Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debunking the Lancet Report

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by T_igger_cs_30 View Post
    I agree, however you know exactly what I mean, as for all your other points, IMO we could have and should have finished the job then.
    Well yes, in hindsight, since we removed Saddam anyway, it would have been better to do it in 1991.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
      Supposition. We cannot speculate what would have happened if the US drove to Baghdad in '91. Would Saddam use chem/bio weapons, would or could he mobilize his population for total war, would Iran seize an opportunity to invade, would fractional fighting break out, would the US population (still not far removed from Vietnam) continue to support military operations, etc.
      Likewise, you cannot say the invasion is wrong because you are assuming no invasion is the correct course of action.
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by LetsTalk View Post
        Example of a perfect invasion, I am not sure if one exists but a much better executed invasion was Desert Storm. I am confident that you can also come up with many more examples of better executed invasions, wars...

        "In February, 2003, the U.S. Army's top general, Eric Shinseki, told the
        Senate Armed Services Committee that it would take "several hundred
        thousand soldiers" to secure Iraq.[96] Two days later, Defense Secretary
        Donald Rumsfeld said the post-war troop commitment would be less than the
        number of troops required to win the war and, "the idea that it would take
        several hundred thousand U.S. forces is far from the mark." Deputy Defense
        Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Shineski's estimate was "way off the mark,"
        because other countries would take part in an occupying force.[97]"

        He was just one of many critics, and experts that warned the administration, just like most posters on this Topic, the administration failed to truly listen and understand people with a different views.

        Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        I'm not arguing that Bush administration did everything right. I'm merely saying that there are no perfect invasion plans where everyone was happy with the way it was executed. In fact the invasion itself was near perfection. It was the occupation and reconstruction phase that we had problems with.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
          Likewise, you cannot say the invasion is wrong because you are assuming no invasion is the correct course of action.
          Did I say the invasion was wrong, or that no invasion was the correct course of action? Not on this thread. Given certain conditions I would argue that the invasion could have been the correct course of action. However there is a lot of area between absoultely no action and full on years of occupation to resolve the issue with Saddam; targeted assassination(s), proxy wars, tougher sanctions regime (yes I understand that the regime was "collapsing" any day now, but increased interdiction efforts could have helped it ala Libya) increased troop presence in the Gulf (making a show of force before an actual invasion), even allowing weapons inspectors to finish (novel idea I know) all could have been used to some degree to ensure Iraqi compliance.

          From the facts gathered after it seems likely that Saddam was deterrable, he did not use chem/bio in Gulf War I, there was evidence he destroyed massive numbers of chemical shells, and seemed to have shelved his nuclear and bio programs So I don't really think this false dichotomy---either an invasion or no invasion were the only courses of action the US could have taken against Saddam in 2003 is benefical to debate.

          Comment


          • #80
            Yeah...

            Originally posted by Shek View Post
            What the heck are you talking about?!? What we need is more embedded reporters. Embedded reporters by and large have done an absolutely tremendous job, and the lack of coverage (notice that I state lack and not slant - coverage overall has been pretty darn good with a handful of prominent exceptions, with the MSM being just about the only show in town anymore) is due to not enough embeds, some of which has been the fault of the Army.


            Like Geraldo Rivera giving the where abouts/coordinates of the division he was with. You mean that one.

            Or the embedded reporters that find anything bad and write home about it even if it's a total fabrication.

            The one that saw Lt. Pantano doing his job and reported it as an abuse.

            The problem is that to many of the embeds have an agenda which is not including victory and more resembles treason IMHO.




            Ivan

            Comment


            • #81
              Shek: 2. You claim that those who disagree with you are close minded, yet, you state this:


              Let'sTalk:"But in no way can you convince me".


              Yup! I'd say Let'stalk is not open minded.

              Ouch! Shek wins! Let'sTalk loses.:)) :))

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                The problem is what do you mean by "correctly?"

                I hear that a lot. We didn't plan the invasion correctly. Our troops didn't have the right equipment. We didn't know what we're getting into... blah blah blah....

