Is America LOST IN IRAQ?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheGameIs21

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,329
0
0
I will admit that I misread a report that I was using as proof.

The fact that I misread that report doesn't detract at all that you are using "quagmire" like a woman who wasn't satisfied with a consentual sexual encounter uses the term rape.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
TheGameIs21:

If you say so! But, Bush HAS been screwing the American people too long. Sheezh....

-Robert
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
anyone who thinks or thought that it would be a go in, quick fix, back out kinda thing is a moron.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Elfenix and Conjur:

Well, I agree BUT, if we are going to end up with a fundy Shiite regime anyway, why would we stay one more day?

And, assuming we stay after the turnover and assuming we establish bases as previously noted by one of our brighter posters, how will we keep them from becoming targets just like DaNang was a constant target?

And, how long will the Iraqis tolerate our presence under a new regime?

None of you has posited a road map by which we would be able to establish a viable Western style Democracy in Iraq. Isn't that just wishful thinking and an opportunity to avoid the wretched truth?

This business of saying we need to stay and clean up our mess is really a sort of misguided Boy Scout approach, no? We aren't cleaning up anything. Every day we are there we make a bigger mess. This is like telling your teenager to clean her room and then finding out that her idea of cleaning is to throw everything out the back door.


-Robert
 

SONYFX

Senior member
May 14, 2003
403
0
0
Sources: Up to 12 U.S. troops killed in battle


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. and coalition troops are battling supporters of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr for a third day Tuesday, with clashes reported in Baghdad and at least four cities in the country's south.

Heavy fighting was reported in the Sunni Triangle city of Fallujah, where U.S. Marines and Iraqi security forces were reasserting control after the killing and mutilation of four civilian security guards last week.

And west of Fallujah late Tuesday, insurgents mounted a large-scale attack against Marines in Ramadi, according to Pentagon officials in Washington.

Preliminary reports indicated as many as a dozen Americans had been killed and more than a dozen wounded, with heavy insurgent casualties, officials said.

A high-ranking military source said initial reports indicated several government buildings in Ramadi had been seized by a force described as fewer than 100 insurgents, who are believed to be remnants of ousted leader Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

In the holy city of Najaf in southern Iraq, al-Sadr's militia was in control of government, police and spiritual sites, a coalition source said.

Al-Sadr also was busing followers into Najaf from Sadr City, a Baghdad neighborhood, according to the coalition source, who said that many members of his outlawed militia, Mehdi's Army, were from surrounding provinces.

Al-Sadr -- who is wanted on murder charges in connection with the killing of a rival last year -- reportedly has taken refuge in the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf, one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines.

A posting on al-Sadr's Web site said he has called for a general strike.

Qais Al-Khazaal, a spokesman for al-Sadr, said the young cleric wants coalition troops to withdraw from populated areas and release prisoners taken into custody in recent demonstrations.

U.S. Marines moved into Fallujah from several directions, -- coming under heavy fire from insurgents -- in a second day of Operation Vigilant Resolve.

Hospital officials in Fallujah reported at least 10 Iraqis dead and 24 injured, a source inside the city told CNN.

Abrams tanks and infantry fighting vehicles led the Marine columns across a railway line north of the city into urban areas, where they were fired on by assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.

The tanks and mounted grenade launchers picked off rooftop snipers, destroying at least three houses in the process.

"These are the first of a series of actions taken to attack anti-coalition and anti-Iraqi forces, to re-establish security in Fallujah and begin the process of civil military assistance projects in Fallujah," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad.

Marines also detained six Iraqis carrying explosives near a command post north of Fallujah, a Marine officer said. The officer said the material was intended to make homemade bombs.

Eleven U.S. soldiers and two coalition troops have been killed in battles with al-Sadr's followers since Saturday. Other attacks in northern Iraq killed two other American soldiers over the weekend, and seven Marines have been killed in western Iraq since then.

Despite the widespread unrest, the top U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, said there is "no question" that coalition forces are in control of the country.

