Bush's own man trashes his SOTU claims on WMDs

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned
Charles, Johnson screwed up by committing troops where there was no clear strategy for victory.

That is the lesson we learned from Vietnam more than any other lesson.

You mean the lesson you didn't learn LOL.

Your armed forces couldn't find it's bum with both hands.

[Ned]

Alexander, quite right old chap. Iraq was not the fastest conquest of a coutry of that size in history, was it?

Iraq shows what the US (and Brit) military can do if not restrained by politics.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned
Alexander, quite right old chap. Iraq was not the fastest conquest of a coutry of that size in history, was it?

Iraq shows what the US (and Brit) military can do if not restrained by politics.

But you haven't "conquered" it.

You rolled over it and now you're stuck, trapped there. You don't have enough troops to control it. You can't get out. You're taking casualties every day and it's dragging on for months. Soon it will be a year since the invasion with no end in sight to the fighting.

The President is losing popularity and the public is growing tired of the war. Your army is demoralised. You have the wrong forces in place to fight an insurgency and your armed forces are notoriously bad at counter-insurgency (I don't know why). The Iraqi population is turning against you and the country is in ruins. The bill for that is largely with your taxpayers. There are huge problems in coming up with a viable formula for an Iraqi government which could potentially fuel further armed opposition if bungled.

This is not an effective military operation by any standard. If this is success, I'd like to see failure.

Sounds a lot like Vietnam or Chechnya in fact.

[Proteus_MST]

Somehow I think,
if Bush gets reelected
and as soon as the Budget permits it
claims that another country possesses WMDs or has Links to Al Quaeda (think of Iran, the Netherlands, Cuba or Germany) and therefore should be invaded,
the people of America would once again happily believe him and agree with the reasons for war.
O.K. there might be somehow more Protesters in America than before Iraq, but not enough to turn the tide.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


But you haven't "conquered" it.

You rolled over it and now you're stuck, trapped there. You don't have enough troops to control it. You can't get out. You're taking casualties every day and it's dragging on for months. Soon it will be a year since the invasion with no end in sight to the fighting.

The President is losing popularity and the public is growing tired of the war. Your army is demoralised. You have the wrong forces in place to fight an insurgency and your armed forces are notoriously bad at counter-insurgency (I don't know why). The Iraqi population is turning against you and the country is in ruins. The bill for that is largely with your taxpayers. There are huge problems in coming up with a viable formula for an Iraqi government which could potentially fuel further armed opposition if bungled.

This is not an effective military operation by any standard. If this is success, I'd like to see failure.

Sounds a lot like Vietnam or Chechnya in fact.

Well, we will soon turn the guerilla war over to the Iraqi's themselves. A new, freely elected government will put a lie to your statement.

[Alexander's Horse]

Great - just like Vietnamisation I'm sure that approach will be a winner!

[Pax]

Most American's have no desire to kill maim or otherwise hurt anyone. In fact, Our founding father wanted us to avoid entangling alliances. However, Americans historically feel victim to foreign powers from the barbary pirates to pearl harbor to 9-11. I personally don't justify any war but the situation in the middle east was not of the U.S. making. It was the Europeans who conquered this region and released authority to weak systems to later be conquered and ruled by certain tyrants. What would you expect the U.S. or any country to do when being held hostage by a relative few people being offered safe haven by many.

[Ned]

Pax, Good analogy. The current war on ME "pirates" is like Jefferson's war on the Barbary Pirates. For a thousand years, Europe "tolerated" these pirates. Even mighty England, ruler of the waves, paid them tribute.

Jefferson would have none of it though. He took action where mighty Europe would not and helped to forever end the problem of Muslim pirates.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Pax, Good analogy. The current war on ME "pirates" is like Jefferson's war on the Barbary Pirates. For a thousand years, Europe "tolerated" these pirates. Even mighty England, ruler of the waves, paid them tribute.

Jefferson would have none of it though. He took action where mighty Europe would not and helped to forever end the problem of Muslim pirates.

Ned England and France with Spain support those pirates as it kept certain other nation shipping out. We didnot end the pricay they just didnot openly attack our ships, but our ship that where attack just disappear without a trace, back then ship dissappear for many reson bad weather, muntry, and etc. The man or woman passenger where sold into slaverly so no witness.

[CharlesBHoff]

Ned our conquest of Iraq is than joke, when Taiwan declare or hold the reff on Independence China will invade Taiwan while we are pin down in Iraq, and Afghanistan and we cannot leave Iraq and Afghanistan to potect Taiwan. We need at least 300,000 to 500,000 men to occuplate Iraq and at least 300,000 to 500,000 men to occuplate Afghanistan. It is easyer to conqust than place than to occuplate it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Ned our conquest of Iraq is than joke, when Taiwan declare or hold the reff on Independence China will invade Taiwan while we are pin down in Iraq, and Afghanistan and we cannot leave Iraq and Afghanistan to potect Taiwan. We need at least 300,000 to 500,000 men to occuplate Iraq and at least 300,000 to 500,000 men to occuplate Afghanistan. It is easyer to conqust than place than to occuplate it.

Joke?

Hardly.

But you are right about the strategic situation.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


Ned England and France with Spain support those pirates as it kept certain other nation shipping out. We didnot end the pricay they just didnot openly attack our ships, but our ship that where attack just disappear without a trace, back then ship dissappear for many reson bad weather, muntry, and etc. The man or woman passenger where sold into slaverly so no witness.

Perhaps this actually happened. As I understand it, England and France actually had to take care of matters themselves as our victory was only for America. The piracy did not end until, and think about this, France occuppied North Africa.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Perhaps this actually happened. As I understand it, England and France actually had to take care of matters themselves as our victory was only for America. The piracy did not end until, and think about this, France occuppied North Africa.

DanS would not agree with your version of history. The US continued to pay tribute after the barbary wars.

[Ned]

Well, Spiffor, you will not deny that France finally took care of matters in the same way we are taking care of matters in Afghanistan and Iraq?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, you will not deny that France finally took care of matters in the same way we are taking care of matters in Afghanistan and Iraq?

As much as I despise your admin, I still hope it isn't as ill-motivated in Iraq and Afghanistan as France was in North Africa.

I mean, we colonized them, we destroyed their dignity and culture for the sake of bringing them "civilization", we enslaved them, we plundered their resources.

Oh wait... You're actually right Ned, we did exactly like the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq