Hello:

The rightwingers think Bush won the war with the surge. I say the surge just kept the lid on a civil war that will eventually break out.

So, do YOU think keeping 130,000 of our combat troops in Iraq means we won?? I'll bet some of you do...

excon

No winning would mean that their government runs itself and follows the will of the people, ( even if that will is not what we want)

Fr Chuck's definition of "winning" is interesting, and I'm not going to discount it.

But if that is the correct definition, then it seems to me that we did win.

It was based on an agreement with the Iraqi government, (one that commanders on the ground generally disagreed with) that we have now pulled our troops out of urban areas and have placed them in rural areas. At the same time, the Iraqi security force has grown to roughly 600,000. Ergo, by Chuck's definition, the Iraqis are in control of their own destiny, whether we like it or not, which is an indicator that we did indeed win... at least under his definition.

Keeping 130,000 troops in Iraq means absolutely nothing. Just as the following military deployments (as per Wikipedia) mean absolutely nothing in terms of winning or losing wars.



South Korea – 27,014
Japan – 32,803
Philippines - 95
Diego Garcia - 311
Jakarta, Indonesia - 27
Singapore – 125
Thailand – 96
Malaysia - 15
Australia - 140
Marshall Islands - 17
New Zealand - 5
Germany – 57,080
Souda Bay, Greece - 386
Italy – 9,855 [15]
United Kingdom – 9,825
Spain – 1,286
Norway - 81
Sweden - 12
Turkey – 1,594
Belgium – 1,328
Portugal – 826
Netherlands – 579
Greece – 363
Greenland - 126
Qatar – 411
Bahrain – 1,495
Antigua - 2
Colombia - 123
Saint Helena - 3
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – 932
Ecuador - 36
Netherlands Antilles - 10
Kuwait - 10
Oman - 36
United Arab Emirates - 96



The fact that there are troops in these places indicates NOTHING to anyone except you.

But I guess to you having 57,000 troops in Germany, 32,000 in Japan, 10,000 in the UK and another 10,000 in Italy is an indicator that we're losing WWII. After all, it's the same logic... if the troops are there, it must be an indicator that we haven't won.

So, do you think we're losing WWII? After all, we still have roughly 110,000 in WWII AOs.

Elliot

Is eventual civil war considered the Iraqis being in control of their own destiny, and can we still say we won?

Keeping 130,000 troops in Iraq means absolutely nothing.



South Korea – 27,014
Japan – 32,803
Philippines - 95
Diego Garcia - 311
Jakarta, Indonesia - 27
Singapore – 125
Thailand – 96
Malaysia - 15
Australia - 140
Marshall Islands - 17
New Zealand - 5
Germany – 57,080
Souda Bay, Greece - 386
Italy – 9,855 [15]
United Kingdom – 9,825
Spain – 1,286
Norway - 81
Sweden - 12
Turkey – 1,594
Belgium – 1,328
Portugal – 826
Netherlands – 579
Greece – 363
Greenland - 126
Qatar – 411
Bahrain – 1,495
Antigua - 2
Colombia - 123
Saint Helena - 3
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – 932
Ecuador - 36
Netherlands Antilles - 10
Kuwait - 10
Oman - 36
United Arab Emirates - 96


The fact that there are troops in these places indicates NOTHING to anyone except you.Hello again, El:

I don't know. Seems to me that if we withdrew our troops from any or all the countries on your list, none of those countries would erupt into civil war. Iraq would.

If you're right about ME being the only one in the world who GETS that distinction, then the world better catch up with this exconvict.

excon

Actually, if we withdrew from any of several locations I listed, the result would be war.

For instance, the only thing keeping North Korea from invading or bombing South Korea is our presence in South Korea and Japan. Ditto any invasions from China.

There are quite a few similar situations around the world where our presence is the only thing preventing a war.

If we measure success by what would happen if we pull out, then Afghanistan is ALSO a failure, because if we pull out, Afghanistan falls into civil war against the Taliban.

BTW, by that measure, Kosovo and Bosnia are failures too.

So... if our presence in Iraq is preventing a civil war, doesn't that indicate that our presence there is EFFECTIVE in a positive way? Why would that be an indicator that we are losing in Iraq? Our presence there is keeping a civil war from happening... that's a measure of SUCCESS, not failure.

Or do you always measure the prevention of wars and invasions as failures?

Seems to me that you have a very screwed up measurement for success and failure in the military arena.

Elliot

Actually, if we withdrew from any of several locations I listed, the result would be [civil] war.
Civil war is a bad thing? What about the one in this country way back then?

Is the U.S. the world's policeman?

Is the U.S. the world's policeman?

Yes, since the ineffectual United Nations decided a "DO NOTHING" policy was the best policy. The rest of the World would be content to sit back, stuff their collective heads in the sand and let terrorism and unstable dictators do what ever they want, IE, kill millions of their own people, because it is not in their back yard yet! The reasons that is trus is a topic for a future thread.

Donn you don't have the right to be the world's policeman because you suck at it, sometimes causing or escalating conflicts so you can control those places politically. The reason the UN cannot act is because all the possible power brokers have a seat on the security council pursuing their political interests take away RUssia and China and you would see more action because the US would be able to pursue it's political interest and visa versa. Let's face it; the US, Russia and China have been behind most of the big conflicts since WWII the other side shows have involved some smaller players but one senses their hand there too.

You have to ask why does the US still have large contingents in Europe, WWII has been over for 60 years, the cold war has been over for 20 years and Iraq doesn't need a permanent Yankee garrison. In my own country we are thankfull the US went home after WWII

Victory in Iraq should've been declared sometime around Nov 27 ,2008 . On that day the Iraqi Parliament ratified a security agreement that set the course for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The pact replaced an expired U.N. mandate. It gives Iraq authority over about 150,000 U.S. troops in the country, who withdrew from all towns this month and will completely withdraw by 2011 (although Obama insists all US trrops will be out by August of next year). Iraqi forces have already taken the primary responsibility in policing and their security . U.S. troops will return to the cities only if asked by the Iraqis . The U.S. military will continue combat operations in rural areas and near the border, but only with the Iraqi government's permission.

If you like we could declare VI day on June 30. That was the day we completely withdrew from Baghdad.
Al-Maliki declared a public holiday and proclaimed June 30 as "National Sovereignty Day." There were fireworks celebrations in the city .

It has always been the objective to bring democracy to irag.
Irag being the step for iran.

Hello z:

Funny. I thought the objective was to find and destroy WMD's. Plus, I don't think the way you bring democracy to a nation is to attack them. I just don't think that works very well. You do?? Well, you think snooping is cool, so I guess attacking a country that didn't attack us and wasn't a threat to us is cool, too. I don't. The world doesn't either.

excon

The reason the UN cannot act is because all the possible power brokers have a seat on the security council pursuing their political interests take away RUssia and China and you would see more action because the US would be able to pursue it's political interest and visa versa.

Yes Clete, and when they do decide to take action it's to "deplore" the situation which is meaningless. Either that or UN 'peacekeepers' get busy raping the local population.


You have to ask why does the US still have large contingents in Europe, WWII has been over for 60 years, the cold war has been over for 20 years and Iraq doesn't need a permanent Yankee garrison. In my own country we are thankfull the US went home after WWII

I suppose North Korea, China, Russia, Iran etc. are no longer a threat?

I for one would be happy if we quit defending Munich beer halls . As for the rest ;just like currently in Iraq,we are there with the blessing of the nation's government .The Aussies did not want us to stick around and we didn't .

donn you don't have the right to be the world's policeman because you suck at it, sometimes causing or escalating conflicts so you can control those places politically. The reason the UN cannot act is because all the possible power brokers have a seat on the security council pursuing their political interests take away RUssia and China and you would see more action because the US would be able to pursue it's political interest and visa versa. let's face it; the US, Russia and China have been behind most of the big conflicts since WWII the other side shows have involved some smaller players but one senses their hand there too.

You have to ask why does the US still have large contingents in Europe, WWII has been over for 60 years, the cold war has been over for 20 years and Iraq doesn't need a permanent Yankee garrison. In my own country we are thankfull the US went home after WWII

I think you are quite correct, Paraclete. We are absolutely terrible at being the world's policemen. Sending the world's most powerful military force to act as policemen is like sending tanks to do the job of cars... we can move the people from place to place effectively enough, but we're going to make a huge mess of the roads in the process, it is going to be slow going, and the people are going to be uncomfortable during the ride. The US military makes a lousy police force because it was never created to be a police force.

So why does the world keep calling on us to do that job? The UN, the EU, NATO, etc. all keep calling on us to be the one who enforces the rules they impose.

Saddam Husein invades Kuwait. Who does the UN call on to be the force that pushes him out? The USA.

Russia invades Georgia. Who does the EU call to sort out the mess? The USA.

Problems in Kosovo. Who becomes the major military force to keep the ethnic factions at bay? The USA.

China is rattling its sabre again. Who does the world call on to get them to think twice? The USA.

North Korea is testing nuclear missile technology. Who does the world call on to put a leash on them? The USA.

Iran is secretly making nuclear weapons and shooting pro-democracy protestors in the street. Who does the world turn to for a strong statement on the issue? The USA. (They didn't get it this time, but that's a different story. They still LOOKED to us.)

In fact, every time there's any sort of emergency, whether it is military, political, diplomatic, or a natural disaster, the world calls on the USA to fix it.

In every year of the past 2 decades the US military has handed out more food, water and blankets, created more temporary shelters, filled and placed more sandbags, and provided more engineering and logistical support in disaster situations than all of the world's disaster recovery and refugee assistance charities combined (including the Red Cross and all its affiliates).

So perhaps you are right. Perhaps we should stop playing the world's police force.

But without us to do it, who will? If the USA says no, who will the UN, the EU, NATO and all the countries of the world call on to take up the slack?

Face it, Paraclete. Like it or not, WE are the ones your Australia turns to when they need someone to act as policeman to the rest of the world. They may hate doing so. YOU may hate doing so. But there ain't nobody else big enough to do the job. That's the problem with being the largest economic superpower and the only remaining military superpower. We automatically become everyone else's policeman.

So... if we have such a good military, why is it so bad at being a good police force?

In order to understand that, you have to understand the nature of military forces throughout the world. There are basically three types of military forces.

1) Parade forces
2) Internal Security forces
3) Field armies

Parade forces are just that. They are created to look nice and make nice parades, but when it comes to actual battle, either internally or externally, they can't do the job. Other types of military forces can make parades too, but with parade forces, that is ALL they really know how to do.

Internal Security forces are essentially big police forces. They are trained to suppress civil unrest and stop coups. However, when it comes to open battle against an enemy military that is similarly armed and well trained, they fail miserably. These are the types of forces we saw in Iraqi military and what we are essentially seeing from the military in Iran. (Incidentally, because these forces are trained to suppress military coups by capturing key locations in a city like radio stations, telephone control stations, utilities control centers, etc. they are also particularly good at creating a coup as well. That is the problem with having such a force as your primary military force.) Internal security forces make great cops. They know how to suppress a coup by using the minimum amount of force necessary, but can ratchet up the casualties if they so desire in order to cow the civilian population.

Field forces, on the other hand, are created for a single purpose only. Their job is to meet any enemy on the filed of battle, regardless of the enemy's armament and training, and kill that enemy. They do not use "minimum force". They use the maximum force necessary to get the job done in the minimum amount of time. They ignore civilian casualties in favor of getting the job done (though the better trained field militaries try to minimize civilian casualties as well, even if it makes the job a bit harder). Because of their training, they make lousy internal security forces. When used as an internal security force, they tend to use too much force and end up killing civillians, which ends up causing more enimity than would have existed if they had stayed out of it in the first place.

The US military is 90% field forces. The only forces within the US military that are NOT field forces are the Military Police (MPs). That's why when things started looking bad in Iraq, the Generals on the ground were calling for more MPs to be sent to Iraq. The regular soldiers, good as they are at their own jobs, are not good policemen. They overreact to minor attacks that could be suppressed by non-lethal force and end up pi$$ing off the locals. Whereas MPs are trained to use minimal force like an internal security force.

Field forces and Internal Security forces can be parade forces when necessary. Parade forces can never be Field forces or Internal security forces.

Internal Security forces can sometimes be used as field forces IF the enemy is poorly trained and poorly armed. Against an equal opposing force, they fail miserably. The war gets drawn out and casualties rise, because Internal Security forces are unwilling to commit to battle in the way needed to win a war quickly.

A Field Force can act as an Internal Security force for very short periods, and only if they are protecting the area from a military enemy. If they are in that capacity in the long term, or if they are trying to protect the area from a civilian enemy, they will overreact and fail in their job.

So I think you are correct, Paraclete. The US military makes a lousy police force. It was never intended to act in that capacity. And yet the world still calls on us in that capacity. Who's fault is that?

Wmd's was the excuse to go in the objective was to spread democrisy as a stepping stone for us dealing with iran your short sighted on this one due to politics

Do you really think there are winners in Iraq, that the US will leave Iraq any less corrupt than it was when they invaded.

What victory has the US achieved, stirring up old hatreds and setting the stage for civil war. So now 150,000 US troops sit around and wait, I cannot think of anything more demoralising. The US would be better served by putting them all on the next plane to Afghanistan or even better still the US. But they cannot go home to add the unemployment queues so they may as well take their unemployment benefit in Iraq.

Elliot, the world doesn't call on the US, the US makes itself available, there is a big difference. The UN is a construct fully supported by the US as a means of exercising its political clout in the world. It gives them the excuse of being sanctioned while keeping others in check. It was devised as a check on Soviet Russia in WWII because the US foresaw that after the war Russia would be expansionist.

As to turning to the US, we didn't need you in East Timor, in fact it was convenient for you that we were here. We didn't need you in the Solomon's intervention. The fact is the rest of the world is willing and able to take action if you will stand back and stop antagonising states like Iran and Nth. Korea with your sabre rattling. Maybe Georgia needed a smack in the mouth, things aren't as clear cut as they might seem down there. In Afghanistan, we are all helping in what is really a US war, Al Qaeda didn't attack us but we all see that this sort of thing cannot be allowed. This is perhaps the one action in recent times that can be justified. I think it is good you stood back when Israel punished Gaza, if you hadn't it would have escalated, that is more that politics in the US was in transition rather than good judgment

. So now 150,000 US troops sit around and wait,


Wow last I heard they were training iragi military,rebuilding schools protecting civil leaders
You know spreading democrisy.
Troops would be shocked to hear you say sitting around
I don't know were you get that from

So now 150,000 US troops sit around and wait, I cannot think of anything more demoralising.


My cousin has been in Iraq virtually non-stop deployed since OIF began. By his account they are not in any way demoralized. They see the good they have done and continue to do .

Talk about drinking the kool-aid

My cousin has been in Iraq virtually non-stop deployed since OIF began. by his account they are not in any way demoralized. They see the good they have done and continue to do .

Wait and see Tom, it is early days yet, they are still flushed with their "success", but when there is nothing to shoot at, no visits to the flesh pots, they may have a different view, and of course, once they are all in the barracks they are an easier target. It might be like shooting fish in a barrel. I don't wish it on them but having them on base isn't a great strategic idea when you have an enemy who specialises in truck bombs. Remember Beriut. If the US is lucky all the muslim jihadists will now switch to defending Afghanistan and exit Iraq

I don't see you can say there is a victory. I actually see it as a defeat for democracy. Iraq got democracy at the point of a gun, the same way it got autocracy. All it did was swap one dictator for another. All the US really changed was the allegiance from Russia to the US and it remains to be seen if you actually achieved that.

The US also placed a sword at Iran's throat and strangely enough you wonder why they want nuclear weapons. With a buildup of US troops in Afghanistan I would think Iran would begin to see itself surrounded

Many democracies are beggoten by the point of a gun and many people have been liberated from tyranny at the point of a gun.

Yes the fate of the Iraqi's is largely in their hands now as it should be . We have already negotiated our departure. Until then we are still in a theater of operations under terms of an agreement with the duly elected ,democratic and legitimate government of the state .

I didn't see anyone MAKING the iagi people vote? These people were happy to have a say in they're government remember the purple fingers that was at the point of a gun?wrong
You wait and see sir
When irag becomes stable and productive and its people productive and have good lives the iranian people are going to look over and say you know what were tired of this crap we want to live like that,than we will have our victory

I think that dynamic is already being manifest in the protests in Iran over the fradulent elections that re-elected the Mahdi-hatter Ahmamadjihad. What many people do not realize is that many of the people in Iran are more influenced by the Shia clerics on the Iraqi side of the border like Sistani, than the gang of delusional Ayatollahs awaiting the return of the 12th Mahdi .

When I was in Tehran my impression was that at least the youths I met were freedom loving people. Now they see Iraqi's beginning to realize their dreams and say "when's our turn ?"

If one doesn't believe that then I'd just have to aske them why were so many of the protest banners written in English ?

Do you really think there are winners in Iraq,

Yes. The Iraqi people, who now have higher employment, better jobs, more income, better lifestyles, and have gotten rid of a tyranical government that oppressed them.


that the US will leave Iraq any less corrupt than it was when they invaded.

No. I think ALL Middle Eastern governments are corrupt. And I include Israel in that as well, despite my support for Israel. But our goal wasn't to stop corruption. Our goal was to topple a tyrannical regime. We accomplished that goal AND through the troop surge, we brought a relative cease-fire to the country. There are incidents of violence there still, but there is relative peace insofar as the regular Iraqi on the street can go about his normal life now. THAT is a victory.


What victory has the US achieved, stirring up old hatreds and setting the stage for civil war.

A civil war that is NOT happening... BECAUSE OF US. That's a victory as well, even if you don't recognize it. The Iraqi Sunni are not killing the Iraqi Shia, and vice versa, because OF THE WORK OF THE US MILITARY. That's cause for celebration, not a reason to hang our head in defeat.


So now 150,000 US troops sit around and wait, I cannot think of anything more demoralising.

Having met literally HUNDREDS of troops now home from Iraq, I can tell you that the LAST thing our troops are is demoralized. They're actually pretty stoked about what they've accomplished there.


The US would be better served by putting them all on the next plane to Afghanistan or even better still the US.

I agree that we could use some more troops in Afghanistan. But they shouldn't be pulled from Iraq. We have enough troops available to pull them from elsewhere.

I'm not sure what good pulling them back to the US border would be


But they cannot go home to add the unemployment queues so they may as well take their unemployment benefit in Iraq.

Not sure what to make of this comment. But it doesn't make sense.


Elliot, the world doesn't call on the US, the US makes itself available, there is a big difference.

Ahhh... WRONG!! The UN is CONSTANTLY calling on the USA to take action (diplomatic or military) all over the world. Kuwait was just one example. Kosovo was another. They have been calling on US intervention in Darfur for years now.


The UN is a construct fully supported by the US as a means of exercising its political clout in the world. It gives them the excuse of being sanctioned while keeping others in check.

By that argument, the USA is the controlling body of the UN. What the USA says is what the UN does.

It didn't work that way with regard to Iraq, though. The USA said we should invade Iraq, the UN said no. Which means that the UN is not just a construct of the USA. It also means your argument is full of cr@p.


It was devised as a check on Soviet Russia in WWII because the US foresaw that after the war Russia would be expansionist.

BRILLIANT... take the party that you are trying to "check" and give it one-vote-veto power of the UN Security Council. If the purpose of the USA creating the UN was to put a check on the Soviets, why would we give the Soviets so much power within the UN? How did creating the UN create a check on Soviet power?

The point of the UN was NOT to be a check on the Soviets, but rather to create a network of nations that would act as go-betweens when the USA and the Soviet Union weren't talking to each other. The UN was designed as a NETWORKING AND MUTUAL DEFENCE ORGANIZATION in the same mold as the failed League of Nations. Nothing more.


As to turning to the US, we didn't need you in East Timor, in fact it was convenient for you that we were here. We didn't need you in the Solomon's intervention.

Yep. There are times that other countries have been happy to not call on the USA for intervention. And the USA has been happy to stay out of those situations. But the fact that there were times that you didn't call on us doesn't eliminate the majority of times when you did.


The fact is the rest of the world is willing and able to take action if you will stand back and stop antagonising states like Iran and Nth. Korea with your sabre rattling.

Interesting. Last year, the UK, France and Germany were all telling us that we need to be more involved in the multi-lateral communications with N Korea, China and Iran. Bush had specifically stayed OUT of the negotiations so as not to antagonize these foreign powers, and allowed other countries to lead negotiations for nuclear disarmament and divestation of the nuclear programs of N Korea and Iran, and China's usual sabre-rattling. These other countries were complaining about how they needed the USA to become more engaged.

Seems to me that you are forgetting very recent history.


Maybe Georgia needed a smack in the mouth, things aren't as clear cut as they might seem down there.

Possibly true. But Georgia's only sin was a failure to stop Chechen terrorists from using the Pankisi Gorge as a safe haven. Since the Chechen terrorists outnumber and outgun the Georgian military, it isn't because Georgia hasn't tried. In fact, they have on a number of occasions and have had their heads handed to them. And since the Russians have had no better success at getting rid of Chechen terrorists in Chechnya, they really have no cause to blame Georgia for it's failure to do what they have also been unable to do. So an invasion of Georgia was unvcalled for. The Russians should have been lending AID to Georgia instead of invading.

