Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kissinger says Iraq not winnable

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by KrazyHorse
    You stick your dick into the mashed potatoes and then you don't have the guts to follow through. Is there any wonder people don't respect the US military despite the fact that it's so utterly dominant?
    I just reject the thesis that we have to stay there forever after deposing Saddam. The people have not created order on their own. Their passiveness is part of the problem. I said we don't have to stay forever and I meant it. It has been 3 years now. I'm not saying that we defenitely leave, but it is an option worth considering, even if the country goes through a civil war. Let's consider the options.

    I know we just disagree on this, but I am consistent. I also thought the food drops in Afghanistan were silly although my liberal friends (the same ones who supported GW1 going into Somalia as making GW different from other evil conservatives) thought this was something that made the campaign more humane.

    Comment


    • Besides that, if the majority of the people want us out, why should we feel a moral obligation to stay. They ***** at us when we're there and ***** at us when we're gone. Saddam is gone. They have their chance. Take it or not.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GePap


        Cant' claim to be invading to get rid of Saddam and then act like Saddam.
        To me the reason for eliminating Saddam was never about nation-building. It was about the invasion of Kuwait and the failure to demonstrate compliance with the debilitating restrictions that we put on him after GW1 (kicking inspectors out, etc.)

        Besides that, its not clear to me that shooting looters is ever unreasonable. Looting represents a breakdown of the civil order and needs to be nipped in the bud. Same applies in New Orleans or LA.

        That said, while I agree that Saddam like sanctions could hold the country down--basically harsh reprisals against family members--I am not advocating that. I'm making a point of consistency and logic and honesty of argument. If you concede that harsh measures are required to install order and you refuse to sanction even the milder forms of harsh action, then you are not being consistent. The US could not prevent the looting without force.

        I would also argue that it is silly to think that a single miscue (stopping looting or not stopping it) changes the nature of what can/cannot be done. The situation and drivers are more deep-seated then that.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
          The war was the right thing to do, morally. That being said, it probably wasn't a good idea.

          No war is moral. Resorting to war is failure.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
            Then it all comes down to Kurdish pragmatism vs Kurdish Nationalism + Anti-Turkism. They already have defacto indipendence the next logical step is to become a recognized independent state without provoking Turkey to crush such a state. If being Turkeys client is what it takes to do it then thats the best possible outcome Kurds could resonably expect. It comes down to trading away dreams that will never happen for the best real word deal you can get. Nations that follow pragmatism such as the Navajo (consistently used pragmatic negotiations to enlarge of their Reservation and are the only tribe which secured its ancestral homeland) consistently end up better off then thouse that dont *COUGH* Palistinians *COUGH*
            The navajo were lucky that no mineral or agricultrual wealth was seen in those territories in the 19th century. Other nations that were equally pragmatic in their dealings with the federal government were less lucky and gold strikes or other discoveries of wealth lead to their ruin in spite of the best efforts of those nations.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Proteus_MST
              I cannot say something about the Bush critics,
              but I can say that the reason for the moderates in Europe to be against war in Iraq was not the belief that the war would be too bloody.

              That's odd. Moderates supported GW1, helped write the terms of surrender imposed on Saddam. But then when called to enforce those terms they backed down. They're too fearful of shedding blood. The whole world knows that when pushed the Euroweenies can be counted on to back down. We had the vain hope that once, just freakin' once, our friends would evince something resembling a backbone.

              It was rather the belief that your reasons for invading were false

              The unconcealed objective was regime change. There was never any deceit about US intentions. The bald accusation of war-for-oil was and remains the knee-jerk rubric of the Bush-bashers.

              It was rather the belief that your reasons for invading were false (which were always said to be the WMD Iraq possessed) as at the same time that your government stated the possession of large stockpiles of WMDs to be a fact (just think of Colin Powell showing these nice satellite photos around in the UN security council) the UN inspectors which oversaw the weapons inspections in Iraq denied the claims by the US government.

              Patently false. It was Saddam's openly declared and repeatedly demonstrated aim to make WMDs and obtain new WMD technology.

              The entirety of Powel's presentation to the UNSC was on documented circumvention of UN inspection as demonstration of Saddam's intentions. There was one series of images of them moving a small stockpile and decontaminating bunkers just a day or two before inspectors arrived. This was of particular interest because of the use of a Russian-made decon vehicle based on the BMP-76.

              It was always about the future as much as any existing stock and programs. At no time did Powel present evidence of "large stockpiles," and this we did not expect to find. We expected to find tactical stockpiles that Saddam claimed his troops would use. We expected to find supplies and facilities for manufacture, particularly mobile facilities.

              Most people in europe rather believed the UN weapons inspectors than the claims of the US government and therefore preferred the UN weapons inspections to continue rather than the invasion that was preferred by your country.

              And in the end one can say that the belief of the moderate europeans seemed to be right as no sizable stockpiles of WMDs were found despite all of your efforts to find them after invasion

              The satellite images clearly showed materials that escaped the inspectors and were lost to surveillance. Despite this fact, inspectors and their cheering section continue to this day to pretend they had successfully "inspected" the threat out of existence. Sheer foolishness.
              (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
              (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
              (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Arrian
                It WAS warmongering, though.

                And how do you get to blame Europeans who didn't choose the war for not helping once we'd gone and done it? WTF?!

