Is this story more good news from Iraq?

[wkmac]

I agree, what Iraq needs most is a Gandhi. Martin Luther King or a George Washington. Someone that is a strong leader that can galvanize the population that is so divided.

I'm not sure any of those 3 type men could do it but you never know. Something any of us don't like to consider but Saddam with his strong arm tactics did keep a type of peace in that society. Not something any of us would want to live under I'm sure but in that world it was effective. As crazy as it may sound and it's hard to even suggest, but I wonder if given a choice between today's Iraq and the one under Saddam, what would these folks answer?

As for a leader who can glavanize the population that is divided? Seems like there are some that do pretty well in suggesting Bush is doing a good job in that area!
Purely humor Bu****es so "lighten up Francis!" Could we somehow modify the cussword protector here. OK how about this and let see if this works.
B
U
S
H
I
T
E
S

GEEZ!

Let me go back to the Romans and the way they handle terrorism in their day. Or let me just put it another way. Lets say the Romans were us. Present day. History, to forget the past is to repeat it. Ok, the Romans when hit with terrorism and not knowing who did it would go after a segment of that civilian population where that person or persons might be hiding and wipe them out completely.

Now that's an interesting idea. In other words just purely for example, we discover someone in the Kurdish Northern region was involved in a plot to kill Maliki or other leaders in the new Iraqi gov't and they were hiding out in say Halabja among the local population. We could nuke the whole town just to get the few terrorist responsible. Well, it would work as you said and it might be effective for the short term but I'm not sure about long term.

You mentioned above the importance of knowing history and you are 100% correct on that point. In regards to the idea you've just inspired and from a historical note I got a name and date you might research before presenting your idea to President Bush. That name would be Halabja and the date is March 16th, 1988. I think you'll find doing some analysis of historical data that short term your approach worked but long term it did not!

We do not have the political stomach no more for war.

You are correct there as we do not have the stomach for what some call perfect war. In our past history, we never had weapons that could strike with precision accuracy meaning you could hit very exact targets. In WW2, mass air assaults with 100's if not 1000's of planes had to be used in the hopes of finding a lone if not small number of priority targets. Now a lone Tomahawk cruise missle can perform the same task without the collateral damage. It's not perfect but it beats the WW2 concept of warfare. How many billions in US taxpayer dollars were spent in post war Japan and Germany to play to repair the damage caused by our own bombing missions?

You speak very correctly about the importance of knowing history and learning from it. Rome and it's great legions did use brute and terrible force when exerting Ceasar's authority and rule and one favorite area were the so-called barbarian hords of the northern European wastelands. But as you said, you can learn so much about what's effective and what's not from the pages of history so let's consider this question in light of your idea of following the "perfect war" example of the Romans. We see "back in the day" the short term effectiveness of this swift brutality to all those who oppose Ceasar and his rule but in order to uderstand the longterm impact of such approaches, let's look as the presence of the Roman empire in our modern age and where they stand on the geo-political stage.

Let's see, they................................................well.............................I'll look over here to.........................well maybe over here instead.................maybe under here then................................it's got to be right here..........................not here either..........................you know, I just realize the Roman empire doesn't exist anymore now does it! Seems those same folks who had suffered the brute force of Rome's autocratic hand had enough and the revolt as most historians suggest began with a chain of events beginning in 476 CE and led to the end of that empire.

Now what does that tell us long term about brute force and autocratic or tyrannical rule? Looking at history, what has happened to other nations and empires who employ such practices? Where's the Soviet Union these days to put it in a modern context that we can all grasp? How about Nazi Germany or even the Great British Empire for that matter. Our ancestors slapped that hand back to sadly now see us taking up their mantle for them and marching on. Empirial Britain and France divided the spoils of war in post WW1 and now we find ourselves their policeman in enforcing those "Protectorate" agreements. That's just one of those little history thingys there Area43!

For short term gain, your approach does work and very well but in the long haul history seems to suggest a vastly different and not so pleasant outcome for the one with the brutal hand! Was 9/11 really a first step of our own taste of "Gothic invasion" or as we believe was just the lucky shot of a group of nutjobs who discovered the underbelly of our society on which to strike? I guess the first question to ask IMO would be, where did the Romans go wrong!