But the truth is that for all that Putin claimed that his reason for the invasion was to stop the Chechens in the Pankisi Gorge, he hasn't taken any action against them. Which leads me to believe that that was just an excuse. The REAL reason for the invasion had NOTHING to do with the movement of rebel terrorists in Georgia. It was Putin sending a warning to the USA... if you support the former Soviet countries against Russia, especially by giving them a missile defense system, we will take action against them.

So in essence, it wasn't an attack against Georgia per se. The invasion was an attack against the USA'a allies. Which means that RUSSIA was the one calling on the USA to take action.

And last week, Obama did. He agreed to disarm some of his nukes. He punked out.

But my point is that the USA didn't just crash the party vis-à-vis Georgia, it was invited.


In Afghanistan, we are all helping in what is really a US war, Al Qaeda didn't attack us but we all see that this sort of thing cannot be allowed. This is perhaps the one action in recent times that can be justified.

And we thank you for your participation and for standing with us.


I think it is good you stood back when Israel punished Gaza, if you hadn't it would have escalated, that is more that politics in the US was in transition rather than good judgment

And yet the UN constantly calls for the USA to take diplomatic action to slap down Israel, either with sanctions or by eliminating aid. They call on the USA to FORCE Israel into concessions that are bad for its security. Sometimes the USA listens, sometimes not. But the point is that with regard to Israel, the UN constantly calls on the USA to be it's "enforcer". Which just adds to my point that the world constantly calls on the USA to be its policeman.

YOU may not want that. I certainly don't want it. But nevertheless, that is what happens.

Elliot

Yes. The Iraqi people, who now have higher employment, better jobs, more income, better lifestyles, and have gotten rid of a tyranical government that oppressed them.Hello again, El:

Tyranical government who oppressed them?? What the hell are you talking about?? What about OUR occupying force? You don't think occupiers are oppressive?? You really don't you, do you??

What about the 600,000 or so DEAD Iraqi's?? Are they better off??

You've gone off the deep end.

excon

I don't see how the troops who are widely accepted and appreciated by the iraqi people can be likend to a tyrannical dictator?

600,000 dead civilians can you back that up?

I dont see how the troops who are widely accepted and appreciated by the iraqi people can be likend to a tyrannical dictator?

600,000 dead civilians can you back that up?Hello again, z:

If they're so widely accepted and appreciated, why can't they come home?? The answer is, that there's PLENTY of Iraqi's who DON'T appreciate them, and want to kill them because they occupy their country.

I don't know about you, and I couldn't care what the reason might be. However, if ANY country is occupying MINE, I'm going to drive 'em out with everything I have. You wouldn't??

600,000 dead Iraqi's?? No. I can't back it up. Would it make you feel better if it was only say, 250,000? How about 100,000?

excon

It would make me feel better if you would accept the fact that any and all gains in iaq,well help us in dealing with iran.and iran is the bigger picture they are the threat

it would make me feel better if you would accept the fact that any and all gains in iaq,well help us in dealing with iran.and iran is the bigger picture they are the threatHello again, z:

You're a nice person, but I'm not here to make you feel better.

I agree. Iran is the problem... Then why did we take out Iran's biggest enemy?? It actually makes no sense on its face. The war was a disaster from the beginning. It did us NO GOOD!! In fact, it did us BAD!

Or am I missing something here?? What GOOD did it do us??

excon

I think that dynamic is already being manifest in the protests in Iran over the fradulent elections that re-elected the Mahdi-hatter Ahmamadjihad. What many people do not realize is that many of the people in Iran are more influenced by the Shia clerics on the Iraqi side of the border like Sistani, than the gang of delusional Ayatollahs awaiting the return of the 12th Mahdi .


?

This is what we are trying to do make the iranian people stand up for themselves

Oh thank you and you are a nice person as well

Hello again, El:

Tyranical government who oppressed them?? What the hell are you talking about?? What about OUR occupying force? You don't think occupiers are oppressive?? You really don't you, do you??

No, not all "occupiers" are oppressive. Especially when the "occupiers" just got rid of the guy who killed 2 million of your people with gas and jailed, raped and tortured (the REAL kind of torture) a few million more. Occupier does not necessarily mean oppressor.

Or do you believe that the Israeli "occupiers" in the West Bank and Gaza were "oppressing" the Arabs, and that this is what led to the Intafada? How were the Palestinians being oppressed? By being given schools, hospitals, roads, electricity, water, and homes to live in?

Not everyone who occupies a piece of land is an oppressor, excon. You should know better than that.


What about the 600,000 or so DEAD Iraqi's?? Are they better off??

No. But I'll bet their families are. Those deaths are unfortunate. But they do not define the American occupation of Iraq.


You've gone off the deep end.

Excon

And you passed the deep end long ago. Your hatred of Bush and "his war" has so blinded you to what has been accomplished in Iraq.

I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink.

Elliot

I agree. Iran is the problem.... Then why did we take out Iran's biggest enemy????? It actually makes no sense on its face. The war was a disaster from the beginning. It did us NO GOOD!!!!!!!! In fact, it did us BAD!

Or am I missing something here??? What GOOD did it do us?????Hello again, El:

I see that you think we did a marvelous thing for the Iraqi people... But, I didn't know that it was our job to save them, and then rebuild their nation... I didn't know that conservatives were so compassionate about the plight of the worlds downtrodden people. I didn't know you were such do gooder. In fact, if I didn't know better, your crap is sounding awfully liberal!