                We chose to do it, without their help. Then, when we **** it up, it's THEIR fault?

                Same answer as above. Europeans did choose war, and then lost the will to execute that war when Saddam failed to live up to terms of surrender. After ten years of backing down every time Saddam whined.
                (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
                (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
                (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

                Comment


                • Saddam was contained. One can argue about whether regime change for humanitarian reasons was right and/or a good idea, but it appears that isn't something you buy into. From a straight national security standpoint, there was no need to invade Iraq.

                  -Arrian
                  grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                  The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Arcite
                    Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
                    The war was the right thing to do, morally. That being said, it probably wasn't a good idea.

                    No war is moral. Resorting to war is failure.

                    Absolutely not, some war is not only moral but failure to fight is cowardice.

                    Resorting to war is an admission that one side or the other has failed to find a peaceful solution. But war itself can lead to a peaceful solution, as in WW2.

                    We have a general consensus in the modern world that war leading to both peace and freedom is moral. While both are the intent of the US and Britain, neither peace nor freedom can be imposed upon Iraq.
                    (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
                    (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
                    (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Arrian
                      Saddam was contained. One can argue about whether regime change for humanitarian reasons was right and/or a good idea, but it appears that isn't something you buy into. From a straight national security standpoint, there was no need to invade Iraq.

                      From a straight national security standpoint there was barely a need to liberate Kuwait. Saddam was contained by Desert Shield. It was the right thing to do, and it was a good idea.

                      GW2 stems directly from the terms of surrender from GW1. It was the right thing to do, but not necessarily a good idea.
                      (\__/) Save a bunny, eat more Smurf!
                      (='.'=) Sponsored by the National Smurfmeat Council
                      (")_(") Smurf, the original blue meat! © 1999, patent pending, ® and ™ (except that "Smurf" bit)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Straybow
                        [Q] Originally posted by Arrian

                        From a straight national security standpoint there was barely a need to liberate Kuwait. Saddam was contained by Desert Shield. It was the right thing to do, and it was a good idea.
                        We could not keep those troops there forever and there was significant danger of a grab at the SA and other Gulf State oil fields which are right near Kuwait geographically. Was even a battle on SA territory.
                        Last edited by TCO; November 22, 2006, 15:08.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Straybow
                          Originally posted by Arcite
                          Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
                          The war was the right thing to do, morally. That being said, it probably wasn't a good idea.

                          No war is moral. Resorting to war is failure.

                          Absolutely not, some war is not only moral but failure to fight is cowardice.

                          That sounds rather Victorian.

                          Anyway, in regards to Iraq, the majority of the world rejected war, the US invaded anyway and we see the results.

                          Last month saw the largest death toll of Iraqis yet, how many will needlessly die this month?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arrian
                            Saddam was contained. One can argue about whether regime change for humanitarian reasons was right and/or a good idea, but it appears that isn't something you buy into. From a straight national security standpoint, there was no need to invade Iraq.

                            -Arrian
                            QFT

                            Comment


                            • In other words the pooch doth continue to be screwed:

                              More than 140 bodies turn up on Baghdad streets
                              POSTED: 1:52 p.m. EST, November 22, 2006
                              BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- More than 140 bodies have been found dumped across Baghdad over the past three days, police said Wednesday.

                              Police said 52 bullet-riddled bodies were found Wednesday, with 20 of them blindfolded, tied up and possibly tortured.

                              Police also discovered 29 bodies on Tuesday and 60 on Monday.


                              The dead are thought to be victims of Sunni-Shiite sectarian revenge killings.

                              That word came as the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a grim bimonthly human rights report that underscored the instability and death resulting from sectarian violence.

                              The report said 7,054 civilians were killed violently in September and October in Iraq, with almost 5,000 in Baghdad alone -- most of them shot to death and showing signs of torture. (Full story)

                              November's death toll continued to rise Wednesday as gunmen in Baghdad shot and killed a bodyguard of Iraq's parliament speaker and a journalist for a state newspaper.

                              In Baquba, about 40 miles (60 kilometers) northeast of Baghdad, gunmen killed three Iraqi police officers on patrol Wednesday morning, a police official said.

                              North of Baquba near Muqtadya, two Iraqis were killed, including an Iraqi soldier, and five others were wounded during two separate attacks targeting an Iraqi army checkpoint, the official said.

                              The U.S. military said Wednesday that two U.S. soldiers were killed Tuesday in northern Iraq.

                              A Task Force Lightning soldier assigned to 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division was killed and three others were wounded when a roadside bomb blew up near their vehicle in Salaheddin province, the military said.

                              Another soldier from the same unit also was killed Tuesday in a noncombat incident.

                              The American military death toll in Iraq is 2,869, including seven American civilian contractors of the military. There have been 49 troop deaths during November.
                              At this point to explain the war as international Jihaddis vs. the US is rather inaccurate. Its increasingly a Lebanon-style Civil War with the US caught in the middle. And right now an outcome that would lead to something like Lebanon today is the best that we can hope for, the chances of anything remotely resembling a stable democratic government are virtually nil.
                              Stop Quoting Ben

                              Comment


                              • It's odd that Iraqis seem to be more optimistic about the capabilities of their government/armed forces and the future of their country than Americans are...
                                KH FOR OWNER!
                                ASHER FOR CEO!!
                                GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X