 

[Jones]

I just find it amusing that someone who claims to be a devout christian is so enamored of the Roman's brutal methods of counter-insurgency, considering that they were used against the early christians pretty regularly. If they really had been as effective as you claim, you would probably be worshipping a different brand of magic sky fairy today. Food for thought.

 

[tieguy]

The Democrats' maneuvering room is narrower in the Senate, a mere 51-49 advantage that leaves Dems' far short of the 60 votes needed to advance an agenda past Republicans.Then throw in the brillant GW and his veto-ing crayola crayons.
BTW--You forgot to call the "moderate" Democrates names or are you unaware they exist.

minor league convicts compared to the hard core liberal ones.

 

[wkmac]

This hit the newswire yesterday and with Sen. Warner the ranking repub. on the Armed Services Committee, I'm sure this is more added pressure ahead of the Sept. report on the surge.

More and more reports also suggest Maliki being ****e is much closer to Iran than he is to the US and in light of the numerous folks condemning Maliki and his efforts, I have to believe sadly that this may have a whole lot more truth to it than we want to admit.

No argument the US military has done an awesome job and given a task with unbelievable odds. Their picture IMO should be the definiton of the term hero. The one thing that none of us can do is change the hearts and minds of men when they are driven by the passions of cultural traditions and religious dogma that has existed for millenia plus! Look at our own western european Christian traditions and the rift of Protestant and Catholic that existed for so many centuries. We've only the last 50 or so years finally bridged those gaps and the Sunni and Shi'a aren't even on a speaking basis yet. Until they can reach that point, it will require authoritarian rule and sometimes very hard and harsh rule to make those people live nice and play nice.


JMHO

 

[wkmac]

I just find it amusing that someone who claims to be a devout christian is so enamored of the Roman's brutal methods of counter-insurgency, considering that they were used against the early christians pretty regularly. If they really had been as effective as you claim, you would probably be worshipping a different brand of magic sky fairy today. Food for thought.

Jones,
The so-called Christian church in early times were just as brutal except instead of out in the light of day in front of thousands in the arena, the church did it's deeds under darkness of dungeons and under the illusion of authority not only of heaven but also under authority of an earthly realm.

Look good and hard at the Sunni and Shi'a and back ourselves in the western world up about 500 years and the only difference would be the names. If it took us 500 years, then how do we expect them to change overnight? And I guess some here still express those tendencies from time to time and blame everything on the jew, arab, homosexual or whoever is handy at the time to blame.

OH WAIT! I forgot liberals too! Shame on me forgetting the most important scapegoat of all!


You know, maybe we threw aside the religious labels and instead picked up Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal as the new mantra. Maybe the rest of the world sees us for the two faced hypocrite that we fail to see ourselves!

 

[scratch]

One of the problems in this mess is that people in our society don't understand the mindset of the Middle East culture. They consider brute force to be the way to decide anything, its been that way for thousands of years. If you go back to Old Testament days, it was total warfare. When a City was conquered, everything was destroyed. All men, women, children, and livestock were killed. The water wells were poisoned and the farmland was salted. Every block of stone was torn down in extreme cases. You just don't "negotiate" with some people, they consider it to be a weakness.

I was watching an interview with a former North Vietnamese General on the History Channel one day. What he said reminded me so much of the current situation. He said that man to man, battle to battle, they could never win in combat against the United States. Instead, they relied on the US to defeat itself. Because the war dragged on so long, the politicians got involved in running it. North Viet Nam relied on propaganda to turn the tide on the US. We fight among ourselves instead of concentrating on the task at hand. We can sit back today and gripe about how many mistakes have been made. But warfare is an ever changing day to day struggle. You have to learn how to adapt to changing situations. I think we need to get tough on the present Iraqi government. If they can't get it together, we need to start pulling troops out.

 

[wkmac]

Hey Scratch,

OT but how you holding up in this heat? Seems they are showing a break next week but last week they didn't show the 100 plus days we got this week either. Our supervisor just bought us a small refrigerator for our shop so we can keep water, juices (I love Welch's Grape juice and I got me 2 six packs of it) and the best of all is I've stocked up on some big ole' juicy Red Delicious apples. Man does that hit the spot in late afternoon when thrist and hunger hit and it beats the garbage in the one arm bandits known as veding machines.

