What If We Actually Win In Iraq?

[Perd Hapley]

The enemy of my jelly donut is me.  I'm going to eat him. 

[Bogie]

Heh... Hussein didn't have to play nice-nice with the nutjobs. He just had to want them to do Bad Things to The Great Satan...
 
What would you do if Joe el-Badgui over in that car dealership by the trailer park across town started spreading the word all over town that he wanted you dead. And that he wanted your family dead? Now you find out that Joe has been accumulating one heckuva gun collection, and is refusing to cooperate with authorities who are alarmed at his actions, and want to make sure that they're all where they're supposed to be. And suddenly a few of the trailer park lowlifes show up nicely armed, and do a drive-by on your house, killin' your dog in the process.
 
Wouldn't you start working at putting two and two together?
 
Or would you advocate writing a strongly-worded letter...
 
Sigh...
 
With Iraq, regardless, they were making a lot of noise. And they _were_ the strongest military outfit in the region. And we basically kicked their army's ass in a few days. Yes, there's some guerilla terrorists. But the people as a whole want them gone as much as they want us gone. If Iraq turns into a stabilizer, instead of a destabilizer, that's a good thing...

Funny... None of the liberals seem to mind about all the priceless religious artifacts that were destroyed in Afghanistan by the taliban nutjobs either... and they weren't even christian artifacts...

[Perd Hapley]

I think wooderson has a tendency to hang in for a while, make a valiant effort, then quit when he realizes that the opposition is not about to see eye-to-eye.  None of which is a criticism, really, except that I'd prefer he hang around longer, just so I can pull out my hair trying to reason with him.  Sick, I know.

But some weird people prefer having a life.  Whatever.   

[wooderson]

Jeez, you disappear for a day...

But no, once any argument gets to the point where no one's saying anything, I don't generally continue. No one has even attempted to illustrate exactly how, had we not invaded Iraq in 2003 that we 'most certainly' would have had another 9/11. That's the first issue, the genesis of all this - and I'm not going to keep asking about evidence. All arguments have devolved to hearsay or confusing Afghanistan with Iraq (the former actually did make us safer and 'punished' the right people).

The secondary argument, that Saddam was a security threat to the United States in 2003, is also specious and headed nowhere. I want facts and evidence - not vague statements that he used WMDs once upon a time (when I was in, uh, kindergarten - maybe first grade?), or that in the fantasy world where sanctions were about to be ended he would have immediately regained WMD capabilities. If the justification for Iraq is going to revolve around security, someone actually needs to show that he posed a threat to our security.

Bogie's assertions in terms of Iraq/Saddam and 9/11 are amusing, but genuinely not worth responding to any more than the guys who (as referred to before) blame Israel or Dubya (or better, teh black helicopters!).

[The Rabbi]

Iraqi army amassed and awaiting orders to cross the border to attack us......

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA.............................


This is Israel's proxy war that we were dumb enough to get sucked into.
Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle worked behind the scenes manipulating half assed intel and hiring PR firms to turn public opinion against Iraq enough to where the American gullibles would be beating their war drums demanding blood.

It's not a dem or rep issue since there's no different between the two.

Read "A Pretext For War: 9/11, Iraq and the abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" by James Bamford. If you want to skip the dry reading, start on page 250.

First off, you obviously didnt comprehend my post.
Anyway, let's cue up the Protocols and play that tune.

The Israelis working through their agents in State and Defense and their Amen Corner in Washington convinced the President and his other advisors, as well as a majority in COngress (and the American people) to engage in a war which was patently unjustified and served only Israel's defense needs.
Yea.  Right.  Tin foil hats anyone?

I really didn't expect you to accept it. But the documentation and sources are there in the book for anyone that wishes to do the research on their own. You at least acknowledge the Amen Corner in Wash. DC.

The documentation is there that the Jews are trying to control the world.  It doesnt make it so.
Your post is pretty classic anti-Semitism.  I've seldom seen a purer representation of it.

[Bogie]

he used WMDs once upon a time (when I was in, uh, kindergarten - maybe first grade?)

So, if Adolf Hitler, now the world's oldest man, scientifically kept alive by the results of infernal Nazi experiments, turns up, he should be given a pass because he did all that stuff before you were born?
 
Please. Go back to the student center, and hone the ol' debate skills a bit more.
 
As for the Jewish thing - if there were a vast Israeli conspiracy to control the world, and they were actually serious about it, pretty much every racist redneck would be dead by now...
 

[Paddy]

$2-$3 billion a week, we'd better win, and quick.  Read some of the WWII battle narratives (especially near the end, April 1945) then tell me we're making a serious effort in Iraq. 

[Phantom Warrior]

Another Iraq war thread has degenerated into "Bush said this, Bush said that."  Good, we definitely don't have enough of those.  Thank you to everyone that made this possible.

[The Rabbi]

Another Iraq war thread has degenerated into "Bush said this, Bush said that."  Good, we definitely don't have enough of those.  Thank you to everyone that made this possible.

In some ways it was inevitable.

Of course I started off with a supposition, that we won.
What I learned from this is that no matter what happens, some people will declare this a defeat.  It doesn't matter if we stabilize the country and leave it the Switzerland of The Middle East, some people will moan about the "unacceptable cost" etc etc.
Truly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Bogie]

Well, our political system has degenerated enough that whatever one side does, the other side supports the exact opposite. Polarization is not a good thing.

If Bush accidentally stumbled across a cure for cancer, the democrats would blame him for overpopulation.

[Gewehr98]

If Bush accidentally stumbled across a cure for cancer, the democrats would blame him for overpopulation.

Ain't that the truth!   

[wooderson]

So, if Adolf Hitler, now the world's oldest man, scientifically kept alive by the results of infernal Nazi experiments, turns up, he should be given a pass because he did all that stuff before you were born?

Equating Hitler with Saddam. Nice. I'm sure that would go over like gangbusters with Holocaust survivors.
Equating 'not invading' with 'giving Saddam a free pass.' That's just stupid.

Of course, perhaps I'm unaware here - when did we topple the German government specifically to pursue Nazis for crimes committed twenty years' past? That would be rather an odd change to history - given the post-war relationship between some Nazis and the West German government (and the CIA).

If toppling Saddam was a moral crusade akin to punishing the Holocaust (never mind that the Holocaust had not a damn thing to do with WWII...) - then what about North Korea, Darfur, Saudi Arabia, East Timor, etc. etc. etc. - there are dozens of horrific situations around the globe, oppression in all its forms, human rights abuses left and right. What makes Saddam special for you?

That's the problem with 'Saddam was a bad bad man' arguments: they don't pass any reasonable BS test. We don't have a policy of invading and occupation based on a country's leadership being 'bad bad men' - we occupy when our security is threatened. Now, some bleeding heart lefties might want to pursue war for human rights reasons, but there is no tradition of doing so - and it becomes a rather sticky issue of where one starts. Do you genuinely believe that Saddam in 2003 was a greater threat to his people than the Chinese or North Korean governments are to theirs? If not - why not start with those?

[Perd Hapley]

wooderson, you are again taking one line of argument from the pro-war side and treating it as if it were the entire and only argument for the war.  I don't think anyone has suggested that we should invade Iraq merely because Saddam Hussein killed some people a long time ago. 

[Bogie]

It's as good a reason as any... Some folks just shouldn't be sucking on the same air as you and me.
 
I hope that the team that did the house that they found him in had a pack of crotch-eatin' K-9 attack poodles with 'em.

[Len Budney]

So, if Adolf Hitler, now the world's oldest man, scientifically kept alive by the results of infernal Nazi experiments, turns up, he should be given a pass because he did all that stuff before you were born?

Your analogy lacks one thing: When Hitler turns up, we decide that instead of arresting him, extraditing him, or even assassinating him, we'll just bomb the crap out of the corner of the world where he's found, and kill tens of thousands of his innocent neighbors. Apparently you advocate this?

--Len.

[CAnnoneer]

I re-read Starship Troopers more recently. Maybe if we had more Dubois's in the school system, it would not be necessary to spend 5 pages of posts to try to convince the younger generation that 2+2=4.

[Paddy]

I re-read Starship Troopers more recently. Maybe if we had more Dubois's in the school system, it would not be necessary to spend 5 pages of posts to try to convince the younger generation that 2+2=4.

Well, then win it. Either win it or withdraw.  YOUR problem is you don't have the vaguest idea  of what 'win' looks like.  Neither does Bush.

[CAnnoneer]

Well, then win it. Either win it or withdraw.  YOUR problem is you don't have the vaguest idea  of what 'win' looks like.  Neither does Bush.

I don't see where you get that conclusion.

For me, the "win picture" is a relatively stable reasonably democratic Iraq, which modernizes politically and economically, does not harbor terrorists, and resists the destabilizing religious and political influences of Iran and Saudi Arabia. I think that goal is achievable and it involves letting Iraqis take larger and larger control of their country and responsibility for its security. Yes, there are many problems, and it is not going to be easy, especially since the Iraqis have a lot of political maturation to do, but it is achievable.

It seems to me Bush has essentially the same vision, and curiously has been harping about it for quite a long time now. But nobody listens to him because he has insufficient charisma and an ostensibly weak character. Many people think he is a weakling because he is not as self-assertive as Reagan or that he is a moron because he is not as book-smart as McNamara. The reality is he is not a strong, dynamic, charismatic, energetic leader. He tries to be but he is not. So, although his message is fundamentally correct, people simply turn off the minute he opens his mouth. Then they say he has not formulated this or that. Well, if you ain't listening, you won't be hearing. The problem IS in your TV set.

The left cannot forgive him for beating their candidates or for making mistakes concomitant with the mantle of power. The right are often spineless and sacrifice their principles for "electability", because they feel they need to bamboozle enough independents and fence-sitters to get elected. Some of them secretly crave the approval of the leftist elite because of class ties, which is sad and pathetic IMO.

[jeepmor]

History being an indicator of the future.  The guerillas always win. 
I would suggest reading more in depth and breath on the topic of military history, as your statement has the defect of being incorrect.

