Confed999

Kuwait, Saudi Araibia, Iran, Jordan, Turkey, Syria, the Persian Gulf and forces enforcing the no-fly zone were all within range of missles and artillery. He was a threat to them.
Any person willing to die in a car bomb to get $10,000 for his/her family, or worse, for the promise his family would be released from the torturers. He had 25 million possible recruits, even if you do not believe he was supporting terrorists.
I got what she was saying, guess I missed your point as well then.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Lucien LaCroix

They're not picking their side today. They are picking their side EVERY day. We kill one, five replace him. And they will continue picking sides for so long as we are there. This process is self-evident. As such, how do you propose to defeat them?

I see. And what does that politically expedient answer say about the sincerity about our commitment to freeing the oppressed?

Man, oh, man..."take care of themselves." Do you realize that is the exact same response given by liberals when they are asked as to how long 'welfare' will be necessary in America? "They're not up to the task, so we'll just 'help' them until they are." Like I said in a previous post, freedom is the conservative version of welfare...trying to give something to people without realizing that the journey is as essential as the goal.

The all-purpose answer is to let them discover the answer, instead of us arrogantly presuming that we have the answer.

Sorry. You've lost me. Or perhaps you misunderstood my response.

The only chance long-term freedom has in Iraq is if the Iraqis discover for themselves the value of freedom--and then achieve it for themselves. Giving them a gift that they cannot fully appreciate only means that they will not have developed the natural fervor to properly defend it. And they would need all the fervor they can muster considering who their neighbors are.

And we've done that in Iraq.

Yes, we had help--in the materiel sense. But we lead the charge. We paid the price for our freedom. Our heroes were Americans, not a bunch of guys fighting our battles for us.

Yes, it is. But it is cowardly to accuse someone falsely simply because one person is getting the better of another person in a discussion. That sort of territory is usually reserved for liberals--scream racism, then walk away thinking they've done a hard day's work.

__________________
"If I see further than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants."

Lucien LaCroix

They are not inferior. They suffer from a cultural stagnation that has, so far, prevented them from achieving freedom on their own.

I simply propose that they be allowed to earn freedom for themselves. Bigotry and condescention is believing that they can't do it without us. This goes back to my comments on freedom being the conservative version of welfare--both versions have a pathetic 'victim' and do-gooder who just knows that he knows how best to 'help' those victims.

Then let THEM do it.

Because we paid the price necessary to know what it takes to actually handle it.

troung

As I said you should both read back through the topic to get the context. Smiley had said they could have threatened us if we had moved on someone else (Yemen) which is total BS, as Iraq lacked the ability to scare anyone outside of Iraq in 2001, and not even in the northern parts of Iraq.

"Kuwait, Saudi Araibia, Iran, Jordan, Turkey, Syria, the Persian Gulf and forces enforcing the no-fly zone were all within range of missles and artillery. He was a threat to them."

They could not threaten Turkey as Turkey possesses a far more capable and combat ready military. Saudi Arabia maintains a bigger and more high tech military. In 2001 Iraq barely had an air force which suffered from lack of parts and training as well as modern equipment. Their army was not modern nor well equipped either. At best he had a military capable of some defensive operations and for internal secuirty not a force to invade anyone.

BMs are not even a half decent terror weapon to be bluntly honest. They lack large payloads and any sort of accuracy. Even if for some reason he lobbed a converted HY-2 into Turkey he would get back F-4E-2020s armed with GBU-10s and Mk-84 iron bombs being covered by F-16C/D B-52s with AIM-120s and AGM-88s, hardly an even trade when you weigh out the tonnage of the fact a Mk-84 was more explosives then a Scud and Iraq it seems did not have Scuds but short range converted SA-2s and HY-2s niether of which had a big payload or a long range. And Turkey has a lot of planes capable of dropping in heavy laser guided bombs. Airplanes make far better terror weapons anyways and of course can hit actual important targets.

Turkey bombed nothern Iraq in the late 1990s (to hit the Kurds). Iran launched missiles (Scuds) and strike planes (F-4E/Su-24MKs) into Iraq during the 1990s to strike the MKO and Iraq was able to do nothing. Even little Kuwait had a better equipped military with a modern air force and a capable navy. Yeah they were smaller but Iraq in 2001 was not 1990 Iraq and Kuwait in 2001 was not 1990 Kuwait either. Same thing with Saudi Arabia, Jordan (who was an ally FYI), and Syria.

