How NOT to fight a war ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3613473.stm


I think the events so far after the inasion of Iraq show the US officials didn't even put enough thought into the whole process. Did they just think, "Oh, let's invade Iraq now. We'll deal about problems later when they surface." If they didn't expect this kind of a lawlessness, they are unfit to even fight a war.

And what could be the reason for such dissent and opposition to the coalition?

One prime reason seems to be the widespread hatred towards the US.

Secondly even after Saddam was defeated, the infrastructure seems to be improving at a very slow pace. I think lack of planning in the post-war activities is squarely to be blamed for this. Probably the US expected the people of Iraq to understand, digest and implement a completely different form of rule overnight?

Thirdly now that Saddam is gone, several parties and people are staking a claim to the power. How many really are worthy to assume power? How many really want to bring Iraq back on the track of economic development? There's no way of verifying this, except to have a trial and error method. And once a government is elected in Iraq, it might just be a dictatorship under the guise of democracy. Then it might be worse than Saddam's rule.

Fourthly, as the article above suggests, the US is probably acting like a trigger-happy cowboy, eager for action and short on patience. Again because there was no planning or no thought put into any eventuality like this, and more likely the local commanders don't know what's the best course of action to take, and their mentors in the US thought this would never happen?

.

And you have this comment from Mr. Straw:

Quote:

---

Some of the tensions and pressures which were there, and would have come out in any event, have to a degree been directed towards the coalition."

---

Does he mean to say if the US hadn't meddled with Iraq last year, there would still have been an armed uprising against Saddam one year or maybe two-three years down the line? If these people really are against the majority of the Iraqis it seems Saddam did a pretty swell job of keeping them in check, because Moqtada Sadr didn't even exist a few months back for the world.

Or does it just show that democracy is not the form of government a country like Iraq is suited for?

.

There's political pressure in most of the coalition nations. In the US, in the UK, in Spain, in Japan to withdraw troops and hand over power to an Iraqi government. The situation in Iraq just isn't right for a democracy to exist. If the coalition forces pull out, you might be looking at another civil war and total anarchy, which again is a failure of the Iraq invasion. If the troops stay, the Iraqi government will simply be a stooge and it won't be a democracy, least of all soverign. And if and when the troops withdraw from Iraq, the problems of insurgency and militancy will resurface.

It's happening in Afghanistan, and it will repeat in Iraq.

.

How Not to win hearts and minds

http://www.cair-net.org/images/lcpl11.jpg

Is there something wrong with that picture? Everything seems fine to me. Boudreaux took what was rightfully his. No problems...









Oh wait, that kid has a Real Madrid jersey on. The nerve...

I am really hoping that Bush invades India next. That will fix the offshoring of computer jobs.

How about this:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3613473.stm

(1)I think the events so far after the inasion of Iraq show the US officials didn't even put enough thought into the whole process. ... If they didn't expect this kind of a lawlessness, they are unfit to even fight a war.

...

(2)[T]he infrastructure seems to be improving at a very slow pace. I think lack of planning in the post-war activities is squarely to be blamed for this...

(3)...Then it might be worse than Saddam's rule.

(4)Fourthly, as the article above suggests, the US is probably acting like a trigger-happy cowboy, eager for action and short on patience....
.

---

I think that you are equating the thoughts and attitudes American elected officials with those of State Department and Department of Defense bureaucrats with those of the major media with those of the general populus.

As for #1, the DoD does consider what will happen after the war is finished because they know that there is always a second act. Any regular Joe in the US know this too, if for no other reason than that they or someone they know was part of an occupation. What the media or any elected person says is suspect.

#2 I have an inflatable sewer system in my back pocket. I'll send it on over.

#3 You are correct. The real mistake is the insessant talking about democracy in Iraq. That ain't gonna happen.

#4 Regular Americans do not have the stomach for a proper occupation. I think that toughness is lost on this generation.

