Positive results from the US war with Iraq

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Please add to the list:
1. Kicking Saddam from power.
2. US citizens hopefully will be less willing to believe Bush without question.
3. US will become more reticent before it invades another country.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
6. Halliburton massive profits after years of losses.


You guys are reaching.

Perhaps if we did'nt kill so many and actually conducted this occupation with a modicum of decentcy none of these attacks would be happening. Biggest mistake was firing 400,000 trained killers/soldiers, who would have been fine with the "coalition" for a price. Came after the departure of gardner.

 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Doc Smooth. I've got to disagree with number 3: "US will become more reticent before it invades another country." These people do not want us there. We've wrecked the creaky infrastructure of their country. We've imposed a coalition that they don't trust. We've come face to face with people who want to kill us and our technology isn't any good there. We're bombing and arresting "suspected" or "alleged" targets. We're throwing burlap sacks over little old ladies' heads and taking them invor questioning.

This is a culture clash that makes Vietnam look like a smooth operation. Wrong to go in and now we're bailing by June. Oh yes, we'll leave troops there. They'll hole up and become the tool of the Western oriented Iraqi government.

In my opinion, the fact that this invasion would be a disaster was writ large before it ever happened. June '04 won't be the end. Did we learn anything from Vietnam? If so, it escapes me. Ellucidate.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Whitling
Doc Smooth. I've got to disagree with number 3: "US will become more reticent before it invades another country." These people do not want us there. We've wrecked the creaky infrastructure of their country. We've imposed a coalition that they don't trust. We've come face to face with people who want to kill us and our technology isn't any good there. We're bombing and arresting "suspected" or "alleged" targets. We're throwing burlap sacks over little old ladies' heads and taking them invor questioning.

This is a culture clash that makes Vietnam look like a smooth operation. Wrong to go in and now we're bailing by June. Oh yes, we'll leave troops there. They'll hole up and become the tool of the Western oriented Iraqi government.

In my opinion, the fact that this invasion would be a disaster was writ large before it ever happened. June '04 won't be the end. Did we learn anything from Vietnam? If so, it escapes me. Ellucidate.
Lesson 1: Yes, if you are going to go to war, do it 100%. Well applied.
Lesson 2: Don't use draftees. They do nothing but whine and piss and moan for the next 50 years of their lives.

I'm sure we'll learn a few lessons from Iraq. I doubt this is our last military engagement of our lifetimes.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Lesson 2: Don't use draftees. They do nothing but whine and piss and moan for the next 50 years of their lives.
That's about the stupidest, most fscked up thing I've ever seen you post.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Lesson 2: Don't use draftees. They do nothing but whine and piss and moan for the next 50 years of their lives.
That's about the stupidest, most fscked up thing I've ever seen you post.
I'm sure I've posted worse ;) An inappropriate jab at Whitling, I retract said post.

OK let's make it "Don't use draftees. A volunteer army is much more effective and motivated".
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,849
234
106
Its far from over, but I think some of us feel something like this might be going thru the minds of at least a few Iraqi citizens. They may be a long shot from realizing thier dreams, but now at least there is a ray of hope where before there may have been none. IMHO


PINK FLOYD LYRICS

"Gunners Dream"

floating down through the clouds
memories come rushing up to meet me now
in the space between the heavens
and in the corner of some foreign field
i had a dream
i had a dream
goodbye max
goodbye ma
after the service when you're walking slowly to the car
and the silver in her hair shines in the cold november air
you hear the tolling bell
and touch the silk in your lapel
and as the tear drops rise to meet the comfort of the band
you take her frail hand
and hold on to the dream
a place to stay
enough to eat
somewhere old heroes shuffle safely down the street
where you can speak out loud
about your doubts and fears
and what's more no-one ever disappears
you never hear their standard issue kicking in your door
you can relax on both sides of the tracks
and maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control
and everyone has recourse to the law
and no-one kills the children anymore
and no-one kills the children anymore
night after night
going round and round my brain
his dream is driving me insane
in the corner of some foreign field
the gunner sleeps tonight
what's done is done
we cannot just write off his final scene
take heed of the dream
take heed

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Lesson 1: Yes, if you are going to go to war, do it 100%. Well applied.
Ahh the old childish "if it wer'nt for those damn liberals we would have won". Dude in any conflict you weigh losses vs. objective. Once the looses exceed outwiegh the objective sane people quit. By your logic Al Queta/PLO/Hammas should never stop no matter how much we fsk them up right? So how many vietnamese should we have killed? I know One million is already high but should we have proceeded until 30 million were dead and about 1 million of our guys? This is exactly why we have things like the Powell doctrine, which was'nt followed here, so it's not a contentious quagmire.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Lesson 2: Don't use draftees. They do nothing but whine and piss and moan for the next 50 years of their lives.
That's about the stupidest, most fscked up thing I've ever seen you post.
I'm sure I've posted worse ;) An inappropriate jab at Whitling, I retract said post.

