enter, hell no. Is 50,000 new Pakistani, Syrian, Iranian "settlers" in Texas going to raise slightly more suspicion than the same in Iraq? Let's see they've been traveling unimpeded from Pakistan and Uzbekistan and Afghanistan across Iran into Iraq for in excess of 2000 years. It requires they get no airline ticket, it requires they get no passport, it requires nothing but the will to get in a truck, in a car, on a donkey or camel and ride. So yes, I'll stand by my statement that it's easier to sneak into Iraq. I pretty sure I have a little more experience in the region than many including you.



The *answer* is to alienate the extremists from their popular support. No popularity with the locals equals no recruits to blow themselves up for Allah, no money to operate, and less likelihood of operational security.
The answer is to win the battle of hearts and minds. That has always been the answer and will always be the answer. And it's kinda hard to do when you're meddling in their affairs, sitting on their holy lands, and refusing to distinguish between the sheep and the goats.

I could go into further detail, but really...why bother? Anyone here who actually understands the nuances already knows exactly where I'm coming from and you are either unable or (much more likely) unwilling to grasp the concept.
Click to expand...


That's what you don't get for some reason. This isn't a movie where you're going to win the hearts and minds of the extremists. You're not going to "win" them over. The common peasant in the region will do as they've always done throughout history; they will side with the one who is advantageous to their needs at the time. The extremists understand the heavy hand and see compromise as a weakness to further use against you. I'm all for building schools, power plants and playing nice with the local man trying to make a life, but believing terrorists will leave you alone if you leave them alone won't work. I wish it would, but I've seen it first hand just as you have GS. How many will take water from you because they are thirsty, and then tell the insurgents where you are because they are hungry, want something else from them or because they know what will happen if they don't answer the questions being asked? How many insurgents will ask the peasant nicely for information they believe he has it, how do they deal with a peasant who doesn't play nice with them? It sucks for the peasant being pinched between the two sides, and I feel for them, I'm glad it's not me or my family feeling that pinch, but yes I still believe the military should be used there and our borders should be secured by the agency already empowered with that task.
As for understanding the nuances, I was working in the region before you had ever thought of being sent to it. I work with, eat with, live with, train them and been shot at with Muslims for a living 6-10 months a year every year and have for the last 9 years. I've been able to gain a little grasp of their culture working and living one on one with them in nine years in this AOR esclusively So please, don't play the holier than though intellectual card. One tour and a bunch of reading doesn't put you in the expert category; the same as all of my experience doesn't put me in it either. It does give me a real world understanding of the culture that can't be found in a book or learned in a classroom. Call me cynical, call me jaded, but don't tell me I don't understand the nuances of FID and unconventional warfare.

This is my final post in this one. PM me if you would like to further discuss it, but I won't engage in thinly veiled attacks in the thread with you.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for building schools, power plants and playing nice with the local man trying to make a life, but believing terrorists will leave you alone if you leave them alone won't work. I wish it would, but I've seen it first hand just as you have JC.
Click to expand...

Um...it almost sounds like you think you're replying to me...but you're not. At least that's not me you quoted and it doesn't seem like much of what you're writing there is in response to me. *shrug*

I actually agreed with a bit of what you said there, though. However I do think that a vast majority of people in the region are too apathetic and/or lazy to ever bother to attack us or support those that do if we weren't there. I think those that still would are a small enough group that our presence makes little difference, and a combination of intelligence and SF-style operations could keep them at bay (as much as is possible...terrorism will never go away, after all).

EDIT: Yeah, reply not intended for me. Fixed now. I'll leave mine as-is though, so as to preserve any further commentary that could come from it.
 
I hope SF stands for Special Forces and not San Francisco (like a parade all in leather), cause that would make them very very irritated
Click to expand...

Naw, it's Air Force "Security Forces." We'd just drive around inside a nearby installation all day, looking and acting all badass in a HMMWV with no armor and weapons that may or may not actually have rounds in them.

Kidding, Air Force guys. Kinda.
 
Um...it almost sounds like you think you're replying to me...but you're not. At least that's not me you quoted and it doesn't seem like much of what you're writing there is in response to me. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Sorry JC, a slip of the fingers. It's fixed.

I actually agreed with a bit of what you said there, though. However I do think that a vast majority of people in the region are too apathetic and/or lazy to ever bother to attack us or support those that do if we weren't there. I think those that still would are a small enough group that our presence makes little difference, and a combination of intelligence and SF-style operations could keep them at bay (as much as is possible...terrorism will never go away, after all).
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you on all parts. That has to be a first for us.:)
 
Don,
This isn't a movie where you're going to win the hearts and minds of the extremists. You're not going to "win" them over.
Click to expand...
Of course not. The key is the moderates and the apathetics, not the extremists. And I fully agree with this:
The common peasant in the region will do as they've always done throughout history; they will side with the one who is advantageous to their needs at the time.
Click to expand...
Precisely! And this is where we're getting our butts spanked. If they (the "common peasants") decide that our interests side with theirs, we win. And that's the only way we *can* win.
So far, we have been following a guaranteed losing policy founded on irrational and incorrect assumptions. It's impossible to kill or capture every terrorist on the planet. They're not hatched from terrorist eggs on terrorist farms, and there's not a finite supply of them.

You know what a terrorist is? An ex-moderate who's fed up. If you play your cards wrong (which, I posit, is exactly what we've been doing) you end up creating 3 more terrorists for each one you kill or capture.

Please forgive the veiled insult, but the "tightness" of our current border security is simply not a factor in keeping the bad guys out. Suggesting so indicates a certain amount of willful ignorance, which I find highly irritating...particularly where it deals with something as paramount as our enemy's motivation and capability.

If they simply wanted to kill as many infidels as possible, they would do so. They have not. Ergo, they're motivated by something else. Understanding the enemy's motivation is the key to his defeat...so let's try to get a handle on what's really driving them so we can win. Truth'll set you free and all that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top