By the way, I love being a ridgerunner-cowboy. I think the rest of the world really wants to be cowboys, too. I have met folks from England who have come here to be cowboys. Really. Englishmen make good cowboys. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PineyWoodsJimbo
Really. Englishmen make good cowboys. :cool:

---

Don't you find that they sexually molest the horses every opportunity they get?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
I think the events so far after the inasion of Iraq show the US officials didn't even put enough thought into the whole process. Did they just think, "Oh, let's invade Iraq now. We'll deal about problems later when they surface." If they didn't expect this kind of a lawlessness, they are unfit to even fight a war.

---

Unfit to fight a war? Using a minute percentage of our available troops the US has completly overrun two countries in less than 3 years. Less than 6 months if you count actual major battle time. Keep in mind that the US casualty rate is unbelieveably low and the Civillian Casualty rate is even more astonishingly lower. So what, a couple thousand Iraqi militia are left. Considering the Kill ratio from US to Iraqi is somewhere around 100 to 1 in this entire conflict. They have said all along that they expected this kind of lawlessness. this sort of lawlessness exists after every war ever fought. Pull you head out of your ass man. If you are looking for something American to insult you'll have to do better than insulting the most powerfull military force on the planet. There are many other things about the US that deserve Criticism but the US military is definatly not one of them. The Marines and the Airborn Infantry are kicking the crap out of what's left of the Iraqi military. A few arseholes wearing dynamite packed underpants and RPG's arent going to stop them. Hell, Indias POS military could clean up the stragglers left over in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PineyWoodsJimbo
By the way, I love being a ridgerunner-cowboy. I think the rest of the world really wants to be cowboys, too. I have met folks from England who have come here to be cowboys. Really. Englishmen make good cowboys. :cool:

---

Not necessarily true in all cases. Two of my buddies from London are staying with me this month. Me and the wife took them to the local for a few beers this weekend. After 2 1/2 seconds on the mechanical bull one was promptly introduced to the US Health Care system. :cool: The second was introduced to a swift backhand after grabbing the wrong girl's arse. So in my "English Cowboy Experiment" the success rate of turning an englishman into a Cowboy is 50/50. :D

In fairness, I don't believe it's the military who are being criticised. HB did say the "US Officials", I would take that to mean the government.

I for one have nothing but sympathy and respect for the troops on the ground.

Quote:

---

Using a minute percentage of our available troops the US has completly overrun two countries in less than 3 years

---

Mmmm. A minor point though MB? You seem to have changed your tune a wee bit. Surely weren't you always the one saying that it was a "coalition of the world", "It's not just Amercia doing this", yet now it's just America...... is there a confession in here somewhere :)

Oh, and P.S. A quick internet search shows that the US army stands at around 500,000 troops. Given that there are 170,000 US troops there now (I'm not sure how many were involved in the attack), I would hardly call this a minute percentage of your troops (let alone your "available" troops). Remember, you'll need to give some of them some time off, and then you'll probably be wanting to leave some at home just incase those pesky Canadians invade again. ;) Then there's the guy's in Afghanistan, and not forgetting the deployments in South korea..... oh look, suddenly you're pretty thinly spread out...

500,000 is the number of active "army" in a combat job. You have forgotten the Marines, Airforce, Navy, Army reserves, Army National Guard, Air Force Reserves, and Air National Guard. There are only 2 "Combat" army divisions and one Marine "Combat" Division actually fighting in Iraq AFAIK. If I am wrong please correct me. That leaves quite a few Marine and Army Combat divisions still available. Again, I have not changed my tune. The "coallition" forces are mainly performing support roles in Iraq. Remember for every man fighting it takes 5 men to support him. Food, supplies, quartering, logistical support, communication ect... The brunt of the actual bullet exchanging is being handled by the US and British troops, simply because they are the best trained in the world at it. The south Korean deployed troops are under an entirly different command that the troops in Iraq. The US military command below the president is divided into differnt commands to cover the entire globe. Those troops are still available. Read some on the topic of the US military's capability. Belive me You will be amazed at how it has been arranged for effincency and contingencys. Very interesting stuff.