Let’s be honest he could threaten no one. Blustering is not close to actually threatening.

Iraq’s terrorist ties were mostly with the MKO which we now let breathe and have a working relationship with. So I would assume that would put us as a terrorist supporting nation as well. Giving money to Palestinian radical groups is a way to keep street credibility in the Arab world. The Saudis do the same as do most Arab nations. The Saudis started to fund the Afghan "jihad" because they feared they were losing "street cred".

The real WOT target would have been the Sudan which wanted the visaless Muslim republic. They have actual AQ ties and are doing genocide on people who are actually in the field trying to fight back for their lives and families.

Confed999

Same way enemies have been defeated forever, kill them. The 5 replacements are much lower quality than the one that just got killed. BTW, they were picking sides before we got there too, but they weren't allowed to hear the other choices.
I am committed, not my fault you are not. Either way, our resources are finite. Come up with a way to get more troops, more resources, and get people in the world to care about others and I'm sure we could do alot more alot faster. Also, Bush's current position is about the same as your all-purpose answer, do you really think it requires invasion to help everyone, or is it just for the no other choice places?
Japan made it. From what I'm seeing the Iraqis are walking the path now. How could they ever have started the march when Saddam slaughtered them at a hint of disagreement? Today is the aniversery of the Halabja massacre, March 16, 1988. Ironic...
So you think total isolationism is the answer, I can respect that. If tyrants cannot be removed, then it's the option I would choose. I don't believe it would work for a second though, as evil spreads, and the longer one sits it out the harder the fight will be.
The Japanese made it. All anyone can do is give them the chance, and I'm glad we did.
Thank God...
So, they have no heros at all? Sorry, I don't believe you. How many English knew the names of our hundreds of heros?
You made the basis of your statement their nationality at first, and their culture second. Sorry, that's prejudiced, thus bigotry. Nobody had a concept of freedom, until freedom came...
I guess you have a different definition of "threat". I use the dictionary one myself:
Main Entry: 1threat
Pronunciation: 'thret
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrEat coercion; akin to Middle High German drOz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust
1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2 : one that threatens
3 : an indication of something impending <the sky held a threat of rain>

One artillery piece is a threat in the wrong hands. You would probably think so too, if you lived near the border, regardless of whether your military could counter-attack after you're dead.

Confed999

Just one other thing, in the case of Iraq, unlike welfare, "take care" is defineable. When their military and police forces have the training they need, their constitution is revised, and the government is elected, they are ready. Then they will be on the same international "welfare" as most other countries are.

Lucien LaCroix

How much quality does it take to drive a car loaded with explosives at an American checkpoint? Killing them all is fine in theory, but it won't happen because of the limitations of the street to street engagements that we now employ. That's what happens when you try to liberate an aggressor country instead of simply conquering it.

Committed to what--being a world-wide do-gooder? And I sincerely hope you're wrong about that we would do a lot more and a lot faster if we had sufficient resources. I don't care about freedom for Iraqis. Let them determine what freedom is for them and then let them fight for it. And I would add that I don't care about freedom for Saudis...or Morrocans...or Sudanese...or Libyans...or Iranians...ad infinitum. 'Giving them freedom' isn't going to strengthen them because it allows them to ignore their shortcomings--both individually and culturally. You have to want democracy and freedom badly, so much so that you're willing to take drastic steps to achieve it--willing to sacrifice everything to attain it.

Just listening to them whine during mass demonstration whenever one of our munitions lands off target, or we put a dent in one of their precious mosques...it is absolutely clear to me that they don't have a clue. We are dying for a whiney, take no chances, misogynistic culture whose newfound free government will collapse the moment some dictator wannabe raises a hand to it.

Japan is not a valid comparison to Iraq. We didn't liberate Japan, we conquered it. They were the enemy--ALL of them, regardless of how some them individually may have felt about the war. We didn't care if we killed Japanese old people, children, or babies. We beat them, and beat them, and beat them, until their collective will to resist was completely broken. That's why no American troops died in Japan (or Germany) after the cessation of hostilities in both of those countries. I can guarantee that if they had started planting bombs and shooting at us with sniper rifles that there would have been hell to pay for them. If somebody had started shooting at our troops from a building...we would turned that damn building to dust without concerning ourselves about how many 'innocents' might be inside. THAT is how you fight a war!