"I know if you just report on those few places, it does look chaotic," Bremer said.

"But if you travel around the country ... what you find is a bustling economy, people opening businesses right and left, unemployment has dropped."

In Baghdad, firefights continued Tuesday, particularly in the Shiite area of Sadr City. Reports also indicated that Italian troops were battling al-Sadr supporters in Nasiriyah.

Fighting broke out between coalition forces and Sadr's Mehdi Army on Saturday, after the arrest of al-Sadr's deputy on charges in connection with Abdul Majeed al-Khoei's death April 10, 2003, outside the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf.

Twelve people were arrested last fall when an Iraqi judge issued 25 warrants in the case, including the ones for al-Sadr and his deputy, Mustafa al-Yaqoubi, coalition officials said.

Yaqoubi was arrested Saturday in Najaf and turned over to Iraqi police Monday, they said.

Coalition officials announced Monday that al-Sadr is wanted on a murder charge in connection with that killing as well.

About 50 Iraqis were reported killed around the country in Tuesday's clashes. Hospital sources said 36 of those were killed in battles with U.S. troops in Baghdad's Sadr City district, a Shiite slum named for the rebellious cleric's assassinated father.

Bremer described al-Sadr on Tuesday as "a guy who has a fundamentally inappropriate view of the new Iraq."

"He believes that in the new Iraq, like in the old Iraq, power should be to the guy with guns," Bremer said. "That is an unacceptable vision for Iraq."

The instability prompted the United Nations to temporarily halt convoys bringing Iraqi refugees back from Iran in the south.

In Najaf, a spokesman for al-Sadr said al-Sadr had "received many letters from other religious leaders" supporting him, mentioning Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani -- the most senior cleric to Iraqi Shiites.

"Sistani said in his letter that he supported us for standing for what we believe ... but that he also thought that we should try to resolve this matter in a more calm and civil way," Qais al-Khazaal said.

Referring to a letter sent by Bremer shutting down the pro al-Sadr -- and anti-coalition -- Al-Hawza, Khazaal said lawyers have determined the action was "illegitimate and against all laws."

"We will form a case and fight this," he said.

Pentagon sources said the military would exercise caution in seeking al-Sadr in an attempt to avoid giving him more stature among radicalized Iraqis.

In Washington, Pentagon officials played down reports that American troops' tours of duty in Iraq could be extended to bolster the U.S. occupation force there. Though that is one possibility, one official said it was not under "active consideration."

About 134,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq, but that number is scheduled to drop to 110,000 over the next few months as part of a scheduled rotation of forces.

Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, has directed planners to draw up options to bring in more troops if needed.

But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. commanders in Iraq have not asked for more troops.

"At the present time, they've announced no change in their plans, but they could make such a request at any time," Rumsfeld said. "They will decide what they need, and they'll get what they need."

Other developments

Since the start of the war, 622 U.S. troops have died, 428 of them in hostile fire. Since May 1 when President Bush announced the end of major combat in Iraq, 313 U.S. troops have been killed in hostile action.


Britain is sending thousands of troops to Iraq to replace those already serving there, said Maj. Rachel Grimes of the Ministry of Defense. She said the move was part of a "normal" six-month rotation and would not result in an increase in the number of British troops in Iraq.

CNN's Jane Arraf, Jim Clancy, Barbara Starr, Kevin Flower and Kianne Sadeq contributed to this report.

 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,933
10,816
147
Originally posted by: chess9
Red: Yes, but, to play the devil's advocate, he did what his COUNTRY needed, or at least he felt it needed. This is an issue of HONOR, which I fully understand and actually support. But, if we are to have a democracy we must resist our government's worst impulses and 'Nam, IMHO, was one of them. Iraq is another. I have two ex-Marine buddies who come to my house periodically to visit. We get drunk and laugh about the tough times and argue about the war. They both are in DoubleL's camp, but we would all die for each other if the need arose. (and probably quickly at our ages) Anyway, I am not disagreeing with you. :) -Robert

:beer:
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126
Originally posted by: chess9
Elfenix and Conjur:

Well, I agree BUT, if we are going to end up with a fundy Shiite regime anyway, why would we stay one more day?