But, I want to know what the dufus's folly in Iraq did for US. That would be you and me, and our children... What did it do to the 4,000 dead American soldiers, and the countless 1,000's who have been maimed? Go ahead. Tell me how THEY benefited?

excon

Hello again, El:

I see that you think we did a marvelous thing for the Iraqi people... But, I didn't know that it was our job to save them, and then rebuild their nation... I didn't know that conservatives were so compassionate about the plight of the worlds downtrodden people. I didn't know you were such do gooder. In fact, if I didn't know better, your crap is sounding awfully liberal!

Ahhh, excon. You've never understood conservatism. Conservatism... TRUE conservatism, is actually more compassionate than liberalism ever was. Liberals take money from other people who are rich and give it to the poor in the form of welfare. Conservatives give of their OWN MONEY to help the poor via charity. Conservatism ALWAYS puts it's money where its mouth is. And keep in mind, we're the party that eliminated slavery.

Keep in mind this term: COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM


But, I want to know what the dufus's folly in Iraq did for US. That would be you and me, and our children... What did it do to the 4,000 dead American soldiers, and the countless 1,000's who have been maimed? Go ahead. Tell me how THEY benefited?

Excon

First of all, it seems to me that for 8 years or so, all the Islamic terrorists of the world were concentrated in one place instead of being all over the world. Every terrorist in Iraq (and there were LOTS of them) was one that wasn't able to attack someone elsewhere... like on Main Street, USA. And every terrorist captured or killed in Iraq is one that is not available today to attack Man Street, USA.

But of course, you were unable to answer my prior point, so you changed the argument again. You tried to argue that the war in Iraq was a FAILURE. When I pointed out how it was not a failure, you changed your argument to try to say that the USA got nothing out of it. That's a completely different point. One that is also demonstrably wrong, but different from what you said before. You've been doing that a lot lately.

Elliot

First of all, it seems to me that for 8 years or so, all the Islamic terrorists of the world were concentrated in one place instead of being all over the world. Hello again, El:

I see. So we started the war because we're such wonderful people, and so that we could concentrate the terrorists all in one place. Is that the story you're sticking to today? And what, exactly did concentrating them into one area accomplish?

Besides, I don't think we concentrated enough of them in Iraq, either. There were still a few bombings in the world, no?

excon

First of all, it seems to me that for 8 years or so, all the Islamic terrorists of the world were concentrated in one place instead of being all over the world. Every terrorist in Iraq (and there were LOTS of them) was one that wasn't able to attack someone elsewhere... like on Main Street, USA. And every terrorist captured or killed in Iraq is one that is not available today to attack Man Street, USA.

Elliot

That's the first time I've heard that excuse for the Iraq war used. I think you should get out of banking and into politics. With spin doctoring like that you obviously missed your calling in life. ;)

You never heard President Bush say [paraphrase] 'we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here ?'

Hello again, El:

I see. So we started the war because we're such wonderful people, and so that we could concentrate the terrorists all in one place.

Actually, we started the war for the reasons that George Bush gave the UN. Namely:

1)Saddam's mon-compliance with 17sepparate UNSC resolutions.
2)Attempted development of WMDs.
3)Refusal to prove the disarmament of existing WMDs.
4)Repression of the Iraqi people.
5)Violations of human rights
6)Support for international terrorism, including sheltering of international terrorists, establishment of terrorist training camps, and financial support of terrorism.
7)Refusal to account for Gulf War POWs and MIAs.
8)Refusal to return stolen Kuwaiti property, primarily military equipment.
9)Efforts to circumvent economic sanctions and impede the oil-for-food program.

Concentrating the terrorists in one place was just a bonus.


Is that the story you're sticking to today? And what, exactly did concentrating them into one area accomplish?

The creation of a target-rich environment.


Besides, I don't think we concentrated enough of them in Iraq, either. There were still a few bombings in the world, no?

Excon

Yep. Nothing is 100% perfect. But it was better than it had been for the 40+ years prior... fewer attacks world-wide, more dead terrorists in Iraq. It's the best that could be hoped for in military terms.

Unless, of course, what you are hoping for is that terrorists continue to attack the USA at the rate of 1-2 attacks per year (the average for the prior 40 years). If that is your desire, then yes, the Iraq war was a complete failure.

But since most of us are trying to AVOID being attacked, and since most of us see FEWER attacks and fewer terrorists left alive to perform attacks as a GOOD THING, I think I'll chalk up this one as a "win".

Elliot

That's the first time I've heard that excuse for the Iraq war used. I think you should get out of banking and into politics. With spin doctoring like that you obviously missed your calling in life. ;)

That's because you misunderstand me. That wasn't the REASON for the war. The reasons for the war were delineated by Bush before the war took place.

1)Non-compliance with 17sepparate UNSC resolutions.
2)Attempted development of WMDs.
3)Refusal to prove the disarmament of existing WMDs.
4)Repression of the Iraqi people.
5)Violations of human rights
6)Support for international terrorism, including sheltering of international terrorists, establishment of terrorist training camps, and financial support of terrorism.
7)Refusal to account for Gulf War POWs and MIAs.
8)Refusal to return stolen Kuwaiti property, primarily military equipment.
9)Efforts to circumvent economic sanctions and impede the oil-for-food program

The concentration of terrorists in one place was simply an effect of the war... and a bonus.

Excon asked what the EFFECT of the war was... what did the war accomplish. He did not ask why we went to war. You and he are both confused between the CAUSES of the war and the EFFECTS of the war.

Hope this makes you a bit less confused.