Oh and I forgot, HB was criticizing the US Officers. At least I think he was. They were the only people mentioned in his comment I quoted. AFAIK Officers are still considered Military.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Oh and I forgot, HB was criticizing the US Officers. At least I think he was. They were the only people mentioned in his comment I quoted. AFAIK Officers are still considered Military.

---

AFAIK military officers don't decide policy such as "we're going to invade Iraq". It's goverment pure and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
500,000 is the number of active "army" in a combat job. You have forgotten the Marines, Airforce, Navy, Army reserves, Army National Guard, Air Force Reserves, and Air National Guard. There are only 2 "Combat" army divisions and one Marine "Combat" Division actually fighting in Iraq AFAIK. If I am wrong please correct me. That leaves quite a few Marine and Army Combat divisions still available. Again, I have not changed my tune. The "coallition" forces are mainly performing support roles in Iraq. Remember for every man fighting it takes 5 men to support him. Food, supplies, quartering, logistical support, communication ect... The brunt of the actual bullet exchanging is being handled by the US and British troops, simply because they are the best trained in the world at it. The south Korean deployed troops are under an entirly different command that the troops in Iraq. The US military command below the president is divided into differnt commands to cover the entire globe. Those troops are still available. Read some on the topic of the US military's capability. Belive me You will be amazed at how it has been arranged for effincency and contingencys. Very interesting stuff.

---

I am sure it is very efficient, however I was merely stating that however you cut it, it was hardly a minute percentage of the army that was involved in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.

I was under the impression that a number of reservists are complaining because they are being actively deployed due to a shortage of ready troops. [Therefore causing a large diruption to their working life].

I do not know the exact numbers involved in combat during the initial invasions. I know there were 3 divisions used in each though.

Here are the numbers as of a few months ago

130,000 in Iraq
11,700 in Afgan

If you read the third page( I think it is the third) you can clearly see that the US is in no way overstreached.

http://www.cdi.org/news/defense-monitor/dm.pdf

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20...311472-ap.html

As far as the reservests complaining, I am sure that there were mabe a handfull of little whiney bitches with no balls complaining and it made the news. Reservests have always been used to relieve the active duty after the hard work has been done. I will also guarentee that these were not combat soldiers. They were most likley punk arse paper jockeys who didn't want to go to the desert to count the inventory of rolls of toilet paper and mres the rest of the soldiers were using.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
The brunt of the actual bullet exchanging is being handled by the US and British troops, simply because they are the best trained in the world at it.

---

Or because the rest don't want to risk lives :p

The US are driving this machine - flame me - but the US can wear most of the cost.

Aussie's have their own drama's like East Timor. That cost us lives, as well as some others. New Zealand lost a few I think. There were some asian countries like Japan that lost some.

We all pick and choose our battles.

No doubt that is a big part of it. I would probably modify that to say the the government dosn't want to risk their lives. I'm sure the soldiers would gladly do it if asked.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
AFAIK military officers don't decide policy such as "we're going to invade Iraq". It's goverment pure and simple.

---

Absolutley true, that is not what I'm talking about. HB said, simply put, the US Officers were doing a crappy job in Iraq. I said, again simply put, That is a load of horse crap. Nothing completly unexpected has happened and everything that has happened has been or is being dealt with. If HB wants to biatch about anything, Biatch at the arseholes in washington who sent the troops in a year late to begin with. All the military has done is their job, and they have done their job quite well.

MB is correct about this: The folks in Iraq are doing a good job over all. They also had a good idea of what to expect. We employ a good chunk of the people in the Pentagon to plan for these things. I suspect the State Department does something similar. Once again, the real problems are:

1 -- Politicians grandstanding
2 -- Media b itching
3 -- The ability of Americans to stomach

But the reserve/guard (and some active duty types, too) folks do tend to whine. A lot of them join to get the monthly pay or to have school paid for. I have seen it all the way from EMs who suddenly become consciencious objectors the day before they ship out to doctors in the Inactive Ready Reserve who are mad because it is payback time.

Also, sorry to hear about your friends, MasterBlaster. At least the one didn't grab anything more than an ass. Otherwise both would have experienced the thrill of US healthcare.:D

An exellent link MB, however, despite it's glossy professional look, I keep finding references to 500,000 active personnel on the web. I don't think we're counting the same thing. I suspect it's back to active soldiers as opposed to support personnel.

As for the reservists, yeah, I saw that a lot in Britain, guys who just looked upon it as a paycheck or a few weeks a year off in some sunny local. In my view if people want to take that stance, fine, but pay back all the money that they've received so far and the cost of their training and we'll call it quits.... no hard feelings.

I would still argue that I think the US military is stretched pretty thin. Canada is planning to take advantage of this as we speak. You're troops might come home to find the maple leaf flying from the White house (of course, Louisianna will instantly want to split off as a seperate French speaking nation, Quebecers will insist we call it "le blanc maisonette" or some such and Nasa will redirected into putting Celine Dion into outer space...... we'll work on the return journey some time in the future......) .... of course, on the bright side we could teach you how to play ice-hockey when we're there.

Quote:

---

An exellent link MB, however, despite it's glossy professional look, I keep finding references to 500,000 active personnel on the web. I don't think we're counting the same thing. I suspect it's back to active soldiers as opposed to support personnel.

---

It may be, who knows for sure. I've seen stats from 200,000 up to 2,000,000. Unfortunatly I haven't found one to break it down into M.O.S.

Quote:

---

As for the reservists, yeah, I saw that a lot in Britain, guys who just looked upon it as a paycheck or a few weeks a year off in some sunny local. In my view if people want to take that stance, fine, but pay back all the money that they've received so far and the cost of their training and we'll call it quits.... no hard feelings.

---

Exactly what I was going to say.

Quote:

---

I would still argue that I think the US military is stretched pretty thin. Canada is planning to take advantage of this as we speak. You're troops might come home to find the maple leaf flying from the White house (of course, Louisianna will instantly want to split off as a seperate French speaking nation, Quebecers will insist we call it "le blanc maisonette" or some such and Nasa will redirected into putting Celine Dion into outer space...... we'll work on the return journey some time in the future......) .... of course, on the bright side we could teach you how to play ice-hockey when we're there.

---

Yup, I've been worried about those beady eyed little basterds from the north for years. Whats with all that Aboot, eh and hockey mumbiojumbo they blab on and on aboot? I think it is a secret code that means, "Were gonna invade the US". Fortunatilly my bomb shelter is nearly complete and I have enough watered down american beer and canned meat/veggies to last me through the invasion:D :D :D

Oh well, Canadians in the white house couldn't be much worse than the sheit heads we have in there now.

Vote Super Mario and the Great One for President/VP!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster

Yup, I've been worried about those beady eyed little basterds from the north for years. Whats with all that Aboot, eh and hockey mumbiojumbo they blab on and on aboot? I think it is a secret code that means, "Were gonna invade the US". Fortunatilly my bomb shelter is nearly complete and I have enough watered down american beer and canned meat/veggies to last me through the invasion:D :D :D

Oh well, Canadians in the white house couldn't be much worse than the sheit heads we have in there now.

Vote Super Mario and the Great One for President/VP!

---

Sorry it took so long to reply. I've been drafted into making snow balls for the big push.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
As far as the reservests complaining, I am sure that there were mabe a handfull of little whiney bitches with no balls complaining and it made the news. Reservests have always been used to relieve the active duty after the hard work has been done. I will also guarentee that these were not combat soldiers. They were most likley punk arse paper jockeys who didn't want to go to the desert to count the inventory of rolls of toilet paper and mres the rest of the soldiers were using.

---

I re-read my own posts at the top of the thread, and I think I have never even once mentioned the word "Officer". I have only referred to "officials" which indicates government officials. And obviously when you simply refer to a country, such as "The US is going wrong in Iraq", you are talking about the government of that country. So I don't understand wherefrom you got the impression I was criticizing the US forces in Iraq. I suggest you re-read my original posts.

About those 'punk arse paper jockeys' you are talking about, didn't you already include them in the total number of troops the US has at its disposal?

Also if you do want to increase the troop size by including all kinds of uniformed people in the US, how many troops the US really has who have any kind of combat or war experience? I guess half the troops have never fought a battle in their life.

Then again you are silent about the point that a country like Iraq may not simply be fit for a democratic rule. Democracy does not guarantee your life won't stink. It only allows you to say that life stinks. When people are unable to meet even the basic needs of life such as food and shelter, I don't think they would be too eager to embrace freedom of speech and expression.

On a sidenote, what about the pre-empting of the Israel Palestine conflict by Bush? If you think the US government was simply trying to uphold the UN resolutions in invading Iraq, why does Bush accept Sharon's latest proposal, when Annan has expressed reservations because the new plan would probably bypass several UNSC resolutions? Who is Bush to say the Palestinians can't ask for restoration of the status quo of 1949? In my personal opinion, this is appeasement and arrogance at its highest. The only reason for this kind of a backing to Sharon's plan is because it's election year and Bush doesn't want to lose the Jewish votes and donations. Because otherwise Bush could simply have told Sharon to follow the roadmap and implement the UNSC resolutions.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
I re-read my own posts at the top of the thread, and I think I have never even once mentioned the word "Officer". I have only referred to "officials" which indicates government officials. And obviously when you simply refer to a country, such as "The US is going wrong in Iraq", you are talking about the government of that country. So I don't understand wherefrom you got the impression I was criticizing the US forces in Iraq. I suggest you re-read my original posts.

---

I suggest you do the same

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
[url]---> If they didn't expect this kind of a lawlessness, they are unfit to even fight a war <---
.

---

Quote:

---

About those 'punk arse paper jockeys' you are talking about, didn't you already include them in the total number of troops the US has at its disposal?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Also if you do want to increase the troop size by including all kinds of uniformed people in the US, how many troops the US really has who have any kind of combat or war experience? I guess half the troops have never fought a battle in their life.

---

I would guess half is about right

Quote:

---

Then again you are silent about the point that a country like Iraq may not simply be fit for a democratic rule. Democracy does not guarantee your life won't stink. It only allows you to say that life stinks. When people are unable to meet even the basic needs of life such as food and shelter, I don't think they would be too eager to embrace freedom of speech and expression.

---

I wasn't talking about that topic so why would I have mentioned it? You may be suprised that I agree with you just said 100%

Quote:

---

On a sidenote, what about the pre-empting of the Israel Palestine conflict by Bush? If you think the US government was simply trying to uphold the UN resolutions in invading Iraq, why does Bush accept Sharon's latest proposal, when Annan has expressed reservations because the new plan would probably bypass several UNSC resolutions? Who is Bush to say the Palestinians can't ask for restoration of the status quo of 1949? In my personal opinion, this is appeasement and arrogance at its highest. The only reason for this kind of a backing to Sharon's plan is because it's election year and Bush doesn't want to lose the Jewish votes and donations. Because otherwise Bush could simply have told Sharon to follow the roadmap and implement the UNSC resolutions.

---

Simply put, Bush is an arsehole.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Don't you find that they sexually molest the horses every opportunity they get?

---

Perks of the job.

So except the question about "officers" we seem to be in agreement...

Now coming to the issue about "officers", if you accept the difference between "officers" meaning troops and their commanders on the ground, then you should also realize that the "officials" are also fighting the war as much as the "officers", and my comments are directed against them. Clearly the men on the ground won't act of their own accord. They need a plan of action in dealing with any situation. And going by the developments, the men on ground didn't have a proper plan before them in countering the recent violence. Clearly the "officials" who are fighting the war from Washington are to blame for it.

.

