Iraq is NOT a quagmire!!!

[Chemical Ollie]

Re: Iraq is NOT a quagmire!!!

Originally posted by The diplomat
What's happening in Iraq is normal. It's called a war. In war, people die.

Anybody that thinks that we can defeat terrorists and fight for our interests and not take casualties is living in lala land. We are probably going to suffer a whole lot more than 1000 deaths before the war on terror is over.

We better have the strength of will to persevere no matter how many casualties or we have already lossed. I can guarantee the terrorists weon't give up after taking 1000 casualties. They will keep fighting because they believe in their cause. Do we? Do we believe in what we are fighting for? Are we willing to die for freedom?

There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. "War on terror" and Iraq should not be mentioned in the same sentence, they are two different things.

[MalevolentLight]

Those terrorists in Iraq are in Iraq from Iran and Syria. The others are Saddam loyalists. I'm sure you'd just love to think that the US invasion is just making all those poor Iraqis into terrorists.

[Dis]

It is a



because it was not planned this way. It was planned to cost minimal lost of life. Bush himself admitted he did not expect this kind of resistance. No one expected it.

definition: A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament.

I think it fits this bill. Because we don't know exactly how we are going to get out of this situation. Peace cannot be maintained without U.S. troops. We will be there for many, many years. Possibly decades.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Nobody called WW2 a quagmire.

I'm impressed, you know a lot.

[Last Conformist]

No one expected it.

Too bad I didn't save the newspapers from before the war. There would have been an awful lot of predictions of "winning the war but losing the peace", turning Iraq into an "unpacifiable quagmire", and "stirring a hornets' nest".

[GePap]

Re: Iraq is NOT a quagmire!!!

Originally posted by The diplomat
What's happening in Iraq is normal. It's called a war. In war, people die.

Newsflash einstein- war can last a long time- the internal conflict in Colombia has been going on for 30 years...

Anybody that thinks that we can defeat terrorists and fight for our interests and not take casualties is living in lala land. We are probably going to suffer a whole lot more than 1000 deaths before the war on terror is over.

A "war on terror" is as meaningless as a "war on drugs" when do you defeat "terror"? You can't answer that because there is no answer. We declared a war on drugs 15 years ago- have we won?

We better have the strength of will to persevere no matter how many casualties or we have already lossed. I can guarantee the terrorists weon't give up after taking 1000 casualties. They will keep fighting because they believe in their cause. Do we? Do we believe in what we are fighting for? Are we willing to die for freedom?

Given that you have defined nothing but the most amourphous goals, without even naming a coherent enemy, guess what!? You can't win such a battle! God sakes, read some Suntzu, Clautszwitz, ANYTHING!!!

You can;t beat an enemy you don;t know, and its pretty damned clear you have 0 clues about our enemies except for some cartoon cutout in your mind.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat
To add one thing: WW2 was a whole lot worse than Iraq. Nobody called WW2 a quagmire. So, what's up with this ridiculous notion that Iraq is a quagmire simply because we suffered some losses.

Does your willfull ignorance know no bounds?

I could not name the number of differences between this "war" and the Second World War in under 20,000 characters.

So I will simplify the answer- in WW2 it was obvious which State-actors were the revisionists powers that needed to be fought. You have no clue what the enemies today really are- so comparison is utterly absurd- beyond absurd-just utterly stupid.

[Dis]

ww2 comparisons are valid, but misused.

Remember, the war is over.

To accurately compare the two, you'd have to compare the deaths in germany and japan after the summer of 1945 to the deaths in Iraq after May of 2003.

[MalevolentLight]

Does your willfull ignorance know no bounds?

Gepap calling someone stupid? No way! I always love it when someone who's IQ is probably not much higher than 110 calls other people stupid. (Yes, I'm calling you stupid, see how easy it is?)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Gepap calling someone stupid? No way! I always love it when someone who's IQ is probably not much higher than 110 calls other people stupid. (Yes, I'm calling you stupid, see how easy it is?)

Since when would having an above-average IQ be grounds for being called stupid?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dissident
ww2 comparisons are valid, but misused.

Remember, the war is over.

On this limited level, of the lessons of two state actors engaged in pitched battle, fine, but then, we might was well compare it to the Chango War, or the Russo-Japanese War, or the Austro-Prussian War, since all those comparisons would be equally as "valid" in this sense.

To accurately compare the two, you'd have to compare the deaths in germany and japan after the summer of 1945 to the deaths in Iraq after May of 2003.

Again, on a limited basis that is also somewhat valid- then again, we might look at comparisons with the British admin. of Iraq in the early mandate period, or US admin. in the Philipinnes, including the likelyhood of democratic change in the future.

[GePap]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight


Gepap calling someone stupid? No way! I always love it when someone who's IQ is probably not much higher than 110 calls other people stupid. (Yes, I'm calling you stupid, see how easy it is?)

[MalevolentLight]

Since when would having an above-average IQ be grounds for being called stupid?

My point is that no matter how smart you are there is always someone smarter out there. I probably have a higher IQ than most the people on this board, but I don't use it as an arguing point because I know there are people out there smarter than me and it shouldn't be used anyway. Gepap apparently never learned this lesson...like most liberals.

[Pax]

Re: Iraq is NOT a quagmire!!!

Originally posted by The diplomat
What's happening in Iraq is normal. It's called a war. In war, people die.

Anybody that thinks that we can defeat terrorists and fight for our interests and not take casualties is living in lala land. We are probably going to suffer a whole lot more than 1000 deaths before the war on terror is over.

We better have the strength of will to persevere no matter how many casualties or we have already lossed. I can guarantee the terrorists weon't give up after taking 1000 casualties. They will keep fighting because they believe in their cause. Do we? Do we believe in what we are fighting for? Are we willing to die for freedom?

How can you call the actions of the Iraqi's terrorism. If a foreign country invaded the U.S. and forced a regime change then would all who resisted the foreign power be labeled as terrorists. As of today Iraq has no proven connection to AQ or any group that was engaged in hostile acts against the U.S. in recent history. No WMD's. What possible reason could a logical human being still believe that the war in Iraq is a war on terror. Your whole statement is based on a falsehood.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
My point is that no matter how smart you are there is always someone smarter out there.

That doesn't make stupidity any less stupid.

I never would've figured you for a relativist.