Elliot

hello excon,
i have a question?
please dont take this as disrespect.
Why are we talking about this?
isnt this yesterdays news?

That's because excon can't admit that any Bush policy could ever have been a good one. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence of that fact, excon is so blinded by his hatred of anything related to Bush that he cannot admit that Bush was right about Iraq. EVEN OBAMA has admitted that his position regarding Iraq was wrong... that the "troop surge" DID help things emmensely and that things are more peaceful in Iraq today. But Excon can't admit it. He neve will. And because he's stuck in the mode of Bush Derangement Syndrome, he's going to continue to try to paint the war in Iraq as a failure when it clearly is not.

Elliot

he's going to continue to try to paint the war in Iraq as a failure when it clearly is not.Hello again, El:

Clearly, huh? Ummmh, umhhh, ummmh.

excon

Hello again, El:

Clearly, huh? Ummmh, umhhh, ummmh.

excon

Well, "clearly" to anyone but you.

Hello again, El:

If we won, what did we get? A stronger Iran? Over 4,000 dead Americans? Billions and billions of wasted money??

Yeah, we won all right.

excon

Yes we did win.

What we won:

25 million people no longer under a terrorist-supporting dictatorial regime. That's a good thing in anyone's estimate. (Except those who support dicatators, so I'm not quite sure how you feel about it.)

Access to Iraqi markets for sale of our products and purchase of theirs (including oil).

A relatively safe harbor and basing rights for our military.

A strategic logistics base for operations in other areas in the Middle East.

An example to the rest of the Middle East that we will support democratic reform. (Of course that positive example is being offset by Obama's NEGATIVE example in Iran. So although we won that particular item, Obama is throwing it out the window.)

I know that you have trouble thinking either globally or in the long term, but these are tangible gains from the war in Iraq. These qualify as "winning" in Iraq, whether you can accept it or not.

Yes, we won in Iraq. Saddam Hussein lost. AQ lost. The tribal/sectarian forces that tried to throw the country into a civil war lost.

Those forces may return and may be triumphant some time in the future, if we do not take care to guard against it. They COULD come back. But if they do, it won't be because we lost now. It will be because we weren't vigilant in the future.

As for billions and billions of wasted money, I don't see you screaming about wasted money when it comes to nationalized health care... an estimated $23 TRILLION in wasted money over the next 10 years, according to the CBO's numbers from yesterday. I guess wasted money only matters SOMETIMES. Personally, I don't see WINNING a war as wasted money. I see it as money well spent. If we had spent that money and LOST the war, it would be a waste. But we won, so it isn't.

As for the 4000 dead soldiers, I'm just happy that in the 6 years we've been in Iraq the casualty rate wasn't much higher. In much less time in WWII, we lost over 412,000 soldiers. 4000 is a large number when looked at by itself, but put in context (which I know you are loath to do, it's so much easier to argue when things are taken out of context), it is a relatively low number of casualties. And that too is a sign of victory in Iraq.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

I asked what WE won. And all you can say is we could have lost more Americans...

So, that's winning?? Less dead than there could have been?? You guys are sick puppy's.

excon

Hello again, El:

I asked what WE won. And all you can say is we could have lost more Americans....

So, that's winning??? Less dead than there could have been??? You guys are sick puppy's.

excon

You clearly didn't read the whole post. Typical,

I'll repeat it here:

25 million people no longer under a terrorist-supporting dictatorial regime. That's a good thing in anyone's estimate. (Except those who support dicatators, so I'm not quite sure how you feel about it.)

Access to Iraqi markets for sale of our products and purchase of theirs (including oil).

A relatively safe harbor and basing rights for our military.

A strategic logistics base for operations in other areas in the Middle East.

An example to the rest of the Middle East that we will support democratic reform. (Of course that positive example is being offset by Obama's NEGATIVE example in Iran. So although we won that particular item, Obama is throwing it out the window.)

Hello again, El:

I asked what WE won. And all you can say is we could have lost more Americans....

So, that's winning??? Less dead than there could have been??? You guys are sick puppy's.

excon

What? Did you read anything besides the last paragraph?

What? Did you read anything besides the last paragraph?Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I did. But I didn't see anything there that indicates we won a damn thing... I see only losses for us.

Besides, like the dufus before you, the Wolverine has declared victory just a tad too soon. In my view, Iraq will break apart into real ugly sectarian violence just as soon as we STOP keeping the lid on.

Look. I'm sure you THINK keeping 130,000 of our guys there forever is a victory. You certainly think a coup is the Constitution in action. You think a democratically elected president is a dictator. So, I'm sure you can convince yourself that we won something.

But, you ain't going to convince me.

excon

Ex, back in the old days (before W, and with the exception of Darfur), doing something to end genocide and oppression was considered a good thing. I have always argued that if nothing else that is a victory. If you don't think that's a victory then perhaps you need to rethink some things. I doubt however you'll change your mind on that any more than you'll change your mind about Honduras preventing a coup by a wannabe dictator (and now alleged thief (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/22/honduras-claims-zelaya-stole-millions-before-being-deposed/)) flouting the constitution.

Ex, back in the old days (before W, and with the exception of Darfur), doing something to end genocide and oppression was considered a good thing. Hello again, Steve:

First: back in the old days, we didn't go into Iraq to rescue the people. That wasn't even on the plate.

Second: I don't think killing 500,000 or more Iraqi's saved them from anything.