When we walked in there, we imposed both their Constitution, their system of government and their leadership--not to mention making several other significant changes to their culture. Any opinions they had on the subject were noted but minimalized. It was our way...or else. And the Japanese knew it.

Other factors dictating our success with Japan include the fact that Japan is an island. Interference by foreign powers was next to impossible. Also, we have occupied Japan (no longer regarded as an occupation in a warlike sense) for six decades--at considerable expense.

Can you imagine us trying to set up a free government in Japan in 1945 with Japanese militants still killing our soldiers? No, no, no. We would have stopped such do-gooder nonsense, leveled a few more Japanese cities, and then asked: "Okay, have you had enough now?"

The same comments can be applied to post-WWII Germany.

So, yes, Japan is a success story, but for reasons which defy any possible comparison with Iraq. Some of those reasons are political, some cultural, and others more practical.


Define isolationism.

Lebanon...Somalia...Haiti...to name just a few. How many times have we gone in and tried to give freedom only to have our efforts fail miserably? The only time we have succeeded is when we went in, hit the enemy with withering firepower until they COMPLETELY relented, and then occupied that territory with SIGNIFICANT numbers of troops over a very long period of time. Please feel free to give me an example to the contrary.

Yes, containment of evil is necessary. And I have no problem employing military firepower to accomplish that goal. But social engineering only works in very specific examples (like Japan).
And it works only because of tangible reasons such a geographics--not because it is a sound philosophy. Britain and France both made it a habit of attempting to engineer cultures in centuries past. And both nations were despised by much of the rest of the world.

You're awfully magnanimous with our soldiers' lives. As for Japan, see my comments above.

They didn't have to know their names because their deeds stood as monuments.

Whatever.

Confed999

No, just a good person in general.
Seems a simple concept that works for nearly everything, from business to science. Again, you seem to think I believe military action is required in ALL cases, I do not.
Depends how you look at it. Japan had no democratic tradition.
My position as well, but it's the first time I've seen that point made in our conversation.
They were. They were in Germany as well. Post WW2 reconstruction was no cake walk.
Main Entry: iso·la·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations

It would be the only way to not support the tyrants directly and indirectly.
Granada...
How is that working out in North Korea so far? Containment only works for ones contained in a grave or cell.
I don't believe one person is worth more than another. Thousands for millions is a ***** of a choice to make, but sometimes it has to be made.
Except I know of the brave deeds of the interm Iraqi government, their judges placing Baath on trial, and their people pointing out terrorists, weapon caches, and joining their military/police forces.

Lucien LaCroix

Absolutely correct; they had no democratic tradition. And we succeeded in our efforts...but only for the reasons that I spelled out in detail previously.

I challenge you on this. Give me one example of an America solider dying from hostile action in either Japan or Germany after formal cessation of hostilities.

Cute. But I was looking for something a little less textbookish.

Yeah, that was 'war' to end all wars, eh? We didn't try to impose freedoms in Grenada. We only invaded Grenada because the Cubans were using it as a conduit for shipping arms to the insurgent groups they supported in Central and South America. While they may have had designs on Grenada, their true focus was elsewhere. And I agree with our actions in Grenada. They epitomize what I have spoken about. We went in, killed the bad guys, and then we left without trying to remake their society. I'm sure we provided some aid and maintained some military forces in country in the aftermath (as a warning to Cuba), but that's hardly comparable to our efforts in Iraq.

By the way, I'll bet I can name far more failures than you can name successes.

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that comment. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. I will say that containment can be done politically, economically, or militarily. I also ask you to note that North Korea's mere existence is a testament of attempting to fight limited wars--which is what we are doing in Iraq right now.

Yes, it does. Where you and I differ is on the point of whose thousands should be involved.

It's a lot easier to be brave when someone is standing beside you with an M-16. Some of what you cite is about bravery, but much of it is rooted in economics or the quest to establish some sort of administrative legitimacy in Iraq. And I think you may be blowing some of their actions a little bit out of proportion.

Anywho... We can keep going round and round about this, but it would appear to be pointless. While we agree on some minor points, I don't see either one of us budging on our views of the more crucial points. You believe that the Iraqis will rise to the occasion. I believe that artificially elevating them only sets them up for an inevitable fall. They are a bunch of sheep surrounded by wolves.

smilingassassin

When I say we I mean it in the sence that I supported the move 100% to go into Iraq, so yes I meant the U.S. It's obvious to anyone that Canada doesn't have the forces to even dream of something like this, they are good but they are not numerous.