They are countering the recent violence just fine. That is my point. There is not much you can do about people hiding out in buildings and taking pop shots at you other than kill them after they fire at you. It's urban gorilla warfare. That is the way it is fought. They absolutly expected and planed on this happening. The US military said even before the first cruise missle was fired that this was going to happen. As far as planning for it, the US troops spent the entire year leading up to the war in Urban Warfare training. If they hadn't been prepaired and trained for this there would be a hell of a lot more dead US soldiers right now. The rebels are not the majority. There are not that many of them and they don't stand a chance of getting control of Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
They are countering the recent violence just fine. That is my point. There is not much you can do about people hiding out in buildings and taking pop shots at you other than kill them after they fire at you. It's urban gorilla warfare. That is the way it is fought. They absolutly expected and planed on this happening. The US military said even before the first cruise missle was fired that this was going to happen. As far as planning for it, the US troops spent the entire year leading up to the war in Urban Warfare training. If they hadn't been prepaired and trained for this there would be a hell of a lot more dead US soldiers right now. The rebels are not the majority. There are not that many of them and they don't stand a chance of getting control of Iraq.

---

Gee, I actually disagree with just about everything you said there, which is rare for you. There were troops trained for urban warfare, but not all of them. There are large numbers of reservists and national guard troops serving over there, some in combat roles (Idaho Nat Gaurd is on standby, including a friend of mine in armor). They may get some training in urban warfare, but nobody would call them experts.

The brits are complaining that we call in air strikes to take out snipers in populated areas. Effective against the sniper, but bad overall.

When you say that there are not that many of them, well, how do you know? They are the minority of the countries population, but that has been true in several other lost cause wars, as well.

You say they don't stand a chance of getting control of Iraq. Why not? There is no viable alternative. The ruling council is a bunch of power-grubbing buggers with no support. The war is being fought by troops of countries driven by political will, which is eroding. They are organized (somewhat) and determined. If we pull back, they stand an excellent chance of controlling the country using the tried and true methods that Saddam employed. If we don't pull back, they stand an excellent chance of pulling a Vietnam on us. After all, they don't have to beat our soldiers, they have to beat our will to lose our soldiers lives. That will was never strong, and is steadily declining.

Scenario:
1 Losses continue to mount.
2 Either:
A. Bush loses in the fall and is replaced by someone who doesn't really want to fight that war.
B. Bush wins in the fall, and losses continue to mount as support continues to erode.

3 whoever decides to cut our losses and pull out.
4 Provisional governement is installed, but without a clear leader, it gets no support.
5 Civil war
6 The toughest thug suppresses the rest.
7 Either return to Saddam style rule, or Iranian style rule.

Either way, we lose. This may not happen, but it is entirely possible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Gee, I actually disagree with just about everything you said there, which is rare for you. There were troops trained for urban warfare, but not all of them. There are large numbers of reservists and national guard troops serving over there, some in combat roles (Idaho Nat Gaurd is on standby, including a friend of mine in armor). They may get some training in urban warfare, but nobody would call them experts.

---

I probably didn't state my point clearly. You're right not all of the troops going over in this rotation are well urban combat trained. Training facilities are set up all over the place in Iraq. They will be trained before they get sent into the nasty areas. Also, Notice Rumsfield is keeping 20,000 troops there after their tour. You friend or any one fresh off the boat will not be sent out by himself, National guard units are always accompanied by well trained experienced soldiers. Most likley he will not even go. He'll probably go to Europe or another base in the states to replace active duty soldiers going to Iraq anyway. Either way the new guys on the way will know whats up before any sheit hits the fan.

Quote:

---

The brits are complaining that we call in air strikes to take out snipers in populated areas. Effective against the sniper, but bad overall.

---

Who Cares? If the Local Iraqi's would grow a pair and get rid of the sniper themselvs this wouldn't be an issue. That is why I am against US troops being there in the first place. The Iraqi's don't deserve freedom.

Quote:

---

When you say that there are not that many of them, well, how do you know? They are the minority of the countries population, but that has been true in several other lost cause wars, as well.

---

As long as the borders get secured then there is no problem. All of the other times that this happened and we lost were because of soldiers from other countries coming in through loose border. ie... Vietnam/Cambodia, Korea/China. The latest figure I heard was around 2,000 enemy activly fighting. Not to much for 135,000 US troops to take care of.