And, assuming we stay after the turnover and assuming we establish bases as previously noted by one of our brighter posters, how will we keep them from becoming targets just like DaNang was a constant target?

And, how long will the Iraqis tolerate our presence under a new regime?

None of you has posited a road map by which we would be able to establish a viable Western style Democracy in Iraq. Isn't that just wishful thinking and an opportunity to avoid the wretched truth?

This business of saying we need to stay and clean up our mess is really a sort of misguided Boy Scout approach, no? We aren't cleaning up anything. Every day we are there we make a bigger mess. This is like telling your teenager to clean her room and then finding out that her idea of cleaning is to throw everything out the back door.


-Robert

since i think it'll take upwards of a decade to get a democracy off the ground there, i don't agree. it might take partitioning the country into 3 new ones to create proper nation-states. it will be very hard to balance out 3 competing national interests; probably hasn't been done before. but i'm not going to write a Foreign Affairs article on how to do it.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
ElFenix:

You aren't going to write an FA article? Darn. I was counting on you or CAD or Alchemize to come up with the magic formula that turned lead into gold and the pumpkin into a chariot. :)

We could be there 5 or 10 years, but it'll only be a the point of a gun barrel. Too many Iraqis want us out now and their numbers are going up daily, not the reverse. Furthermore, the longer we are there the longer Iran, and all the other Muslim countries have to send their martyrs to the country to die for Allah.

Anyway, I do hope democracy takes hold there, but color me skeptical.

-Robert
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
"Is America LOST IN IRAQ?"

The circumstances may not be the same as Vietnam but the result is the same, we are getting our butts handed to us.

:(

rose.gif
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"Is America LOST IN IRAQ?"

The circumstances may not be the same as Vietnam but the result is the same, we are getting our butts handed to us.

:(

rose.gif

rolleye.gif


You hear that Vets? You got your butts handed to you in Nam.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"Is America LOST IN IRAQ?"

The circumstances may not be the same as Vietnam but the result is the same, we are getting our butts handed to us.

:(

rose.gif

rolleye.gif


You hear that Vets? You got your butts handed to you in Nam.

Don't even go there, that is so low.

I didn't say it was our Soldiers fault, just like now it is not their fault. It's the World's Sheriff's Fault and that Sheriff is hunting where he doesn't belong.


 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"Is America LOST IN IRAQ?"

The circumstances may not be the same as Vietnam but the result is the same, we are getting our butts handed to us.

:(

rose.gif

rolleye.gif


You hear that Vets? You got your butts handed to you in Nam.

Don't even go there, that is so low.

I didn't say it was our Soldiers fault, just like now it is not their fault. It's the World's Sheriff's Fault and that Sheriff is hunting where he doesn't belong.

I said nothing about fault, neither did you. You said "the result is the same, we are getting our butts handed to us."

So did, or did we not get "our butts handed to us in Vietnam"? The soldiers did the fighting, not the government. I'm plainly disagreeing with your military assessment.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"Is America LOST IN IRAQ?"

The circumstances may not be the same as Vietnam but the result is the same, we are getting our butts handed to us.

:(

rose.gif

rolleye.gif


You hear that Vets? You got your butts handed to you in Nam.

Don't even go there, that is so low.

I didn't say it was our Soldiers fault, just like now it is not their fault. It's the World's Sheriff's Fault and that Sheriff is hunting where he doesn't belong.

I said nothing about fault, neither did you. You said "the result is the same, we are getting our butts handed to us."

So did, or did we not get "our butts handed to us in Vietnam"? The soldiers did the fighting, not the government. I'm plainly disagreeing with your military assessment.

That's where you went wrong, I am making a Policy statement not Military.

The world is laughing at us, we with "our go it alone Policy" is getting our butts handed to us just like Vietnam.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"Is America LOST IN IRAQ?"

The circumstances may not be the same as Vietnam but the result is the same, we are getting our butts handed to us.