Today I'm taking some watermelon. Stay cool best ya can and drink plenty of fluids. I can't wait until October and some nice fall days.

 

[scratch]

Hi wkmac,
I'm holding out the best I can, these last few weeks have been brutal outside with the 100+ heat index. I enjoyed your rant at the IE guy in the other thread that was whining about what clothes to wear to work as he sits in the AC in his office. And I wonder why more IE folks don't post on this site? At my Hub, our new Center Manager brings in cases of bottled water every morning and ices them down in a cooler for us. At our 8:40 start time, its only about 85 degrees outside, so this helps us get to our area! Personally, I freeze four quarts of water and Powerade that I carry in an Igloo softpack. I have ice all day. Lots of customers give me bottled water all day, God bless'em all. My trees are dying in the yard, and it looks like Fall with everyone raking leaves a couple of months early. We sure could use some of that rain that is flooding other parts of the country. That Weber Grill does look nice, they make excellent equipment. My old Brinkman Smoker is about to bite the dust and I am looking for a replacement.

Well, back to the Thread Topic, I'm going to enjoy the rest of my Option Day and a few Budweisers!

 

[area43]

I just find it amusing that someone who claims to be a devout christian is so enamored of the Roman's brutal methods of counter-insurgency, considering that they were used against the early christians pretty regularly. If they really had been as effective as you claim, you would probably be worshipping a different brand of magic sky fairy today. Food for thought.

I can detect that with your post you are anti christian. I do not have a problem with you attacking my faith and how I live it. This is America and you can judge me if you wish. By the way intolerant remarks like that usually will esculate if not gone unchecked. Believe or not that's how alot of these wars get started. If you don't have a true belief in the Bible, than we are not on the same page. I respect and will not ridicule your way of life. I believe it is not productive.

 

[area43]

I'm not sure any of those 3 type men could do it but you never know. Something any of us don't like to consider but Saddam with his strong arm tactics did keep a type of peace in that society. Not something any of us would want to live under I'm sure but in that world it was effective. As crazy as it may sound and it's hard to even suggest, but I wonder if given a choice between today's Iraq and the one under Saddam, what would these folks answer?

As for a leader who can glavanize the population that is divided? Seems like there are some that do pretty well in suggesting Bush is doing a good job in that area!
Purely humor Bu****es so "lighten up Francis!" Could we somehow modify the cussword protector here. OK how about this and let see if this works.
B
U
S
H
I
T
E
S

GEEZ!



Now that's an interesting idea. In other words just purely for example, we discover someone in the Kurdish Northern region was involved in a plot to kill Maliki or other leaders in the new Iraqi gov't and they were hiding out in say Halabja among the local population. We could nuke the whole town just to get the few terrorist responsible. Well, it would work as you said and it might be effective for the short term but I'm not sure about long term.

You mentioned above the importance of knowing history and you are 100% correct on that point. In regards to the idea you've just inspired and from a historical note I got a name and date you might research before presenting your idea to President Bush. That name would be Halabja and the date is March 16th, 1988. I think you'll find doing some analysis of historical data that short term your approach worked but long term it did not!



You are correct there as we do not have the stomach for what some call perfect war. In our past history, we never had weapons that could strike with precision accuracy meaning you could hit very exact targets. In WW2, mass air assaults with 100's if not 1000's of planes had to be used in the hopes of finding a lone if not small number of priority targets. Now a lone Tomahawk cruise missle can perform the same task without the collateral damage. It's not perfect but it beats the WW2 concept of warfare. How many billions in US taxpayer dollars were spent in post war Japan and Germany to play to repair the damage caused by our own bombing missions?

You speak very correctly about the importance of knowing history and learning from it. Rome and it's great legions did use brute and terrible force when exerting Ceasar's authority and rule and one favorite area were the so-called barbarian hords of the northern European wastelands. But as you said, you can learn so much about what's effective and what's not from the pages of history so let's consider this question in light of your idea of following the "perfect war" example of the Romans. We see "back in the day" the short term effectiveness of this swift brutality to all those who oppose Ceasar and his rule but in order to uderstand the longterm impact of such approaches, let's look as the presence of the Roman empire in our modern age and where they stand on the geo-political stage.