                Give me one example, just one, of a well planned invasion in the history of mankind.
                The Franco-Prussian War? You gotta like that one.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Zemco View Post
                  The Franco-Prussian War? You gotta like that one.
                  D-Day went over pretty well, so did Germany's invasion of France 1940, Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939, the Roman invasion of Britain, the British invasion of Quebec in the French and Indian War, the Danish-Prussian War, etc.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    British Invasion of 1964

                    That one was the most perfectly executed.
                    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Oh you mean the Music Invasion...LOL. Yup, before my time but I still see the effects of it. :)

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
                        Did I say the invasion was wrong, or that no invasion was the correct course of action? Not on this thread. Given certain conditions I would argue that the invasion could have been the correct course of action. However there is a lot of area between absoultely no action and full on years of occupation to resolve the issue with Saddam; targeted assassination(s), proxy wars, tougher sanctions regime (yes I understand that the regime was "collapsing" any day now, but increased interdiction efforts could have helped it ala Libya) increased troop presence in the Gulf (making a show of force before an actual invasion), even allowing weapons inspectors to finish (novel idea I know) all could have been used to some degree to ensure Iraqi compliance.
                        All of that has to be viewed in the context of geo-political strategy. You need to be looking now at the world as it might be 25-35 years from now.

                        All of the actions you listed are more than feasible and would have been viable options, if Iraq was North Korea, or Libya, or the island nation of Fiji, none of which are relevant to US geo-political strategy.

                        However, the US Grand Master All-Star Game Plan has not changed in the last 30 years, and part of the game plane requires the US to control Iraq so that it can be used as a base for future military operations, rather than merely having access to Iraq or the ability to influence Iraq.

                        The US certainly could have used Iraqi "freedom fighters" trained in Pakistan with US tax payer money channeled through the Pakistani ISI to fight a proxy war, just like it does Chechnyan "freedom fighters" and just like it did the "mujhadeen," but there are no guarantees. A proxy war could last for a decade or more, just like Afghanistan, and the end result could be a government that does not march in lock-step with the US, just like in Afghanistan, which ultimately required military action by the US.

                        If the US must attain certain objectives within a given time period in order to be successful in its geo-political strategy, then its options become increasingly limited as time runs out. That was the situation in Iraq, and it is the present situation in Iran. If the US does not act on Iran soon, the US will have increasing limited options, lose control, and may have its geo-political strategy disrupted for the long term, even thwarted to the extent that it results in failure, which would be devastating to the US, since it has bet the farm on the eastern Russian republics and has no other viable alternative strategy plan.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Zemco View Post
                          All of that has to be viewed in the context of geo-political strategy. You need to be looking now at the world as it might be 25-35 years from now.

                          All of the actions you listed are more than feasible and would have been viable options, if Iraq was North Korea, or Libya, or the island nation of Fiji, none of which are relevant to US geo-political strategy.

                          So tell me what US "geo-political strategy" are you talking about?

                          However, the US Grand Master All-Star Game Plan has not changed in the last 30 years, and part of the game plane requires the US to control Iraq so that it can be used as a base for future military operations, rather than merely having access to Iraq or the ability to influence Iraq.

                          What is the "US Grand Master All-Star Game Plan" that hasn't changed in 30 years and requires a US occupation of Iraq? Is this in regards to Iran or the Cold War? Who authored the above "Plan", and what national security paradigms are they using?

                          The US certainly could have used Iraqi "freedom fighters" trained in Pakistan with US tax payer money channeled through the Pakistani ISI to fight a proxy war, just like it does Chechnyan "freedom fighters" and just like it did the "mujhadeen," but there are no guarantees. A proxy war could last for a decade or more, just like Afghanistan, and the end result could be a government that does not march in lock-step with the US, just like in Afghanistan, which ultimately required military action by the US.

                          And this Iraqi government marches in lock-step with the US? What is Maliki's position on Israel, or Iran?