OK let's make it "Don't use draftees. A volunteer army is much more effective and motivated".
And again I will take issue with your statement. You have no empirical evidence on whether or not a volunteer Army is more effective. As a matter of fact I would say the opposite was true. All one has to do is look at both World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam. In both WW their motivation and effectiveness is obvious. In Korea and Viet Nam, which just for the sake of argument we'll call a tie and a loss, it was not the ineffectiveness or lack of motivation that resulted in those outcomes but rather the political, strategic and tactical decisions made by politicians, the civilian leadership and the career military officers.

Draftees have served, fought and died honorably and with valor throughout our nations history. The almost unstoppable juggernaut that is today's .mil was built on the backs and written in the blood of those draftees that served when called. To suggest otherwise is an insult to them and dishonors the thousands that served. There are more than a few on this board.

For the record I am against a draft not because they are not wanted, unmotivated or ineffective but because I think it flies in the face of the very freedoms this country was founded upon. The freedoms of choice and self determination. I would only be supportive of a draft after a formal declaration of war and a determination that the all volunteer force would be insufficient.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Lesson 1: Yes, if you are going to go to war, do it 100%. Well applied.
Ahh the old childish "if it wer'nt for those damn liberals we would have won". Dude in any conflict you weigh losses vs. objective. Once the looses exceed outwiegh the objective sane people quit. By your logic Al Queta/PLO/Hammas should never stop no matter how much we fsk them up right? So how many vietnamese should we have killed? I know One million is already high but should we have proceeded until 30 million were dead and about 1 million of our guys? This is exactly why we have things like the Powell doctrine, which was'nt followed here, so it's not a contentious quagmire.
Shouldn't have been there in the first place (wouldn't have been there if the liberals hadn't put us there).

And Al Qaida/PLO/Hamas won't ever stop.

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
Lesson 1: Yes, if you are going to go to war, do it 100%. Well applied.
Ahh the old childish "if it wer'nt for those damn liberals we would have won". Dude in any conflict you weigh losses vs. objective. Once the looses exceed outwiegh the objective sane people quit. By your logic Al Queta/PLO/Hammas should never stop no matter how much we fsk them up right? So how many vietnamese should we have killed? I know One million is already high but should we have proceeded until 30 million were dead and about 1 million of our guys? This is exactly why we have things like the Powell doctrine, which was'nt followed here, so it's not a contentious quagmire.
Shouldn't have been there in the first place (wouldn't have been there if the liberals hadn't put us there).

And Al Qaida/PLO/Hamas won't ever stop.
Kennedy was a macarthite and had plenty of repubican support. I never heard a anyone say Nixon would have done different. Plus we had no history to go off of like a Vietnam.

I see why we have never ending wars..people like you exist on both sides of the equation..
They'll stop once we address thier grievances as a honest broker.. AQ was our friend and so was was Saddam at one time and plenty of ruthless dictators around the world. The difference is you're not told to hate them yet.
 

fwtong

Senior member
Feb 26, 2002
695
5
81
8. We can do what we want, where we want to, when we want to, and no one is going to stop us.

;)

Originally posted by: jjsole
7. If you don't have nukes, you're vulnerable to the states that do.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
Lesson 1: Yes, if you are going to go to war, do it 100%. Well applied.
Ahh the old childish "if it wer'nt for those damn liberals we would have won". Dude in any conflict you weigh losses vs. objective. Once the looses exceed outwiegh the objective sane people quit. By your logic Al Queta/PLO/Hammas should never stop no matter how much we fsk them up right? So how many vietnamese should we have killed? I know One million is already high but should we have proceeded until 30 million were dead and about 1 million of our guys? This is exactly why we have things like the Powell doctrine, which was'nt followed here, so it's not a contentious quagmire.
Shouldn't have been there in the first place (wouldn't have been there if the liberals hadn't put us there).

And Al Qaida/PLO/Hamas won't ever stop.
Kennedy was a macarthite and had plenty of repubican support. I never heard a anyone say Nixon would have done different. Plus we had no history to go off of like a Vietnam.