Let's see, they................................................well.............................I'll look over here to.........................well maybe over here instead.................maybe under here then................................it's got to be right here..........................not here either..........................you know, I just realize the Roman empire doesn't exist anymore now does it! Seems those same folks who had suffered the brute force of Rome's autocratic hand had enough and the revolt as most historians suggest began with a chain of events beginning in 476 CE and led to the end of that empire.

Now what does that tell us long term about brute force and autocratic or tyrannical rule? Looking at history, what has happened to other nations and empires who employ such practices? Where's the Soviet Union these days to put it in a modern context that we can all grasp? How about Nazi Germany or even the Great British Empire for that matter. Our ancestors slapped that hand back to sadly now see us taking up their mantle for them and marching on. Empirial Britain and France divided the spoils of war in post WW1 and now we find ourselves their policeman in enforcing those "Protectorate" agreements. That's just one of those little history thingys there Area43!

For short term gain, your approach does work and very well but in the long haul history seems to suggest a vastly different and not so pleasant outcome for the one with the brutal hand! Was 9/11 really a first step of our own taste of "Gothic invasion" or as we believe was just the lucky shot of a group of nutjobs who discovered the underbelly of our society on which to strike? I guess the first question to ask IMO would be, where did the Romans go wrong!

To sum it up, I believe you might be incorrect on Rome's fall to a degree. Rome fell from within. Just like America is doing now. Rome sustained their power for 400 years by this method of brute force. How about us? Were 231 years old. Can we make it to the 400 mark, by the present course we are taking. I think not. I believe the whole point is that, yes Rome fell by the nomadic tribes, but the root of the problem came from within. Like cancer. A total break down in the power structure. I do not believe all that Rome did, especially with persecuting chirstians or people of other faiths was correct. My point in using the Roman example was to show how they dealt with, terrorism in their day. Now how the Roman government conducted themselves is a totally different matter. I just want to focus on their technic on handling terrorism. Technic is what I was trying to emphasize here , folks.

Mack, about the kurds you must understand this. Yes, there has to be some common sense. But if these bad people are hiding with the kurds than someone is not talking to us about it. I believe someone has to know where they are hiding because we all know how nosey neighbors can be. Having said that we give them an ultimatum. Yes, they are our greatest allies over there, but are they being totally cooperartive. Good intell, does help.

Also Mac, Let me ask you this. Was God brutal in destroying the earth by water? Was he wrong in doing so? Was God effective with this approach? Could God have been wrong? It seems by your way of thinking he could be. Just something to think about. Was he like the Romans? Maybe, you could think that in some degree. How about Sodam and Gomarah? God wiped them out. The book of Judges is sometimes a horrific account of Gods righteous just anger and punishment. Mac, again you and I might be on a different page. I don't know if you believe in the Bible.

 

[area43]

One of the problems in this mess is that people in our society don't understand the mindset of the Middle East culture. They consider brute force to be the way to decide anything, its been that way for thousands of years. If you go back to Old Testament days, it was total warfare. When a City was conquered, everything was destroyed. All men, women, children, and livestock were killed. The water wells were poisoned and the farmland was salted. Every block of stone was torn down in extreme cases. You just don't "negotiate" with some people, they consider it to be a weakness.

I was watching an interview with a former North Vietnamese General on the History Channel one day. What he said reminded me so much of the current situation. He said that man to man, battle to battle, they could never win in combat against the United States. Instead, they relied on the US to defeat itself. Because the war dragged on so long, the politicians got involved in running it. North Viet Nam relied on propaganda to turn the tide on the US. We fight among ourselves instead of concentrating on the task at hand. We can sit back today and gripe about how many mistakes have been made. But warfare is an ever changing day to day struggle. You have to learn how to adapt to changing situations. I think we need to get tough on the present Iraqi government. If they can't get it together, we need to start pulling troops out.

