Iraq is NOT a quagmire!!!

[GePap]

It seems its not common news right now, but it seems most of the big parties in Iraq right now don't want to compete with each other- so they are trying to draw one giant single united parlimentary list for Iraqi voters If this goes forward the legitimacy of that first election might be very suspect.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So your positionis more the incompetence of the handling of Iraq as opposed to the actual expected "All is rosy" spin that is only to be expected in the election year, correct?

In the previous year before the election year, I don't think the Bush advisors have made it clear enough that they have serious problems, and that their current policy deicisions are not helping any.

So even in the previous year, Bush has shut his eyes, plugged his ears, and sung to himself a song over and over . . . . . . .

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

Uh, dood. Like, uh, according to your fearless leader, uh, the "major conflict" is long over, and we've "liberated" the Iraqi people, and this is "occupation" not war.

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.

Anybody who thinks getting banged on in Iraq is either "defeating terrorists" or "fighting for our interests" is living in lala land.

We better have the strength of will to persevere no matter how many casualties or we have already lossed.

Yeah, so if we lose a million, don't question our fearless leaders. They know best. Just suck it up. As long as it's someone else dying.

I can guarantee the terrorists weon't give up after taking 1000 casualties. They will keep fighting because they believe in their cause.

So they're stupid fanatics who believe death is rewarded and they fight for ideological reasons, not as professionals. Are you saying we should emulate this sort of blind, ignorant fanatacism?

Do we? Do we believe in what we are fighting for?

What exactly are we fighting for? A base for power projection in Iraq? A minimal holding action in Afghanistan?

Are we willing to die for freedom?

(a) When did you sign up? No excuses, boyo.

(b) Our "freedom" isn't significantly threatened.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Second, we know exactly who are enemies are in the war on terror.

Brown people?

Al Queda is a clear enemy.

I saw one just the other day. He was walking down the street in a uniform with big letters in English and Arabic saying "Al Qaeda member."

It's just a name, about as meaningful as "Thugees." We get some guy from a group affiliated with a group affiliated with a group founded by a guy who trained at a terrorist training camp run by a group affiliated with a group that has ties to Al Qaeda.

It's as clear as a egg on an iceshelf in the fog at night.

The war on terror is not this vague mist that cannot be defined.

It can be defined, assuming you have leaders with the brains to make a cohesive definition, other than name-calling the "Axis of Evil." Meanwhile, we're too busy with the one that didn't have NBC capability to do anything serious with the one that does, and the one that's about to add the nuclear side.

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq is NOT a quagmire!!!

Originally posted by The diplomat
When Coalition forces kill and maim innocents, it is accidental. When terrorists kill innocents, it's deliberate. Big difference.

You could have a point if the perpetrator couldn't predict the consequences of its actions.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of civilian deaths are "selective accidentality", i.e. that the Coalition knows what the effects of its actions are likely going to be but still consider the tradeoff to be worthy of its cause.

Wake up, friend. When an helicopter shoots in a crowd in the middle of the street, when a missile is launched in a residential neighbourhood, you know what is going to happen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Originally posted by The diplomat
Second, we know exactly who are enemies are in the war on terror.

Brown people?

[FredKarno]

a gigantic bog

Mass evil unleashed, and goodness sinks.

It is ok to try and assasinate evil men(I think), but fail and kill many thousands of innocents - this is terrorism.

Recent event:
An APC (Bradley-type) is knocked out. Soldiers inside wounded/knocked about escape. Crowd of civvies gather about, some cheering, some merely curious. Weopons of non-mass-destruction fire on location. Mass carnage.
Then statement broadcast by forces of 'goodness' saying that this (presumably harmless release of high explosive and steel with great speed) was to ensure safety of civvies.
This is called 'winning of hearts and minds'.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun


In the previous year before the election year, I don't think the Bush advisors have made it clear enough that they have serious problems, and that their current policy deicisions are not helping any.

So even in the previous year, Bush has shut his eyes, plugged his ears, and sung to himself a song over and over . . . . . . .

This would be 2003 your talking about. The year of the actual invasion which went off surprisingly easy and the rest of the fluid aftermath. You seriously think during that short period of time anyone really had a clue as to the situation on ground. (and yes I am talking the entirety of the year)

I think it would have been premature to assess the situation given a few months under the belt don't you?

So we have last year where it would have been premature to give a verdict. Then the election year where no-one (either side) is going to give the straight scoop.

What realistically are you expecting?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
I'm sure you'd just love to think that the US invasion is just making all those poor Iraqis into terrorists.

Why the conditional?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


This would be 2003 your talking about. The year of the actual invasion which went off surprisingly easy and the rest of the fluid aftermath. You seriously think during that short period of time anyone really had a clue as to the situation on ground. (and yes I am talking the entirety of the year)

I think it would have been premature to assess the situation given a few months under the belt don't you?

So we have last year where it would have been premature to give a verdict. Then the election year where no-one (either side) is going to give the straight scoop.

What realistically are you expecting?

So it was reasonable for Bush to hop onto a carrier, and announce that everything was all hunky-dory?

Just because there were no major problems at the time, it was foolish for Bush and anyone else, to declare that it would all be downhill from that point on. No one has a crystal ball, but given the complexity of the situation after we intervened, it was naive to declare victory before the war ended (still has not ended).

[Ned]

Speaking of lala land, MtG, I saw a report tonight on CBS News about Zarqawi. IIRC the story correctly, apparently he has and has had since at least 2000, training camps and operations not only in Iraq, but into Chechnya and Europe, and quite a few other places as well. He was being funded by Saddam and may still be funded by Saddam, but the story linked his funding to Osama bin Laden.

Prior to our invasion, Zarqawi was conducting operations from Baghdad. Among these was the assassination of our ambassador to Jordan.

Today, he is in command of the Sunni resistance -- but he still conducts terror operations outside of Iraq and has cells all over Europe.

If you recall, Zarqawi as cited repeatedly as a reason for the invasion. The fight against him goes on. Iraq was and is a central front on the war on terror even if OBL is elsewhere.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned
Speaking of lala land, MtG, I saw a report tonight on CBS News about Zarqawi. IIRC the story correctly, apparently he has and has had since at least 2000, training camps and operations not only in Iraq, but into Chechnya and Europe, and quite a few other places as well. He was being funded by Saddam and may still be funded by Saddam, but the story linked his funding to Osama bin Laden.

Prior to our invasion, Zarqawi was conducting operations from Baghdad. Among these was the assassination of our ambassador to Jordan.

Today, he is in command of the Sunni resistance -- but he still conducts terror operations outside of Iraq and has cells all over Europe.

If you recall, Zarqawi as cited repeatedly as a reason for the invasion. The fight against him goes on. Iraq was and is a central front on the war on terror even if OBL is elsewhere.

Why didn't we request that Zarqawi be handed over to the U.S. if that was the case. Why don't we just invade all countries that have AQ members.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
I probably have a higher IQ than most the people on this board,

[MikeH]

My IQ is a billion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax
Why didn't we request that Zarqawi be handed over to the U.S. if that was the case. Why don't we just invade all countries that have AQ members.

If you limit the list to those countries that were supporting Osama bin Laden or Zarqawi, we did.