Quote:

---

You say they don't stand a chance of getting control of Iraq. Why not? There is no viable alternative. The ruling council is a bunch of power-grubbing buggers with no support. The war is being fought by troops of countries driven by political will, which is eroding. They are organized (somewhat) and determined. If we pull back, they stand an excellent chance of controlling the country using the tried and true methods that Saddam employed. If we don't pull back, they stand an excellent chance of pulling a Vietnam on us. After all, they don't have to beat our soldiers, they have to beat our will to lose our soldiers lives. That will was never strong, and is steadily declining.

---

Nothing will be certain untill they have elections. Then we will see how far democracy flies. My guess is it will crash and burn in less than a year. Guarenteed, whoever wins the election in the US will keep the US Troops there at least until elections happen. After that it's on the Iraqis. If Sadir had half a brain he'd be playing the political game right now instead of trying to start a revolution. Unfortunatly, those midevil dipsheits haven't figured out how to take power in a democracy.

Quote:

---

Scenario:
1 Losses continue to mount.
2 Either:
A. Bush loses in the fall and is replaced by someone who doesn't really want to fight that war.
B. Bush wins in the fall, and losses continue to mount as support continues to erode.

3 whoever decides to cut our losses and pull out.
4 Provisional governement is installed, but without a clear leader, it gets no support.
5 Civil war
6 The toughest thug suppresses the rest.
7 Either return to Saddam style rule, or Iranian style rule.

Either way, we lose. This may not happen, but it is entirely possible.

---

Shiet we lost this one over two years ago. The day we asked the UN if we could invade it was over.

Iraq had WMD's. we spent an entire freaking year diecking around with them giving Saddam plenty of time to hide or sell them to the highest bidder. If Bush had a pair he would have parked a few carriers off the coast and dropped 250,000 troops into Irag with no notice. Woulda been worthwhile then. At least we'd have his chem/bio weapons instead of terrorists and other contries that hate the US.

Preemptive war my arse! How can it be preemptive if you give the enemy a years notice that you are going to invade
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
If Sadir had half a brain he'd be playing the political game right now instead of trying to start a revolution. Unfortunatly, those midevil dipsheits haven't figured out how to take power in a democracy.

---

This is one of the most pertinant observations I've read in a long while.

If these guys would only wait a few months, there's going to be an election. Then some fundamentalist cleric is going to run for president/prime minister/mullah. The other clerics are going to stand in their pulpets and tell the people to vote him in. The people will do as told. And wham! They get their fundamentalist muslim state in no time at all, complete with beheadings, burqa's and all the other fun and japes that come from such jolly religeous government types.

It makes you wonder why they are doing it.....

Power.

I don't think the WMD were there a year before the war. I think they had already been destroyed.

Otherwise, that was a good reply. I especially liked the part where you said they didn't deserve freedom. We aren't totally free ouselves, of course, and they may be more free than we are. After all, we can't go looting and murdering, even if we want to. However, what we have that they don't, whatever it is, is something that you have to want, and be willing to work for. They aren't working for it, so they aren't going to get it, and we can't give it to them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Iraq had WMD's. we spent an entire freaking year diecking around with them giving Saddam plenty of time to hide or sell them to the highest bidder. If Bush had a pair he would have parked a few carriers off the coast and dropped 250,000 troops into Irag with no notice. Woulda been worthwhile then. At least we'd have his chem/bio weapons instead of terrorists and other contries that hate the US.

Preemptive war my arse! How can it be preemptive if you give the enemy a years notice that you are going to invade
:rolleyes:

---

But then there's no evidence of the weapons being hidden anywhere in Iraq, or being sold to other parties. I am sure the US forces have been hunting for them for over a year, and so far nothing has been unearthed that would convince anyone the weapons were concealed somewhere within Iraq. Also if the weapons were to be sold to other parties, I don't think you could have simply hidden them in a few briefcases and shipped them out.

I also think what counts is not the amount of time of notice, but a clear-cut proof. At the end of it, when the US can't find any trace of any materials which could be linked to WMDs, what's going to be your explanation for this invasion? I guess the shift from WMDs to the human rights issues in Iraq is just an indication that there probably never were any WMDs in Iraq. And now the US intelligence agencies are admitting they didn't double-check their sources while gathering intelligence. So who knows if Iraq did have WMDs or not? And then what explanation would the US have for invading Iraq, killing thousands of civilians and even armed forces, just because the idiots at the White House and CIA and FBI were eager to give their military some war exercise?