I see why we have never ending wars..people like you exist on both sides of the equation..
They'll stop once we address thier grievances as a honest broker.. AQ was our friend and so was was Saddam at one time and plenty of ruthless dictators around the world. The difference is you're not told to hate them yet.
Oh address Al Qaida's grievances?

"OK, yes, well will go ahead and submit to islam and institute you as the supreme ruler".

Hamas?

"OK, sure, fire up the new ovens. We won't object"

I see why we have never ending wars...people like you thinking that you can resolve grievances with a fanatic.
 

Sultan

Banned
Feb 21, 2002
2,297
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
Lesson 1: Yes, if you are going to go to war, do it 100%. Well applied.
Ahh the old childish "if it wer'nt for those damn liberals we would have won". Dude in any conflict you weigh losses vs. objective. Once the looses exceed outwiegh the objective sane people quit. By your logic Al Queta/PLO/Hammas should never stop no matter how much we fsk them up right? So how many vietnamese should we have killed? I know One million is already high but should we have proceeded until 30 million were dead and about 1 million of our guys? This is exactly why we have things like the Powell doctrine, which was'nt followed here, so it's not a contentious quagmire.
Shouldn't have been there in the first place (wouldn't have been there if the liberals hadn't put us there).

And Al Qaida/PLO/Hamas won't ever stop.
Kennedy was a macarthite and had plenty of repubican support. I never heard a anyone say Nixon would have done different. Plus we had no history to go off of like a Vietnam.

I see why we have never ending wars..people like you exist on both sides of the equation..
They'll stop once we address thier grievances as a honest broker.. AQ was our friend and so was was Saddam at one time and plenty of ruthless dictators around the world. The difference is you're not told to hate them yet.
Oh address Al Qaida's grievances?

"OK, yes, well will go ahead and submit to islam and institute you as the supreme ruler".

Hamas?

"OK, sure, fire up the new ovens. We won't object"

I see why we have never ending wars...people like you thinking that you can resolve grievances with a fanatic.
Correct me if I am wrong, but did Clinton not bomb Afghanistan with Tomahawks during his presidency before 9/11?

And is not Hamas fighting for an independant Palestine as agreed upon in the UN?

Both questions are not meant to be confrontational, just provide an answer and explanation.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Alchemize: Are you by any chance Christian? I usually find I'm dealing with a Christian when I hear stuff like

"Oh address Al Qaida's grievances?

"OK, yes, well will go ahead and submit to islam and institute you as the supreme ruler".

Hamas?

"OK, sure, fire up the new ovens. We won't object"

I see why we have never ending wars...people like you thinking that you can resolve grievances with a fanatic."

Ultimately grievances that "fanatics" have must be dealt with.

 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
Originally posted by: alchemize

Lesson 2: Don't use draftees. They do nothing but whine and piss and moan for the next 50 years of their lives.


I could only wish your party would adopt that despicable comment for their capaign logo, I'd love to watch the vets help vote the Reps out of office en masse.

 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Lesson 2: Don't use draftees. They do nothing but whine and piss and moan for the next 50 years of their lives.
That's about the stupidest, most fscked up thing I've ever seen you post.
I'm sure I've posted worse ;) An inappropriate jab at Whitling, I retract said post.

OK let's make it "Don't use draftees. A volunteer army is much more effective and motivated".
And again I will take issue with your statement. You have no empirical evidence on whether or not a volunteer Army is more effective. As a matter of fact I would say the opposite was true. All one has to do is look at both World Wars, Korea, Viet Nam. In both WW their motivation and effectiveness is obvious. In Korea and Viet Nam, which just for the sake of argument we'll call a tie and a loss, it was not the ineffectiveness or lack of motivation that resulted in those outcomes but rather the political, strategic and tactical decisions made by politicians, the civilian leadership and the career military officers.

Draftees have served, fought and died honorably and with valor throughout our nations history. The almost unstoppable juggernaut that is today's .mil was built on the backs and written in the blood of those draftees that served when called. To suggest otherwise is an insult to them and dishonors the thousands that served. There are more than a few on this board.

For the record I am against a draft not because they are not wanted, unmotivated or ineffective but because I think it flies in the face of the very freedoms this country was founded upon. The freedoms of choice and self determination. I would only be supportive of a draft after a formal declaration of war and a determination that the all volunteer force would be insufficient.
Very well put UQ
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
98
91
There may not be much choice if there is a huge exodus of voluntary troups after this war, as some are military officials predicting.
 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
Are you sure? I hear the National Guard is making a killing of of the "one week a month, two weeks a year, and a two year tour in Iraq" motto!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY