Thread: Is Iraq Another Vietnam? Actually, It May Become Worse

Haha, thats a good one, draconian, what does that make Gengis Khan then......

Give me a break, the U.S. is trying TOO hard to be PC in all this.

I never said that the Coalition is being draconian now, but if they went down to the insugents' "level" then they certainly would be. And the US can only win the peace in Iraq by being respectful and considerate of the locals. If the US alienates the people of Iraq too much then they will simply be unable to stabilise Iraq and will be doomed to failure. I once saw a slogan in a picture of some Pakistani peacekeepers that fits the bill: 'Peacekeeping is not a job for soldiers, but only soldiers can do it'.
That means that the Coalition needs to make a greater effort to teach it's soldiers to respect and understand the locals, rather than hate them as an enemy.

Originally Posted by Ray

Smiling,

The US maybe doing the right thing, but it is doing it the wrong way.

Please elaborate on this one...

Originally Posted by Ray

Sledgehammer is not the answer, nor Bible bashing.

Bible bashing, sorry where do you see that?

Originally Posted by Ray

If one destroys everything, it is not creating.

Tell that one to the terrorists...

Originally Posted by Ray

If one shove his relgion on others, that actually repels.

Again tell that to the terrorists, and again how does western religion come into the discussion?

Originally Posted by Ray

Christian compassion should not be forgotten. That converted many, many and even those unwilling!

I agree but I fail to see how this is relevent to whats going on in Iraq. At any rate if the Americans are so un-compassionate why don't they just nuke the place and leave? I don't buy it...

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I never said that the Coalition is being draconian now, but if they went down to the insugents' "level" then they certainly would be. And the US can only win the peace in Iraq by being respectful and considerate of the locals. If the US alienates the people of Iraq too much then they will simply be unable to stabilise Iraq and will be doomed to failure. I once saw a slogan in a picture of some Pakistani peacekeepers that fits the bill: 'Peacekeeping is not a job for soldiers, but only soldiers can do it'.
That means that the Coalition needs to make a greater effort to teach it's soldiers to respect and understand the locals, rather than hate them as an enemy.

I see lots of respect being dished out, but when they come under fire what do you expect soldiers to do? Respect is a two way street.

I expect them to understand that just because some Iraqis are brutal religious wackos dosen't mean they all are. Generalizing gets you no-where.
And it is true that the US did the right thing by getting rid of Saddam, but clealry the strategy of going it alone with an understrength force was a bad idea. Alas, once again the military was right and the government was wrong.

Originally Posted by Ray

How come you know the subcontinental cuss words?

Basically I can just delete anything I don't understand. Little other than foul language comes out of him to begin with.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

going it alone

The US is far from alone. Who else would have come to do the right thing anyway?

You didn't do the right thing. The US attacked Iraq before the UN had finished it's inspections, probably because they knew it would blow their WMD claims out of the water. If the Bush administration had actually thought tings through they would have tried to bring the regime down from the inside and then move in with peacekeepers after an uprising had started. Instead they attacked Iraq with an understrength force and were unable to keep the peace at all. I agree with getting rid of Saddam, but the way the Bush administration went about it smacks of arrogance.
And as for going it alone, the US did have allies but they were pretty thin on the ground, especially in the actual invasion, where the only meaningful foreign contingent was from the UK.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

You didn't do the right thing. The US attacked Iraq before the UN had finished it's inspections, probably because they knew it would blow their WMD claims out of the water.

....12 years of off and on inspections with UN officials in the front door and saddams cronies running out the back, off limit sites for inspectors.....and it wasn't the right thing to do?

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

If the Bush administration had actually thought tings through they would have tried to bring the regime down from the inside and then move in with peacekeepers after an uprising had started.

...another 12 years, by this time Qusay could likely be running the show under his fathers tutalage....

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

Instead they attacked Iraq with an understrength force and were unable to keep the peace at all.

The U.S. possitioned its chess peices in hopes that the other allies would do the right thing (which France and Germany didn't) as a result the U.S. had to go with its "understrength forces" and defeated Iraq in a matter of weeks, then after the fact again gambled that the UN would at least help Iraqi's get off their feet (again they failed) hence the current situation. One only needs to look at the UN's performance in the Sudan to see how completely inept they are currently

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I agree with getting rid of Saddam, but the way the Bush administration went about it smacks of arrogance.

not an uncommon way for the Brits to do things either, with a smack of arrogance

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

And as for going it alone, the US did have allies but they were pretty thin on the ground, especially in the actual invasion, where the only meaningful foreign contingent was from the UK.

..and adding French and German forces would change this in what way? The U.S. would still hold the bulk of the attacking forces.

Two nations in the minds of the left are all that makes the difference in wether or not the war was legal...two (now)insignificant nations....

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I expect them to understand that just because some Iraqis are brutal religious wackos dosen't mean they all are. Generalizing gets you no-where.

You just generalized Americans, not all the troops there think the way you just stated, most are indiferent and just want to get home, some are hopelessly optimistic

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

And it is true that the US did the right thing by getting rid of Saddam, but clealry the strategy of going it alone with an understrength force was a bad idea. Alas, once again the military was right and the government was wrong.

This line of arguement makes no sence. "The U.S. was right to take out Saddam but...." Again where is the UN in all this? Sitting on their thumbs and willing to sell Iraq down a river in order to make a point with the U.S. to follow out dated methods of removing dictators. Which doctrine is more morally flawed?

I should correct myself for generalizing about Americans before, I understand that the soldiers there are only following orders, regardless of their feelings about the war. However, you should well know that the UN could do nothing because two permanent members of the Security Council refused to support the war, which is understandable (Particularly with cash-strapped Russia) as they were worried that an invasion would mean that they would never get the huge amounts of money they were owed by Iraq back. If you find this so outragious, one must remember that the US vetoes almost every effort to censure the Isreali government, regardless of the human rights abuses they may be committing, or the undeclared nuclear weapons they may be building. It works both ways you see. Really if the UN is going to be able to achieve anythign important then they need to have more permanent security council members, probably without the vetoe system (Instead it should work on a 3/4 majority or something).
Anyway, just because I am angry about the way the war was fought dosen't mean I think that the Coalition should withdraw, as that would only turn a bad mistake into a catastrophic failure. The Bush administration really does need to make some comprimises with it's allies though, as Pakistan was warming to the idea of committing troops, only for the Bush administration to criticise them, thus upsetting them into saying that they will never committ troops to Iraq. If more countries can be brought into the fold, then the whole operation will probably benefit from the greater sense of legitimacy. Not to mention the fact that the Coalition needs reinforcements. I wish Australia would make a greater committment.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I should correct myself for generalizing about Americans before, I understand that the soldiers there are only following orders, regardless of their feelings about the war. However, you should well know that the UN could do nothing because two permanent members of the Security Council refused to support the war, which is understandable (Particularly with cash-strapped Russia) as they were worried that an invasion would mean that they would never get the huge amounts of money they were owed by Iraq back.

In which case they are still in the same boat, in fact the U.S. has worked to get some of those dept's owed to be ommited.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

If you find this so outragious, one must remember that the US vetoes almost every effort to censure the Isreali government, regardless of the human rights abuses they may be committing, or the undeclared nuclear weapons they may be building.

...and so they should, most resolutions against Israel are pushed by the despotic regeimes in the region when Israel responds to terrorist agression. Syria has no peace treaty with Israel, nor does it attempt to stomp out hamas activity's against inocent civilians.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

It works both ways you see. Really if the UN is going to be able to achieve anything important then they need to have more permanent security council members, probably without the vetoe system (Instead it should work on a 3/4 majority or something).

I personally think the Veto system is useless, I also think when country's like Libya head Human rights commisions there is a problem, should we allow Syria to take charge next?

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

Anyway, just because I am angry about the way the war was fought dosen't mean I think that the Coalition should withdraw, as that would only turn a bad mistake into a catastrophic failure. The Bush administration really does need to make some comprimises with it's allies though, as Pakistan was warming to the idea of committing troops, only for the Bush administration to criticise them, thus upsetting them into saying that they will never committ troops to Iraq. If more countries can be brought into the fold, then the whole operation will probably benefit from the greater sense of legitimacy. Not to mention the fact that the Coalition needs reinforcements. I wish Australia would make a greater committment.

I personally think the U.S. has made extrordinary compromises, Bush publiclly called for a palestinian state in the ME, the first prez to do that, he has also pressed Pakistan and saudi Arabia to do more to hunt terrorists. Even though what these countrys are doing seems like very little its a great stride in reguards to past co-operation.

Personally I think Austrailia has made great contributions, I wouldn't be hard on them. My own country on the other hand is sending mixed signals.

Australia's Contibution:

* About 250 airmen and women and support crews deployed with a squadron of 14 F/A-18 Royal Australian Air Force Hornet fighter aircraft.

* About 150 personnel deployed with three RAAF C130 Hercules transport aircraft.
*

About 150 personnel deployed with two P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft.
*

An Air Forward Command Element of about 70 personnel responsible for coordinating air operations with coalition partners and providing national control of RAAF assets.

* Approximately 350 sailors and soldiers embarked on the sea transport ship HMAS Kanimbla with a Sea King helicopter, Army landing craft and Army air defence detachment and a specialist explosives ordnance team.

* About 600 personnel embarked on Royal Australian Navy frigates HMAS Anzac and Darwin, who have been part of the Multinational Interception Force enforcing United Nations sanctions against Iraq.


* A Navy clearance diver team capable of locating, rendering safe and disposing of mines.


* A Special Forces Task Group of about 500 personnel. The Task Group comprises an advance party including a Special Air Service squadron, CH-47 troop-lift helicopters and personnel from 5th Aviation Regiment, specialist troops to deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction drawn from the newly-established Incident Response Regiment based at Holsworthy, New South Wales and a quick reaction support force drawn from the Holsworthy-based 4RAR Commando unit.


* An Australian National Headquarters of approximately 60 personnel, headed by the Australian National Commander, Brigadier Maurie McNarn.

Source: Australian Defence Force at www.defence.gov.au

http://www.warchronicle.com/units/Au...qi_freedom.htm

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

You didn't do the right thing.

Your words not mine. "And it is true that the US did the right thing by getting rid of Saddam". Arguing against yourself now?

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

The US attacked Iraq before the UN had finished it's inspections

Without Saddam's cooperation, the inspections never would have ended. Without cooperation, there was no way to prove there were no weapons. No WMDs wouldn't have changed my support for the removal of Saddam and the Baath. WMD do not make something right.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

probably because they knew it would blow their WMD claims out of the water

What about the UN's claims, Saddam's claims, France's claims, Germany's claims, Egypt's claims, Jordan's claims, etc., etc., etc.. It's allmost as if you've missed the last decade and a half.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

where the only meaningful foreign contingent was from the UK.

It was just as it would have been, even if everyone had come along.

Originally Posted by Ray

Australia's Contibution

Yes Sir. Other countries have made quite "meaningful" contributions as well.

I don't think Australia's contribution was in any way meanigful. Anyway, I should have expressed more clearly that it was right to get rid of Saddam but it was done in the wrong way, for reasons which I have already explained at length.

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

I don't think Australia's contribution was in any way meanigful.

What would you equate as a meaningfull contribution? What is the total strength of the Austrailian Military and what fraction of that is in Iraq/Afganistan?

Originally Posted by -{SpoonmaN}-

Anyway, I should have expressed more clearly that it was right to get rid of Saddam but it was done in the wrong way, for reasons which I have already explained at length.

Reasons that have their own moral and sencical inconsistancy's......I look at the end result, the removal of Sadam and the potential for a peacefull and democratic Iraq, not the technicality's of a pre 9/11 mindset.