Sure it does, the U.S. uses Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qutar and Deigo Garcia as staging grounds for any operations in the region. Do you seriously think that Saddam would not take the opertunity to take a pot shot at the Americans in any of these area's within range of his weapons while they are invading a nabouring country?, its in his interest to help other Arab nations who have the same enemy.


Because Saddam isn't a complete fool, he knew full well any planes sent up would be destroyed, just like the first war. Thats also why he consolidated his forces around Baghdad to set up a Stalingrad senario, he knew his army would be defeated peicemeal. Unfortunately for him he missjudged the speed at which the American advance would reach the city, before adequate preperations could be made. The American advance in the first and second Iraq wars were similar except in the dencity of forces on the front.

dalem

Haven't read this yet so I can't comment directly, but I am told that this book is a decent summary of the violence and its perpetrators during the early German occupation. I would suspect that the actual number of U.S. casualties is less than the "more in post-war Germany than in the whole Iraq War, man!" crowd would have us believe, and more than the "zero" that you believe.

Aside from the isolated fanatic Japanese soldiers that "fought on" for decades, I would be surprised if any casualties were incurred in Occupied Japan. From what I've read (I'm in the middle of MacArthur's bio actually) the Japanese accepted the role of Americans as occupiers fairly well.

-dale

MIKEMUN

Reading this thread I have come to the belief that the general thought is that people here think that "revolutions" with outside help are bad. . So in that case,as someone here said,why doesn't the US declare allegiance to Britain,secede and then do it without French(whoddathunk it?) help. Then it would be deserved.

On a serious note I do not bellieve that the Iraqis are not willing to die for their country. I can think of at least one hero. The policeman who wrapped his arms around a suicide bomber and dragged him from the people during the elections. They want freedom,just like any American,French.......

After ODS,didn't the Kurds rebel?? They were crushed,because the powers that be decided to feed them to the wolves.
How many Iraqis died for standing up to Saddam?? Whatever you think,revolutions require outside help. People need to know that the world will stand with them. Otherwise it is just a waste of lives....

__________________
"They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

Protester

Ray

Revolution with outside help is not moral, but it is not evil. However, the large majority of the citizens should be wanting that revolution.

To 'organise' a revolution is also feasible. It requires money and international media blitz and sops to those countries in the international field who can create a stink. QED.

In so far as Iraq is concerned, Chalabis and others were not the real voice of Iraq. In fact, they were stooges as has been now seen. Their wrong advise has caused the country to be handed to the Shia Islamists, who are currently lying low, except for a meek noise about having Islam as the guiding principle for their Constitution! Who knows what they will be upto in the future. After all, Al Sadr could be the dawn of the reality that can happen.

Unfortuantely, much that we wish to believe, the world is not standing by the Iraqi people and not ready to stand by them in this moment of actual reckoning when they are trying or nudged into accepting democracy. The list of the countries which joined in to help the US invasion is slowly diminishing. Italy, joins the rats deserting the sinking ship!

Soon the Kurds shall rebel since there is already a serious problem near Mosul and Tirkit and there is already some fissure over the govt formation with the Shias.

I personally feel let people stew in their own soup and one need not take upon oneself the role of a messiah unless called upon by the majority of the people and not just some disgruntled elements.

If one looks at the world situation as of today, Iraq is still turbulent. Afghanistan is in a limbo. Osama is missing without action. Saddam is in the jail. How many lives gone and what is the cost?

Nothing still is solved.

Shek

Here's the only link I could find that stated #s of incidents and deaths due to Werewolf actions in post WWII Germany. The author of this message cites over 500 incidents and 69 deaths in 1945 and 1946. There was a History Channel special on this last fall and I seem to recall that by the time the Werewolf movment collapsed, the number of deaths was somewhere around 150-200. I'm sure that the books on the subject would reveal more accurate statistics.

http://boards.historychannel.com/thr...rt=15&start=-1

MIKEMUN

I wrote a long reply to this but lost it when my computer crashed. Anyway. Leaving Iraq is a bad idea. Iran Saudi Arabia would get sucked in. The Kurds would try to carve Kurdistan for themselves. That means Turkey woild definitely get in too. Then you got the whole ME destabilised.

Will write an explanation for my points later.