                          If the US must attain certain objectives within a given time period in order to be successful in its geo-political strategy, then its options become increasingly limited as time runs out. That was the situation in Iraq, and it is the present situation in Iran. If the US does not act on Iran soon, the US will have increasing limited options, lose control, and may have its geo-political strategy disrupted for the long term, even thwarted to the extent that it results in failure, which would be devastating to the US, since it has bet the farm on the eastern Russian republics and has no other viable alternative strategy plan.
                          And how should the US act on Iran? What is this geo-poltical strategy you talk about? You need to back up your suppositions.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
                            D-Day went over pretty well, so did Germany's invasion of France 1940, Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939, the Roman invasion of Britain, the British invasion of Quebec in the French and Indian War, the Danish-Prussian War, etc.
                            D-Day, compare the casualties of American forces on the first day against Operation Iraqi freedom. Our troops drowned by the scores due to the weight of their equipment and lack of training. There would be a congressional inquiry if Bush were in charge. Bloody Omaha, why did we lose so many men there and why weren't they properly equipped?

                            Battle of France, Germany allowed more than 1/4 million Allied troops to escape to fight another day. A great tactical victory, but a strategic defeat.
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by brokensickle View Post
                              Like Geraldo Rivera giving the where abouts/coordinates of the division he was with. You mean that one.

                              Or the embedded reporters that find anything bad and write home about it even if it's a total fabrication.

                              The one that saw Lt. Pantano doing his job and reported it as an abuse.

                              The problem is that to many of the embeds have an agenda which is not including victory and more resembles treason IMHO.

                              Ivan
                              Ivan,

                              1. Geraldo is the rare exception. While it doesn't excuse his actions, what were the net results of his actions? To my knowledge, it resulted in no casualties.

                              2. There was no embedded reported in LT Pantano's case. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if there were, that the case would have never even made it to the point of requiring an Article 32 hearing. The investigation began because of a disgruntled squad leader (IIRC, LT Pantano had or was just about ready to relieve the squad leader).

                              You've got to come up with more than just one weak example of someone who cares for the troops but was too much of a blowhard to think through the potential consequences of his actions.

                              I'd ask you to read the following pieces found in the liberal rag The Wall Street Journal and by liberal mouthpieces such as Michael Yon and Max Boot and then comment specifically to their stories/opeds. I think you'll find that what the military needs is not fewer, but more embeds if we want to impact America's opinion.

                              The Wall Street Journal Online - OpinionJournal Federation

                              http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ind...007&Itemid=108

                              http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sta...a-problem.html
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                                D-Day, compare the casualties of American forces on the first day against Operation Iraqi freedom. Our troops drowned by the scores due to the weight of their equipment and lack of training. There would be a congressional inquiry if Bush were in charge. Bloody Omaha, why did we lose so many men there and why weren't they properly equipped?

                                Battle of France, Germany allowed more than 1/4 million Allied troops to escape to fight another day. A great tactical victory, but a strategic defeat.
                                The French had the largest army in the world right before WWII broke out, very modern, and the Maginot Line; and were still defeated in less than two months. As for Dunkirk, it's a bit overrrated in my book. One of the few times in military history when a retreat is so gloriously celebrated. By the time these troops are re-engaged in a theater against the Nazis, the Soviets are involved in the fight, with the Americans soon to follow. In the end Hitler accomplished his strategic victory of conquering France.

                                So if we're going to be comparing casualties, let's also compare the force size, and the training of the opposing force that the invaders were facing. At D-Day the Nazis were a much tougher foe, had the advantage of terrain, it was a seaborne invasion and still the Allies held ground. Casualties were expected in WWII, that's why the Allies did not go in with 170,000 troops. Anyway your threshold was one invasion, I mentioned several others. Here's some more:

                                List of invasions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                                it's Wikipedia, and not an exhaustive list, but a good place to start. Just looking at the modern-day wars I see Tanzania's invasion of Uganda (forcing Adid out of power), the UN invasion of Kuwait (forcing Saddam's surrender and pushing him out of Kuwait), the Turkish invasion of Cyprus (where they still remain) as pretty successful invasions that went off without much of a hitch. Quibble if you want over whether the 1991 Kuwait war was a true victory when it left Saddam in power; but remember the strategic goals set up by the coalition force.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X