Please point me to some good text and I'll dig into it. But as I see it over my lifetime, the guerillas have been winning purely because their resolve outlasts any political squabbling and the superpowers eventually just pull out.  Superpowers have huge bureacracies with sides squabbling every little detail with each other in hopes of grabbing a little more power for their side.  The insurgents could give a crap, they want us out, and until then, they simply keep shooting at us from the shadows and planting bombs along side the roads.

Iraq is a good example of a small insurgency having the resolve to keep the world's mightiest military at bay with small arms fire, RPGs and roadside bombs.  Sure, we kicked Saddam's military's ass, but the common folk got tired of us and decided to start shooting, and they are not giving up, period.  It's their country, they'll keep shooting until we leave.  I don't see them ever stopping, especially with the likes of Russia feeding the resistance arms through the clandestine pipeline.  They're getting their arms somewhere.

Before that, it was Afghani's keeping the Russians at bay while America was pleading with Russia that Afghanistan was "their Vietnam".  Meanwhile, we were feeding the Afghani's weapons.

Please show me where we have stomped an insurgency into submission, for I don't see it in the examples stated.  What, the Falkland Islands?

BTW - How many of you spend this much effort letting your elected representatives know how you feel.  How many letters or e-mails does your congress critter get from you?  Arguing with each other has rendered us exactly where, influenced exactly who?  The handful of folks squabbling details here, what is that changing, what's the goal in all this.  To say you won an argument, fine, you won.  Me, I've been sending my reps letters about Iraq, Wiretapping and Illegal immigration.   And most of you easily stomp my arguments to oblivion, fine.  But your supporting the cause by sending letters to your reps right?  I hope the hell you do, if not, get off this site for a while and get it done. 

Don't get me wrong, I mean no disrespect, quite the opposite.  However, I think there are more fruitful avenues to discuss your positions for many of you are solidly well backed with facts, know your history and current events, and pose some damn good arguments.  That said, are they landing the laps of our decision makers?  I really hope so, for you're much more articulate than I.  Now, if you need to know anything about a jeep, I'm your man.  I've spent more of my life on the technical side and basically ignored the political side until I got into guns and started delving into the freedoms and usurpations of such.  I have a lot to learn in this arena and I thank you all for the bludgeoning I so often deserve.

[roo_ster]

jeepmor:

If you just want accounts of Americans dealing with insurgencies, try Max Boot's Savage Wars of Peace.

Here are a few failed insurgencies from the top of my head:
1. EVERY American Indian tribe that I can think of that tried an insurgent campaign
2. Malaysian commies after WW2
3. Greek commies after WW2
4. Second Pali Intifada (first was negotiated away, but the second was met with force and the Palis pretty much cried uncle)
5. Spanish "Republicans" before WW2
6. Philippine Moros after the Spanish-American War
7. Barbary Pirates
8. Turkish pacification of the Balkans
9. A baker's dozen insurgencies in Africa & India quashed by the Brits
10. Another several score quashed by the Romans
11. The Confederacy
12. Warsaw ghetto
13. Countless slave rebellions over thousands of years
14. Viet Cong after Tet (S Viet Nam was conquered by the N Viet Nam Army, not the shattered remnants of the VC)

Well-disciplined regular troops can initially be knocked for a loop, but adapt and overcome, as history has shown. Those insurgencies that do succeed are exceptions and studied as to why they managed to succeed where most fail.  Common threads are:
1. External support of rival great power
2. Insurgency eventually matures and fields a regular army in addition to the insurgents
3. Some level of support from the locals, though that level can be a small minority

[Bogie]

When Hitler turns up, we decide that instead of arresting him, extraditing him, or even assassinating him, we'll just bomb the crap out of the corner of the world where he's found, and kill tens of thousands of his innocent neighbors. Apparently you advocate this?

If those "innocent" neighbors are the ones hiding him, fine.
 
No aid and comfort to the enemy.

The terrorists in Iraq (I _really_ don't like the word "insurgent") are essentially engaged in a power play. They are saying "Make the Americans go away, and I will not blow up your markets."
 
Well, folks don't want the markets blown up, so... And they're scared of the terrorists, many of whom are NOT Iraqis...

[RevDisk]

If those "innocent" neighbors are the ones hiding him, fine.
 
No aid and comfort to the enemy.

The terrorists in Iraq (I _really_ don't like the word "insurgent") are essentially engaged in a power play. They are saying "Make the Americans go away, and I will not blow up your markets."
 
Well, folks don't want the markets blown up, so... And they're scared of the terrorists, many of whom are NOT Iraqis...

Uh.  Most of the Iraqis are not pro-insurgency or pro-American.  They want no part of any of it.  Ask wmenorr67, he's in the position to give ya an earful about it.

I, and the US Army, see the difference between terrorists and insurgents.  Terrorists are predominately the foreign fighters, not good people.  They love killing US nationals.  Insurgents are Iraqi nationals.  Primarily, they're killing more of each other than US nationals.  Very different breeds of bad guys.  Lumping them together is a bad idea if you want to develop tactics and strategy.