Third: The genocide ISN'T over. In fact, we may have facilitated it. Just you watch.

excon

Ex, you know I believe any innocent loss of life is tragic, but don't buy the Michael Moore wing's assertion of half a million dead Iraqi civilians. Even Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) claims a fifth of that.

Iraq Body Count claims a fifth of that.Hello steve:

If I were you, I'd glom onto any argument I could too. What you say changes NOTHING!

It's not about how MANY innocent lives were lost. It's that INNOCENT lives were lost. If there was ONE Iraqi who lost his life due to our misadventure, that's too many.

excon

Hello steve:

If I were you, I'd glom onto any argument I could too. What you say changes NOTHING!

It's not about how MANY innocent lives were lost. It's that INNOCENT lives were lost. If there was ONE Iraqi who lost his life due to our misadventure, that's too many.

I feel the same way about abortion but that's another can of worms. But like you said, "We gotta start on a equal playing field.... It starts with TRUTH." Grossly inflating the casualty count is not starting with the truth.

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I did. But I didn't see anything there that indicates we won a damn thing... I see only losses for us.

I know you do. That's because you are blinded by BDS.

Luckily everyone else sees it closer to the way I do.


Besides, like the dufus before you, the Wolverine has declared victory just a tad too soon. In my view, Iraq will break apart into real ugly sectarian violence just as soon as we STOP keeping the lid on.

You do realize what you just said. You just said that our being there is a good thing because it is keeping the peace. Our being there is a POSITIVE thing.

Thanks for making my point for me... again.


Look. I'm sure you THINK keeping 130,000 of our guys there forever is a victory. You certainly think a coup is the Constitution in action. You think a democratically elected president is a dictator. So, I'm sure you can convince yourself that we won something.

But, you ain't going to convince me.

Excon

I know we won't. Your's is a particularly virulent example of BDS. The patient is blind, possibly permanently. But the contagion of this disease becomes less virulent the longer we have a Marxist as President. The longer Obama is in office, the better Bush looks to the public by contrast, thus overriding the effects of BDS.

Elliot

Hello steve:

If I were you, I'd glom onto any argument I could too. What you say changes NOTHING!

It's not about how MANY innocent lives were lost. It's that INNOCENT lives were lost. If there was ONE Iraqi who lost his life due to our misadventure, that's too many.

excon

Innocents die every day. They most certainly die in wars. Even necessary wars. Even necessary wars, where one side is being particularly careful to minimize civilian casualties, even at the cost of their own lives. While the loss of any civilian is tragic, there were MANY fewer lives lost due to the war than were lost due to Saddam's actions against his own people. You know it (even if you won't admit it), I know it, and everyone else knows it too.

You can fool yourself all of the time, but not everyone else.

Elliot

You do realize what you just said. You just said that our being there is a good thing because it is keeping the peace. Our being there is a POSITIVE thing.Hello again, El:

Saddam WAS keeping the peace before we invaded. Didja forget?? I think you did. So, going in and killing a bunch of 'em to give 'em what they already had don't make no sense.

excon

Hello again, El:

Saddam WAS keeping the peace before we invaded. Didja forget??? I think you did. So, going in and killing a bunch of 'em to give 'em what they already had don't make no sense.

excon

Well sure if you're OK with genocide, torture far beyond anything you can imagine at Gitmo, murder and forced relocation by intentional environmental destruction, gassing your own people, public executions, assassinating your political opponents, etc. as part of "keeping the peace."

Well sure if you're ok with genocide, torture far beyond anything you can imagine at Gitmo, murder and forced relocation by intentional environmental destruction, gassing your own people, public executions, assassinating your political opponents, etc. as part of "keeping the peace."Hello again, Steve:

You keep on changing the subject. Saddam was a bad guy. He killed his own people. Nonetheless, there WAS NO CIVIL WAR. We didn't go in to take him out because he was a bad guy. And CIVIL WAR will break out when we leave.

You can't change losing into victory while I'm here.

excon

I'm changing the subject? I'm merely responding to whatever subject you're raising so don't throw that red herring at me.

Also...


We didn't go in to take him out because he was a bad guy.

We didn't? Didn't Elliot list the reasons, or did we just go there for the oil and to finish what Papa Bush started?

Well sure if you're ok with genocide, torture far beyond anything you can imagine at Gitmo, murder and forced relocation by intentional environmental destruction, gassing your own people, public executions, assassinating your political opponents, etc. as part of "keeping the peace."

There's an old saying about the Mongols. "They made a desert and called it 'peace'." They laid whole cities to waste. They killed everyone in Bagdad, for instance, when they raided Persia. Yeah, there was peace afterward, but only because everyone was dead.

Saddam Hussean "kept the peace" the same way. He murdered dissenters in job lots. He used chemical gas to murder a million Kurds who dissented with his rule. Yeah, he kept the peace... by murdering anyone who didn't toe his line, along with their families, their neighbors their acquaintances and their pet dogs.

I'll take the current "shaky" peace over Saddam's (and apparently your's as well) vision of peace any day.

Elliot

I'll take the current "shaky" peace over Saddam's (and apparently your's as well) vision of peace any day.

I take it you mean excon's peace... I'm with you on this.

I take it you mean excon's peace...I'm with you on this.

Yep. Sorry about the mixup. I quoted the wrong message.

Elliot

We didn't? Didn't Elliot list the reasons, or did we just go there for the oil and to finish what Papa Bush started?

If those were the goals (and I don't believe they were), then clearly we still won. Saddam is dead and the oil is flowing. Ergo, we won by that standard too.

So no matter how this is spun, we won.

Elliot