The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Only issues, no partisanship.

Run2Win started talking about Iraq in the McCain $300 million battery thread, and I wanted to talk about it, but I didn't want to derail that thread.

So, here it is, Run.



I do think that things will get worse in Iraq when we leave.  But, I think it will get worse whether that's in 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years.  I think that McCain's surge plan has helped with stability, but again, we can't surge forever, and when we leave, things will fall into chaos again.  The surge plan (and military action in the region in general) is only a temporary stall to the inevitable.  No matter when we leave, things will fall apart.  It's a type of feuding that Western culture just can't appreciate and no amount of instilling democracy will work.

We should've never invaded in the first place, a position I've had since day one (and against most of the people in the Democratic party.)  But none of that matters now -- we're there.  ...what to do?

It sucks that people will die and terrible things will happen, but again, I think it's going to happen either way.  I'd rather leave now, and save the American lives and money that it's causing to fund the war.

----

That's not to say that liberals want to see us fail.  I hope that even the most conservative people can give a little ground in understanding that liberals want what's best for the country as well.  I want the world to be a better place far more than I want to be right.  I hope that they can all live peacefully because of our intervention, but I just know that's not the case.  These groups have been feuding for thousands of years and will probably continue for hundreds if not thousands more.

I am not some hippy and I support military action, but only when it's a defined goal.  I think that the first war in Iraq was completely justified, for example.  We had a concrete goal, and we got to leave when it was accomplished.  The war on terror, like the war on drugs, is unwinnable in a traditional military sense.  You cannot fight an idea with guns.

This is why I support the idea of beginning withdrawal.  The mistake has already been made, so I'm past that, and I would supporting staying if I thought that we could fix it, but I don't.  More violence will ensue when we're gone, but it's a foregone conclusion at this point.

I think Dave and I are in exact agreement on this one. No matter how long we stay there is going to be fallout after we are gone.

i think we should pull out tomorrow from iraq .. and if that country descends into a civil war, then so be it. let them sort it out among themselves and the winner gets a country to run

we should also close down many (not every.. but many) military bases on foreign soil, we should have a much larger homeland military presence. Why not close down 600 out of the 800+ bases

re-invest that money into education, social services, technological development, infrastructure and payind down the debt.

also we should cut off all foreign aid, there's no reason why we should continue to give handouts to every country on the planet

wow, another political thread.  yeehaw! ::)

I support the troops and i want them to win.

Thats all i am going to say on the subject.

Let's get them home.  We had no business invading Iraq in the first place. 

Most liberals do want us to lose the war, because they see it as Bush's war.
That aside just getting up and leaving would give Iran a golden opportunity to over take Iraq and strengthen there country. Terrorist are terrorist, they want to kill you no matter if we leave Iraq or not, it is their mission and goal to destroy you. I do agree no matter what when we do leave there will be issues in the middle east, that is why we need to help the prescient government to become strong. I give 100% to our troops and 100% for victory, but war is ugly, I have lost a friend over there he was blown up by an a bomb. I know he believe in the cause, and he was proud to serve our great nation.

No no no no no no....

I was replying to Tommy.

http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=11075.msg116480#msg116480

  I'm kind of torn on this.  Being someone who was there when this whole thing started, I would like too see us finish the job we started, and come away with some success.  At the same time this war has been so badly managed, maybe we do need to pull out and focus our resources at home, and finish the fight in Afghanistan.  I don't know, I really don't.  Both sides have legit arguements.

I think you all make good points.

Who would mind another bloody civil war in the Middle East?  If that's what they want to do and have doing for hundreds/thousands of years then more power too them.  I wonder how long we could get away with playing the middle and selling arms to both sides?

Democracy might change the Middle East with peacy and prosperity.  It's probably a long shot.  No one had much faith in Japan turning around after WWII either.

Iran is a concern.  Without a strong Iraq to counter them, they now rule the region.  One of those unintended consequences...  Many believe it's only a matter of time before we'll have to act on Iran's nuclear program or fear the consequences of non-action.  Iraq would be a convenient staging area if that happens.

Terrorists will continue to come after us ... if not in Iraq then perhaps here.  Pullouts in Beirut and Somalia, as well as the lack of reaction to other attacks, allegedly emboldened them.  Will this pull out motivate them as well?  If we can pull out and leave the war over there that's fine.  If the war follows us home that's not so good.

Do you really believe this?  I don't know ANYONE who wants us to lose a war and have Americans killed.

I don't give a crap which president makes decisions, I still want the decisions to turn out well for our country.  It's not fair for you to speak on behalf of liberals.  What you're saying just isn't true.  We want what's best for the country.

I hate what Bush has done, decision-wise, but he's still my president.  I am not hoping for his failure, just to make myself look good.

I was going to respond to that line as well but I deleted my post. 

It was nothing offensive or anything but it basically just said what Dave said.  It also mentioned that its that kind of labeling and grossly incorrect stereotyping is what fuels polarization within the nation.  As if we already don't have enough "lines" to divide ourselves from one another.  I'm a "liberal" an American with liberal ideals and despite what BSmooth may think or tell you ( ;)) I served in the military.  I have dozens of "liberal" friends in the military and it is pretty offensive to say something like that. 

The U.S.'s progress comes waaaay before hating Bush on my list.  In fact that is why I "hate" Bush.  Its because I feel he has/is/will steer the country in the wrong direction.  But that is my view and as we all know there are many others who feel differently.  Impeach Bush for this war?  Sure.  Hope Americans get killed?  Fuck that  >:(!

Do you really believe this? I don't want anyone to die. Period. I don't care who's war it is, I want our men and women home safe and sound. When it comes to that, I don't give a damn about Bush. I don't want anymore people coming home in body bags for a dumb war that is being fought for no reason.

I have yet to run into one yet, even the waaay out ones who has remotely suggested this. The people I know who are proudly Democrat and liberal, gave me hugs and cried when I deployed, and they cheered and cried when I came home. All the other shit such as "cut and run", "liberals want us to lose", etc., are just sound bites created by desk jockeys who are trying to gather their flock of sheep to keep them in line. It is pure political spin of the worst kind.

How else do we explain those who push so hard for a pull out while not even being willing to discuss the likely adverse consequences?  Short-sighted?

That's funny. That is the same way I describe those who pushed to invade a country without considering the likely adverse consequences. Short-sighted.

Now we go back to 11 independent countries all coming to the same conclusion based on their own intelligence.  Perhaps they were all wrong.  And the President's top advisers telling him that it was a "slam dunk".  They could have been wrong too.

(http://nwfootball.net/politics/images/letspretend.gif)

No run. I said nothing about intelligence did I? I simply said they did not consider the the adverse consequences. You are trying to make a completely different argument now. Stay with me.

This is what I was talking about in my original post about a clear goal.  If we knew they had weapons, and the goal was to go in and destroy or remove those weapons, fine.

Because when you're done, you can go home.

But removing a government means that you have to stay around and replace the pieces.  How did they think this was going to go, once they got Saddam?

And that continues to be my problem with this war.  There is no end in sight, ever.

Sorry for expanding on your argument.

Do you really want to narrow the argument that much? 

It's analagous to disputing gravity because when you throw something up in the air when it reaches it's zenith and is momentarily not rising or falling.  If we're only allowed to discuss that point of it's flight then yes, we could come to a conclusion that gravity does not exist.

Right after Saddam was ousted didn't Cheney say something to the effect, "We're still in for a long, hard slog."

There are always those who keep on fighting after their government is toppled.  It went on in Germany for some time. 

Take the foreign fighters coming from around the region out of the equation and this would pretty much be over. 

^ Bad analogy.

You're talking about justification for war now.
Phishfan was talking about aftermath and consequences.


Whether or not Saddam had weapons still doesn't change the fact that once he was removed, there was no effective plan to correct their government.

Iraq's borders are more wide open than Pamela Anderson's legs when Kid Rock comes to town.  This, my friend, won't happen.  And it should have been accounted for when the invasion happened in the first place.

Perhaps he did, but at that point, it's too late.  I don't want you to make that determination after you've already removed him.

Didn't Cheney also say "It may take 6 days, 6 weeks...I doubt 6 months"?    Beforehand...when it mattered.

I don't care to expand an argument to a stance I don't take. I don't refute the stance that a lot of countries thought there were WMDs. My problem is and always has been that teh war in Afghanistan was already going on and was more important to finish.

Could we have ignored the intelligence from 11 independent nations and done nothing?  Let's let go of our 20/20 hindsight for just a moment.  At the time the fear was Saddam developing a nuclear weapon and letting a terrorist group use it.  That was the adverse consequence that we were trying to avoid.  


We met with and advised them for a year of more and then let them have a vote.  Lt. Bryan Suits was in many of those meetings.  He'd sit in the back with his interpreter and wait until a question was asked or advice was sought.  

What we might not have anticipated was the extent of foreign involvement trying to undermine the democratically elected government.

Maybe I'm not the guy to ask.  I was against going into Iraq even when the assumption was that he had WMDs.

But, that's not even really what this thread is about, and what I feared happened.

I don't care WHY we're there, or whether or not it was justified at this point.  We're there and we have to deal with it.  The question is how do we best handle our current situation?

"On the war in Iraq:   "It may take 6 days, 6 weeks,  I doubt 6 months."  
Donald Rumsfeld said this on February 7,  2003

Invasion: March 19
Saddam overthrown: ?
Saddam captured: Dec 13
Iraq stable: ?

I won't quibble between the war (ousting Saddam) and occupation (stabilizing Iraq).

My point is that when Saddam was captured and many thought the war was over it was Cheney who said (paraphrasing here) 'Whoa, hold on there.  We have a lot of work left to do.'

You're right, it was Rumsfeld.

But we're clearly still in the War in Iraq.  The job of ousting Saddam was done well before he was captured.  Actually catching him was just a morality boost.  It's not like he was going to start waging war from his spider-hole.

Regardless, we're there now.  What do you suggest we do to fix the situation?

Very realistic attitude and a great question.

What happens if we leave vs what happens if we don't.

I'm all for pulling out IF the war doesn't follow us home ... again.  I fear that the only way to live in peace with Muslim fanatics is to kill every last one of them.  


American Deaths from Terrorism

7/19/82 kidnappings in Lebanon (13 killed)
4/18/83 US embassy Beirut (17)
10/23/83 Beirut barracks (241)
12/12/83 US embassy Kuwait (5)
9/20/84 US embassy Beirut (24)
12/3/84 Kuwait Airways Flight 221 (2)
4/12/85 Madrid Spain (0)
6/14/85 TWA flight 847 (1)
10/7/85 Achille Lauro (1)
4/2/86 TWA flight 840 (4)
4/5/86 West Berlin disco (2)
12/21/88 Pan Am Flight 103 (259)
2/26/93 World Trade Center (6)
4/19/95 Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (Oklahoma City (http://www.jaynadavis.com)) (168) ???
11/13/95 Saudi Arabia (5)
6/25/96 Khobar Tower barracks (19)
8/7/98 US embassy Tanzania (11)
8/7/98 US embassy Kenya (213)
10/12/00 USS Cole (17)
9/11/01 World Trade Center (2,792)
9/11/01 Pentagon (188)
9/11/01 United Airlines Flight 93 (40)
6/14/02 American consulate, Karachi, Pakistan (12)
5/29/04 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (1)
6/11/04 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (1)
12/6/04 American consulate, Jiddah, Saudi Arabia (5)

Its a catch 22 Dave.

To those that want us to stay into the war until we win:
What is your definition of winning this war?
Not trying to start anything, just curious.

Two general problems with your post.

1 - those numbers are skewed.  Not all attacks that you posted are from the Muslim "fanatics."  

2 - the general thought process that has taken place of late is "the best defense is a good offense."  I don't agree.  You spend the resources that are spent currently over seas and reinvest those resources into protecting the souls within our borders and with enhanced intelligence.  While I don't like to hear of American targets abroad - once you've left the mothership, you're on your own.

We have a distinct advantage geographically, the same advantage that served this country well in WWI and WWII.  

I'm in the camp of "what the hell can we do now" in regards to Iraq.  History has taught us that the middle east has been a flash point for all world conflicts.  We can't allow that area to become more rocky than it already is.  But in a perfect world we would be using that energy in reinforcing our borders and with intelligence that would track US-interest targets.

This is a whole different way of fighting.  Our strength against this war is surgical strikes outside our borders when needed and amazing defense within our borders.

I don't think it's fixable.  

As Israel learns all the time, there's no peace with Muslim fanatics.  There's no way to live in peace with them regardless of what concessions you make.  

We could say we're sorry, walk away, abandon Israel, etc.  There's still be those who'd come after us.  

Even if we all mass convert there'd still be those who come after us.  Sectarian violence is common.  

Killing them just increases recruitment, especially due to their beliefs about 72 virgins.  Would killing them and openly condemning them to hell make a difference?  I don't know.  I doubt our PC public would even let us go down that road.

Leaving Iraq will lead to millions of Iraqi deaths.  Everyone who supported the troops or government, everyone who voted - they'll all be targets.  Leaving the Iraqi's hung out to dry will not create a lot of good will between us and the Islamic world.  

Of course, staying in Iraq doesn't seem to be creating much good wll either.

This is a problem that won't go away in the forseeable future.  We have to decide how, and more importantly, where, we want to manage it.

 

Would freedom, democracy and properity help stabilize the Middle East?  Perhaps if these people had a reason to live instead of just looking for a way to die honorably?

If the war is justified then we need to adapt our tactics. Their tactics reflect an entirely different culture and way of thinking.

A lot of those deaths aren't from Islamic Terrorism, what we're fighting now.  The Oklahoma City bombings, as I'm sure you know, were domestic.  The USS Cole was a military target.

I can't speak for all of these incidents, since I'm not intimately familiar.  But it seems that most of them are on foreign soil.

Even counting all of them, (and this is rather cold-hearted) it's a pretty negligible number over 20 years.  Not that any number of terrorist deaths is acceptable, just to be clear.  But, just in terms of saving lives, we've lost over 4,100 Americans in Iraq since the war began.  It's costing us more lives (not to mention Iraqi lives and tons of money) to fight a war.

And it's not to say that I'm supporting a weak stance on terrorism.  I support those changes here, not there.  I think that we have to secure our side of the world, not theirs.  ...make sure our policies are in place, our borders are safe.

And by doing that, you have the ancillary effect of not getting in people's lives and pissing them off more.


I also believe that there is a fallacy "If we fight them there, we aren't fighting them here."  These cells work independent of central leadership, and I think that whether or not we're at war in Iraq has no effect on terrorism attacks in our borders.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like there's no correlation.

I also don't credit this war (or this government...not that I wouldn't) for a lack of attacks since 9/11.  I think that heightened American awareness has been our biggest help in this fight.  Planes aren't going to get hijacked like that anymore, because people know better.  It was unheard of when it happened, but now, we know.

There's link after the OK City bombings.  This is the only website on the net that doesn't display links in a different color.

The Cole was a military target but it was not a time of war, at least not that we were aware of at the time.

Ignoring the technicality of US Embassies, cruise ships and planes being American soil, it's just a list of American deaths.

Considering in 1991 when we had crushed the Iraqi Army and were on the verge of entering Baghdad, Bush Sr., Powell, and Shwartzkoff all had the forsight to realize by entering and occuping Baghdad, we would be opening up and open ended hornets nest.
Are you trying to tell me we had dumber intel analysts 12 years later when the run up began and they forgot the history of that region and failure rate of western occupiers?
We had more credible threats against this country, and we were already engaged in a war against the radical followers of a government that aided and abetted the leadership of the group that launched the attack against us. There was no reason to go into Iraq until we had fully settled down Afghanistan. Jesus if we could have put just half the troops and money that we have poured into Iraq, into Afghanistan, that country would be much improved, as the people there actually like us there because we are helping them against the repressive regime that was in power before.

Not accurate at all, the reason why we did go into Baghdad the first time is because Saddam agreed to a sease fire agreement with the United Nations which he later broke.

You're rewriting history.

The mission was to free Kuwait.  That's what the coalition signed up for.  We would have lost all UN/world backing/support.


All good points. 

Afghanistan WAS pretty much settled down.  We never had a huge number of forces there to occupy and keep it settled down. 

I am not rewriting history. They have said they did not want to push into Baghdad and remove Saddam as it would stir up a hornets nest.
We had an opportunity to lock down Afghanistan after pushing out the Taliban, but instead we allowed them to recoup and come back. We could have prevented this much more if we had not gotten distracted by Iraq.

I would like to challenge you to provide a link where any of those men said that.
Bush wanted to continue into Iraq but the cease fire stopped all movement of American troops.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm (http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm)

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.[/i]
- George H.W. Bush

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've heard some express that the current shittiness in Iraq has been wanted since the start.  If I remember correctly it came across that way in the Bush At War book State of Denial.  (I read the book a while ago and chopped into chunks) Rumsfeld wasn't too concerned with stabilizing the country even though it was often times advised that more focus was needed on planning for a post-war Iraq.  The thin numbers deployed there could explain this maybe?  Its not like this is really a surprise to anyone, especially after this was known back in the early 90's. 

One thing is for sure though that no one really mentions much.  The PMC industry sure has blown up. 

Sounds like he did not want to stir up a hornets nest.

Funny how things change when nukes enter the equation.

It's funny Iraq did not have a nuclear program.

Since nukes have been brought up. Which country was more of a threat to us in 2003, Iraq or North Korea?

Congrats!  You have 20/20 hindsight!

Negotiations with North Korea are ongoing.  (link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/international/asia/19cnd-korea.html))

Iraq, on the the other hand, defied how many UN resolutions?

If Eastern Asia was the world's hotbed of well funded, fanatical, international terrorists then situations probably would have been viewed differently.

That all depends on who you listen to. There were plenty or reports that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. And since the reports that they did have a program turn out to be false, it just looks like I listened to the right information.

Those making the decisions were more influenced/swayed by the independent intelligence information from 12 different countries.  The vast majority of Americans agreed with them at the time.
(http://209.85.117.199/1250/23/0/e786//e786.gif)

Can you name the 12?

Not off hand.... I could guess at a few: US, GB, Israel.

There have also been analyists who have said the administration hand picked what info they wanted to paint the picture they needed to convince the country and Congress.