Iraq Is A Catastrophe

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield


4. You think any nation in the area is even close to condoning this plan? If you are wondering, the answer is no.

And another...

Another what?

Don't take that out of context.

Another post I would consider adding to the quagmire list.

You quoted that out of context, that was my post, i'm wondering what the fuck you meant by it, are you so daft that i have to break down such a simple question for your dumb arse?

I answered your question. I guess I was daft thinking that you could understand the really complicated words that I used.

What I would suggest is that you read the entire thread and try to understand it. See you in about 3 months.:laugh:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield


4. You think any nation in the area is even close to condoning this plan? If you are wondering, the answer is no.

And another...

Another what?

Don't take that out of context.

Another post I would consider adding to the quagmire list.

You quoted that out of context, that was my post, i'm wondering what the fuck you meant by it, are you so daft that i have to break down such a simple question for your dumb arse?

I answered your question. I guess I was daft thinking that you could understand the really complicated words that I used.

What I would suggest is that you read the entire thread and try to understand it. See you in about 3 months.:laugh:

I don't have to read anything byt your reply, you took my reply out of context and made my words into something they did not mean.

If you had been an honest man you would have asked me about my reply and asked me if my intent was to say that Iraq is a quagmire.

But you have no respect and no honor, you'll lie as much as those you despise if you think it progresses your cause and you think you are better.

I'd pity you but i'd rather stomp on your face.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

It'll be like Vietnam alright, the battles are won by brave men but the war is lost by gutless politicians who don't have the guts to do what needs to be done.

Probably the best thing you have ever posted here.

We were winning in Vietnam?

The battles were won but retreats were forced because of political decisions, i am sure there are others on this forum that knows this better than me, this is what i know from men i've served with and people who served in the top ranks of the day.

Top rank back then was anyone above Sargent and they were pretty high on the info of the day too, it was a lot different from like it is today.

But as i said, there are people here who can tell you about that a lot better than i can, i wasn't there.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I disagree, until people stop dying as a direct result of the "war", it will be more than simple verbiage.

But in our political landscape, it has become nothing more than political verbage...Bush's ratings are in the toilet, and the NeoCons are on the retreat...their propoganda is essentially dead...yet we still cannot reach a consensus on what to do now...perhaps because the anti-war crowd is too busy demonizing Bush still.

Yeah, the "anit-war" crowd is serving up shit.

No, you just happen to like your own...doesn't change what it is...the rhetoric coming out of the anti-war camp is starting to approximate the nonsense coming out of the NeoCon camp...just look at all the recent circle jerk threads on this very topic...no new talking points...same people bickering back and forth.

Each and every one of the Generals could tell you what you should do now, one of two things.

1. Engage three times the current force and wipe out all opposition, ALL opposition, all deployed until there is not one enemy standing.

2. Establish a permanent force to deal with the day to day problems while letting the Iraqis themselves handle most of it, a few strike teams to take care of immediate problems and pretty much constant fly overs to detect and observe and on occasion bomb, the strike teams will need air support in the form of choppers and ground support in the form of tanks, all of these should be under the command of the permanent force.

No one wants to face it but that's the two options there are, leaving and letting it fall into the hands of terrorist organisations isn't an option.

I think partitioning Iraq into an Iraqi alliance with three self-governing Iraqi states is the only realistic long-term solution, along with a solid defense plan. The centuries of hatred and strife are not going to be solved by even a 50-year commitment by an outside force. The border lines of Iraq were drawn somewhat arbitrarily anyway. Back in the days when most tribesmen would die within miles of where they were born, this wasn't a problem. In today's integrated society, it's a severe issue.

That is because you have no clue of the area, partitioning it up will create more problems than we are currently dealing with, the Shias and Kurds will be fine for about ten seconds, Kurds will want their Kurdistan and this will strengthen them in that fight, Turkey won't have that so it's not going to happen. Then there is the matter of oil, you actually think that the Sunnis will be ok with that? They have no oil on their territory and the Shias have a lot, it's like creating a new Palestine-Israel situation on two fronts because you're too anxious to end it now.

All that will happen is that the areas will be filled with welthy men who buy the support of terrorist leaders to let the population have something better than the US ever gave them.

Nope, dividing it is the worst thing that could happen.

You should stop remembering way way back history and remember what is happening now, there are two choices, anything but them is bound to fail, at least if you don't want to stick your head in the sand and hope tomorrow never arrives.

I've studied Iraq since 1988, so I can tell you I know quite a bit about it. I read Arabic, and have read a number of interesting pieces by Iraqis.

Your two choices are overly simplistic and optimistic, as if Military force can ever truly solve political problems when the will of the people is divided so severely.

Of course there should be a Kurdistan. There should be three sovereign regions of Iraq, with autonomous political control of most issues. There should also be a DMZ/Buffer zone around the entire country, and along the borders between the states, controlled by Allied/UN council. Turkey is obviously nervous about the Kurds having issues along their Southern border, but the buffer zone and clear and concrete rules of territory would assuage that pretty easily.

To aid in the territorial control of terrorist influence, money is the key. You must remember, Iraq is not a historic supporter of terrorism. AQ in Iraq is utterly of outside origins. The way to control the issue would be to penalize a region from it's divided oil revenues (shared amongst the 3 states by way of population ratio, to be updated every 4 years) by a percentage for any terrorist activity detected and traced to that region.

You've studied a lot but obviously you still know nothing about the situation.

But ok, i'll give you one chance here answer me three questions and i'll listen to your answers.

1. Kurdistan, Turkey is NOT going to accept that and the US has promised it will not be the case, how do you resolve that since the moment it's created Turkey will invade, they have promised to do so and they are not a nation to not uphold their threats.

2. Shia controlled areas have loads of oil, naturally they need to get it out of there, how?

3. Sunnis have NO source of income, NO oil, you think they are going to sit by and watch the Shias prosper.

I lied, i actually have four.

4. You think any nation in the area is even close to condoning this plan? If you are wondering, the answer is no.

AQ in Iraq is just a GW talking point, they have never been big in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't have great support there among the disgruntled Sunnis if your proposition would ever see the light of day.

It won't though because it's not realistic in the real world no matter how nice you think it is in theory.

(1)- Maintain a significant US forward base, complete with at least one carrier battle group in the Gulf at all times. Let Turkey know that any violation of the DMZ would result in their men and equipment being turned into burning slag. The same threat would carry to the Kurds themselves. A 10-mile-wide DMZ should be more than enough to safely separate the Turks from the Kurds. The issue of the Kurds living in southern Turkey is another problem altogether, but I think it would be advisable for the new Kurdish state to offer asylum and citizenship to the Northern Kurds, then close the border forever.

(2)- The Iraqi Union would have to have firm rules allowing for the unhindered flow of oil from well to distribution. As I said in my previous post, oil revenue would have to be split amongst the 3 states and the union by a fair ratio (population ratio). This would ensure that each area have more than enough resources and funds to accomplish a prosperous and stable society and government. And by penalizing the states which harbor any terrorism or violence (with reduced oil funds and increased oversight by the Iraqi Union Council), there would be huge incentives for each state to keep its house in order.

(3)- See Above

(4)- Did any nation in the area condone our previous plan? We've more than proven that we can act with unilateral decisions.

(*)- Most importantly, this would give the Sunni a chance to be ruled by Sunni the way they want, the Shia to be ruled by Shia the way they want, and the Kurds, finally, to be able to govern their own affairs without being secondary to either the Shia or Sunni.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: manowar821
As many as it takes until the fall-in-line masses stop believing the shit the administration tries to force feed them.

When one group of people continues to rag on an issue day-in and day-out, it stops becoming effective, and begins to get drowned out. People stop paying attention to the issues and start hating the messenger. It's the same reason that people ridicule the Republicans for continuing to basically yell "9/11! 9/11! Terror! 9/11!"

9/11 and Iraq have been played to death; they're just talking points now, more verbiage to throw around in the political mudslinging that we've reduced ourselves to.

Nahhhh . . . NOT played to death

When you fight through the BS there is excellent food for thought. While I don't necessarily agree with Beanie a great deal of the time he has rightfully interjected the point of arab/persian infighting.

It interesting that Pabs and Chickie interject the BS without making any true contribution. If they don't like the thread they don't have to comment. It's that simple. Thank you.

No ones speaks of the Article 140 vote in Kurdistan. Only recently has the cross-border terrorism between the PPK and Turkey had any depth of discussion. Wow. People have been discussing this for years. Just because it's not a daily thread does not remove its existence as a problem.

We haven't discussed the failures of US ""de-Baathification"" process and the subsequent ""re-Baathification"" which has failed miserably again. Way to go, NeoCons!

Why don't we redeploy? Why don't we simply let the Iraqis sort it out?

Why don't we let the Iraqi's utilize their natural resources to their own 100% benefit as opposed to extorting 70% of their wealth through PSAs?

All reasonable issues for discussion - - - not 'played'

Translation: If you aren't willing to spout our anti-war propaganda then STFU. Dissent from our BS will not be tolerated!

Dissent is fine with actual arguments and reasoning...

I agree. So when are you going to provide any?

I already stated my opinions elsewhere. I am referring, as you already know to your trolling remarks, which weren't actual discussion.. just attacks and innuendo... Don't be mad at me for pointing it out.

I'm not mad. I'm just pointing out the complete ironic idiocy of your remark, that's all. Don't get angry at me for doing that.

I think everybody here realizes that there is no sense in getting mad at the village idiot. He can't stop/help/change himself any more then a dog in heat can refuse to breed.

Your like a venomous snake that will strike anything in it's range it thinks is a threat, it's just your nature.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

We were winning in Vietnam?

Tactically yes...the North Vietnamese never won a decisive victory against American forces.
We lost Vietnam because the politicans set arbitrary lines in the sand and rules that handicapped our forces from making any strategic gains.

The battles were won but the war was lost because politicians didn't have the guts to do what it took to win.

Much like this war is winnable but the four to five hundred thousand boots on the ground from the start that were predicted to be needed by the military generals were restricted by politicians who had a bigger ego than sense.

Six months from the start with that force and this wouldn't be a problem.

Instead there were sent in men to fight the initial war and find Saddam and then the population didn't bend over to let flowers and roses shoot out of their arses, they turned around with a loaded weapon.

I disagree. I don't believe there ever was the intention to have a strong united Iraq. I am sure some Americans (realists like Jay Gardner) wanted to create that, but there were others who ensured that would never happen (Bremer, Kissinger, Negroponte etc. Ie the neocons).

You disagree with WHAT? Nothing in your response has anything to do with what you quoted.

I disagree with the notion that the war is "winnable".

 

[keird]

King Phillips War, Revolutionary war, Civil War, WW1, WWII? Are you saying that all wars are un-winnable? History is replete with victors and their spoils. What do you think the spoils of a United States were?

Wars, by definition, are a the imposition of will on one nation over another.

Rebuilding a nation begins with security then the rule of law.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: keird
King Phillips War, Revolutionary war, Civil War, WW1, WWII? Are you saying that all wars are un-winnable? History is replete with victors and their spoils. What do you think the spoils of a United States were?

Wars, by definition, are a the imposition of will on one nation over another.

Rebuilding a nation begins with security then the rule of law.

This is an occupation, not a war.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I think everybody here realizes that there is no sense in getting mad at the village idiot. He can't stop/help/change himself any more then a dog in heat can refuse to breed.

Your like a venomous snake that will strike anything in it's range it thinks is a threat, it's just your nature.

Everybody? Nope, only the BDS afflicted morons that run amuck in this forum with their self-righteous and pompous little attitudes and who something believe that their numbers in here make them right and just. When I adopt their same smug assholishness and send it back their way they get all bent out of shape though. Go figure?

It's quite amusing, imo, to see that happen. No doubt Moonbeam could provide hours of copious pontificating on why you guys hate your own flipped reflections so much.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I think everybody here realizes that there is no sense in getting mad at the village idiot. He can't stop/help/change himself any more then a dog in heat can refuse to breed.

Your like a venomous snake that will strike anything in it's range it thinks is a threat, it's just your nature.

Everybody? Nope, only the BDS afflicted morons that run amuck in this forum with their self-righteous and pompous little attitudes and who something believe that their numbers in here make them right and just. When I adopt their same smug assholishness and send it back their way they get all bent out of shape though. Go figure?

It's quite amusing, imo, to see that happen. No doubt Moonbeam could provide hours of copious pontificating on why you guys hate your own flipped reflections so much.

It's a cinch you'll never understand why you hate yourself or why nobody here gives a crap what you think about anything.

You accusing others of being self-righteous, now that's what I call quite amusing. :laugh:

:lips:

 

[Tylanner]

This is exactly how every single thread ends up as, at least this time, for once, the title fits the content.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

We were winning in Vietnam?

Tactically yes...the North Vietnamese never won a decisive victory against American forces.
We lost Vietnam because the politicans set arbitrary lines in the sand and rules that handicapped our forces from making any strategic gains.

The battles were won but the war was lost because politicians didn't have the guts to do what it took to win.

Much like this war is winnable but the four to five hundred thousand boots on the ground from the start that were predicted to be needed by the military generals were restricted by politicians who had a bigger ego than sense.

Six months from the start with that force and this wouldn't be a problem.

Instead there were sent in men to fight the initial war and find Saddam and then the population didn't bend over to let flowers and roses shoot out of their arses, they turned around with a loaded weapon.

I disagree. I don't believe there ever was the intention to have a strong united Iraq. I am sure some Americans (realists like Jay Gardner) wanted to create that, but there were others who ensured that would never happen (Bremer, Kissinger, Negroponte etc. Ie the neocons).

You disagree with WHAT? Nothing in your response has anything to do with what you quoted.

I disagree with the notion that the war is "winnable".

Well the war part is already won, can the peace be sustainable is the question you should ask.

It can but it's going to take decades to secure it and the enough willing men to serve.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

We were winning in Vietnam?

Tactically yes...the North Vietnamese never won a decisive victory against American forces.
We lost Vietnam because the politicans set arbitrary lines in the sand and rules that handicapped our forces from making any strategic gains.

The battles were won but the war was lost because politicians didn't have the guts to do what it took to win.

Much like this war is winnable but the four to five hundred thousand boots on the ground from the start that were predicted to be needed by the military generals were restricted by politicians who had a bigger ego than sense.

Six months from the start with that force and this wouldn't be a problem.

Instead there were sent in men to fight the initial war and find Saddam and then the population didn't bend over to let flowers and roses shoot out of their arses, they turned around with a loaded weapon.

I disagree. I don't believe there ever was the intention to have a strong united Iraq. I am sure some Americans (realists like Jay Gardner) wanted to create that, but there were others who ensured that would never happen (Bremer, Kissinger, Negroponte etc. Ie the neocons).

You disagree with WHAT? Nothing in your response has anything to do with what you quoted.

I disagree with the notion that the war is "winnable".

Well the war part is already won, can the peace be sustainable is the question you should ask.

It can but it's going to take decades to secure it and the enough willing men to serve.

I know. The root of this conflict is not military but political. Iraq has been conquered lots times in the past. Baghdad has historically had revolving doors with invaders coming and going, but very few have lasted long.

 

[FoBoT]

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
check Table 4
read it, get over your anti-GWB selves


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/vi...0711/NAT20071112a.html