Scratch, thats the point I tried to conveige. Thanks, it appears were on the same page. ( :

 

[Jones]

I don't think it really matters whether or not I share your religious beliefs (I can assure you it doesn't matter to me). The point is that using brutally repressive tactics against an insurgency did not save the Roman empire. In fact it's never saved any regime in the longterm. The Nazi's used the same tactics against the French resistance (wiping out whole villages, etc.), and yet the resistance never quit. They just got more determined. The Soviets did the same thing and it didn't save them either. Look what the Japanese did at Nanking, are you really suggesting something like that would be justified in Iraq?

Whenever an occupying power engages in brutality, all it does in confirm in the minds of the populace that the insurgents are right, the occupiers are evil, with the result that the insurgency gets stronger, not weaker.

When I hear people making the argument (as Bush did the other day) that the biggest mistake we made in Vietnam was leaving too soon, and we shouldn't make the same mistake in Iraq, I have to wonder what history books they have (or haven't) been reading.

We spent 10 years in Vietnam, at the height of the conflict we had over 500,000 troops in country (more than three times what we have in Iraq, a country with 25% more land area) and more than 50,000 Americans lost their lives. What more were we supposed to do exactly? 10 more years? 100,000 casualties? And for what? Vietnam seems to have done just fine without us, in fact they are now a valued trading partner. Maybe if we hadn't spent ten years there propping up a corrupt regime through force of arms and dividing the country into pro-US and anti-US factions there never would have been a refugee crisis, at least nowhere near as bad what happened when we left. In the long term all our involvement accomplished was making it worse for the people who lived there.

And that's the reason we lost, btw. Because we were always going to leave. Staying forever was never an option for us. It wasn't our country, it was never a threat to our national security, and we never should have been there in the first place. The only question was how many Americans were going to be killed before we figured it out.

It all sounds depressingly familiar.

 

[area43]

Hey look what we did to the indians. Have you've talked to any of them lately. Their still pissed. Jones I sure wouldn't want you in my platoon or fox hole.

 

[Jones]

Hey look what we did to the indians. Have you've talked to any of them lately. Their still pissed.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying the indians were terrorists or something? Or that we should repopulate Iraq with US citizens and put all the Iraqis on reservations? Do you really think that's a viable option?

Jones I sure wouldn't want you in my platoon or fox hole.

Likewise. But since you drive a truck for a living, I don't think you have to worry about it .

 

[diesel96]

Hey look what we did to the indians. Have you've talked to any of them lately. Their still pissed. Jones I sure wouldn't want you in my platoon or fox hole.

The Indians are doing pretty good in my neck of the woods:

http://www.seminolehardrock.com/
http://www.miccosukee.com/
http://www.casinocity.com/us/fl/coconutcreek/semcocre/

In fact their Indian dancing all the way to the bank $$$$$$ Mot-to(thank you in seminole) and Aw-lip-ka shaw(good bye)

 

[av8torntn]

Some commentary that seems fair.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09042007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/iraq_inspection.htm?page=0

 

[diesel96]

"Fair and Balanced" hmmm NY Post....Good ole Rupert Murdock's Newspaper,owner of Fox News......Anyway one of the author's quotes from this article states;

"Given the complexity of the situation in Iraq - problems that date back not just to 2003, but to biblical days - no one can guarantee success, however humbly we measure it. But quitting will guarantee failure, with gruesome long-term costs."


Besides the Iraq citizens,does this author realize US citizens are already paying gruesome long term costs?
Beside the gruesome cost taxpayers has paid for this war,hasn't American Families paid the ultimate price already with the loss of their loved ones in the Middle East ?
American people are tired of Iraq war supporters banging us on the head with using terms such as "quitting" and "failure".
American people are demanding a New Direction on the Iraq war. It is time to wind down this war and begin to bring our troops home safely and soon. We have to stop being in the business of "Nation Building". Now this Administration is beating the war drum on Iran.

You can not begin to put a price tag on on our troops:
PRICE PAID BY U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ
· June, July, and August 2007 have marked the bloodiest summer so far for U.S. troops in Iraq. [icasualties.org]
· U.S. casualties in Iraq are 65 percent higher this year than at this time in 2006. [icasualties.org]
· As of August 29th, 3,731 U.S. troops have been killed and more than 27,660 have been wounded in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003. [Department of Defense, 8/29/07]

COST TO U.S. TAXPAYERS
· Congress has already appropriated nearly $477 billion for the war in Iraq since March 2003.