:(

rose.gif

rolleye.gif


You hear that Vets? You got your butts handed to you in Nam.

Don't even go there, that is so low.

I didn't say it was our Soldiers fault, just like now it is not their fault. It's the World's Sheriff's Fault and that Sheriff is hunting where he doesn't belong.

I said nothing about fault, neither did you. You said "the result is the same, we are getting our butts handed to us."

So did, or did we not get "our butts handed to us in Vietnam"? The soldiers did the fighting, not the government. I'm plainly disagreeing with your military assessment.

That's where you went wrong, I am making a Policy statement not Military.

The world is laughing at us, we with "our go it alone Policy" is getting our butts handed to us just like Vietnam.

So "policy-wise" we got our butts handed to us? You know...I've never heard "getting our butts handed to us" in any context other than in a conflict or a sport, as in the context of losing. Interesting, we'll have to add that to my dictionary of "Dave-isms". I stand corrected
rolleye.gif
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: chess9
No one won in 'Nam, and that is the point.

-Robert

Thank you.

Yes I would consider that "Getting our Butts handed to us", did we not go over there with a certain agenda and did not achieve that agenda?

We don't even know what Agenda we went to Iraq for other than one of the supposed goals of taking Saddam out. The other goals such as WMD and Liberation of the Iraqi people have so far been a myth.


 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
I have no clue what we are doing in Iraq. In fact, the war in 'Nam had at least a facial justification-to stop the spread of Communism. This little war by Bush has NO justification. Zip, zilch, zero. As in de natha. :)

-Robert
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: chess9
I have no clue what we are doing in Iraq. In fact, the war in 'Nam had at least a facial justification-to stop the spread of Communism. This little war by Bush has NO justification. Zip, zilch, zero. As in de natha. :)

-Robert

Unless it is an experiment to start nation building in the Mid-East.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
I have no clue what we are doing in Iraq.

That's easy. We were afraid that Saddam might give WMD he didn't have to terrorists he didn't know.
 

AnImuS

Senior member
Sep 28, 2001
939
0
0
probably. we should of just saved our resources for the coming war with China.

:)
 

blahblah99

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2000
2,689
0
0
Originally posted by: chess9
After June 30 what will the U.S. role be in Iraq?

Will Bush start bringing troops home after June 30 regardless of the situation on the ground? Would that enhance his re-election chances?

With the anger of the Shiites against the U.S. rising daily, will Bush greatly increase our military presence in Iraq for the next 85 days in order to get it "cleaned up" before the turnover? Wouldn't that also be a disaster?

Is this turnover on June 30 the dumbest move Bush has made since starting this war?

Can Bush do anything in Iraq to make the political situation better?

What would Kerry do, if elected, that Bush isn't doing since most of the world community wants nothing to do with the mess that is now Iraq?

Since many pundits think we are going to lose Iraq to a fundamentalist Shiite regime, why should we stay? Why should one more American soldier die for a lost cause?

Is America hopelessly mired in a quagmire in Iraq?

-Robert

To add to that,

If the intent of invading Iraq was to free the Iraqi people and spread democracy (forget about the original intent of WMDS), why does the US continue regulate the "free press" in Iraq and appointing their own leaders? Just last week Bremer shut down the Al Hawza newspaper because it was a free press with anti-American sentiments. Every reason to invade Iraq have been proven to be exaggerated, or a fabrication.

If the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are uniting against the US, then why are we still there? Who are we fighting against?

North Korea is openly admitting they have WMDs. How come nothing's being done about them? Or India, or Pakistan.

Why does the US continue to pour billions of dollars into Israel every year? Why is the US financially tied to Israel?

I also heard that the white house isn't allowing media of the dead soldier's caskets to be showed.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Animus:

My son made the same comment to me yesterday. But, I'm hopeful that by trading with that totalitarian regime we will ultimately turn their lust towards democratic capitalism, something we should have been trying with Cuba for the last 40 years.

A war with China is an unimaginable horror. I can't even go there....

-Robert