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
But then there's no evidence of the weapons being hidden anywhere in Iraq, or being sold to other parties. I am sure the US forces have been hunting for them for over a year, and so far nothing has been unearthed that would convince anyone the weapons were concealed somewhere within Iraq.

---

The reason there is no evidence is that there was plenty of time to cover it up. That was my point! Iraq had Anthrax and VX gas. The UN weapons inspectors even said this. So the problem is, what actually happened to it? They were either sold, hidden or destroyed the year leading up to this war. I'd say most likley sold.

Quote:

---

Also if the weapons were to be sold to other parties, I don't think you could have simply hidden them in a few briefcases and shipped them out.

---

Why not?

Quote:

---

I also think what counts is not the amount of time of notice, but a clear-cut proof. At the end of it, when the US can't find any trace of any materials which could be linked to WMDs, what's going to be your explanation for this invasion?

---

The same BS excuse they are using now.

Quote:

---

I guess the shift from WMDs to the human rights issues in Iraq is just an indication that there probably never were any WMDs in Iraq.

---

Like I said, they were there. What happened to them is the real question. That would also explain the US government shifting focus on humanitarian issues in Iraq. I'm sure Bush dosn't want the lable "The guy who lost Saddams Chem Bio Weapons to terrorists" right before election time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Like I said, they were there. What happened to them is the real question. That would also explain the US government shifting focus on humanitarian issues in Iraq. I'm sure Bush dosn't want the lable "The guy who lost Saddams Chem Bio Weapons to terrorists" right before election time.

---

Unfortunately, unless a conclusive proof appears before the world, I think nobody is really going to buy the argument that they were there. They can't vanish without a trace. If they were destroyed, there must be people who destroyed them, or saw the chemicals being destroyed. If they were sold, there must be evidence somewhere along the line which indicates a sale or movement or transfer. Even one year after invading Iraq, no traces of any WMDs have been found. I guess both the US and the UK governments are now reconciling their "official" version of the reason for war from WMD to other issues because of this fact. They also have acknowledged that finding any WMDs is a rare possibility now. Which actually could also mean there were no WMDs there in the first place. Because there never has been any physical and credible evidence of their existance. You have probably hit upon a point in your last comment. The elections. I wonder if this whole Iraq war was simply an election stunt? Surely going by the posts of some of the members here, the military casualties for the US are pretty negligible, the monetary costs are not being talked about at all, so I guess even they are negligible, so from all angles it's pretty much like a cheap election stunt than some moral upholding of a great value.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
When you say that there are not that many of them, well, how do you know?

---

The Hiker is right. Don't forget the folks who took over Russia in 1917 were only a tiny portion of the population.

The US army is a little better prepared than the russians were then. As long as the US troops are there they will be contained. After that, It's anybodys guess what will happen. I'm going with HB's guess that as soon as the US pulls out democracy will fall apart. You can lead a horse to water but.....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
I'm going with HB's guess that as soon as the US pulls out democracy will fall apart. You can lead a horse to water but.....

---

I believe the same.
You can lead a horse to water, and he might unload into it.
That is what will happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee


...they are unfit to even fight a war.

.

---

One word. Kashmir

Let us discuss How to win a war...
(course, I won't be back on this thread, I just thought it was funny)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JPicasso
One word. Kashmir

Let us discuss How to win a war...
(course, I won't be back on this thread, I just thought it was funny)

---

As common with most people here, you seem to be forgetting that there's little similarity between the Iraq conflict and the Kashmir issue.

Anyways, I think the US has all messed up the post-invasion operation. Now it's become an international prestige issue for them to hand over power on 30 June, and it's crystal clear it cannot be done in the present situation. In effect, in order to create an election issue and to satisfy his own whims, George Bush has effectively thrown another country down the cliff...

.