· According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the U.S. is spending an estimated $10 billion per month in Iraq. [CRS, 6/28/07]

COST OF THE WAR BROKEN DOWN ​

o Month: $10,000,000,000 ​

o Week: $2,307,692,380 ​

o Day: $329,670,330​

o Hour: $13,736,264​

o Minute: $228,938​

o Second: $3,816​

· The Pentagon cannot account for more than 190,000 weapons – paid for by U.S. taxpayers – given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005. [Washington Post, 8/6/07]
· At least $10 billion in taxpayer dollars has been squandered by the government in Iraq reconstruction contracts according to U.S. auditors. [MSNBC, 2/15/07]
WHAT ELSE WE COULD DO WITH SOME OF THE MONEY SPENT ON IRAQ WAR SO FAR?
How bout invest in
America.....Transportation,Education,Healthcare(especially our wounded veterans),Security,Immigration,FEMA,New Orleans,Poverty,etc....

Esimated costs by the time GW and this Admin. step down(IF they relinquish power) will be set at 1 Trillon dollars(I don't even know how many zeros that is).

By rebuilding and making Iraq safer for Iraq'ees we are neglecting our own people here in America.

 

[av8torntn]

I know you seek failure in Iraq. I know you do not believe in the constitution and you think the federal government should pay for your health care and something else in New Orleans. You want to complain about the money the federal government is spending but you also want them to be your baby sitter. You should know by now that national security is a role I believe is suitable for the federal government.

Here is some more news from someone even the most goofy liberals think is liberal. http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_247203227.html

Maybe you can start another thread and explain why the federal government should provide health care ,FEMA ,education, New Orleans, and poverty ect.

If you want to complain about my link being from a conservative source(hard to stop laughing when I type that) you should not post a reference from MSNBC.

 

[diesel96]

I know you seek failure in Iraq. I know you do not believe in the constitution and you think the federal government should pay for your health care and something else in New Orleans. You want to complain about the money the federal government is spending but you also want them to be your baby sitter. You should know by now that national security is a role I believe is suitable for the federal government.

Here is some more news from someone even the most goofy liberals think is liberal. http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_247203227.html

Maybe you can start another thread and explain why the federal government should provide health care ,FEMA ,education, New Orleans, and poverty ect.

If you want to complain about my link being from a conservative source(hard to stop laughing when I type that) you should not post a reference from MSNBC.

How typical, a classic Conservative response.
Right out of the "Republican's Secret Manuel Handboook" of quelling opposite view points and speech.
How dare someone with a different opinion disagree with a link you publicly posted. TRAITORS!
How un-American of me utilizing my freedom of speech and employing the checks and balances our constitution was built on.
BTW...I didn't realize the Constitution stipulated the Federal Gov't should or should not, pay for Healthcare or New Orleans.
Complain about Money, Geez,what got into me?. It's only a trillon--gazillon dollars.
I guess we shouldn't invest in The United States...Iraq'ee's security and nationbuilding is more priorty than the American People and the Infrastructure of OUR country! ...
And the Right Wing claims we(the majority) don't love our Country.

 

[av8torntn]

Article 1 of the US constitution may help you. Here it is by your posts I can tell you probably have never read it. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html#articlei
Article 1 does list all the powers of the federal government. I just read it again and saw where it gives the government the power to declare war. Maybe you could show me your New Orleans section or FEMA section or poverty section or education section. The Constitution is very specific on the powers of the government so it should be easy for you to show me the New Orleans article.


And you were the one complaining about the source of the information. So this would be right out of the liberal handbook of double standards.Yes the same as we support the troops but not the war, our troops are to stupid to do anything else but we support our troops, or we support our troops but we do not want their vote to count in the presidential election because they tend to vote more republican. The same handbook that says the constitution says we have free speech but it must be wrong about the right to bear arms. So yet another double standard from a liberal. I of course am no longer surprised by anything I see on here from you. I do find it odd that you would want to use the constitution to make your point.