U.S. and Iraq are officially winning:

[FreeWorkVest]

Listen to what you're saying. Basically, if anyone ever decides to fight a guerilla-type war against us, we should just quit. That's insane.

Guerilla warfare CAN be defeated, but it takes a long time, often more than "conventional" warfare. It takes a truly dedicated country to defeat guerillas, which is exactly why I've never had a problem with us staying in Iraq.

There is only one way to defeat insurgents, guerrilas, or whatever you want to name them - get popular support. The US blew that chance from the beginning. We allowed people to loot and riot, then or officials LAUGHED like it was no big deal. Next, we built up the "Grren Zone" with electricity and running water while letting the citizens of Bagdad in the dark - NO power nor running water for months, even four years later, they only averaged 8-10 hours of power per day.

You don't win popular support that way.

 

[dt3]

Actually they have all the time in the world as they live there. We are hemorrhaging this countries future on a war that did not need to be fought. Let's talk about insane...

There are many ways to militarily win a war. For example, dropping nukes on Japan. After that, they had no desire to fight us anymore. That's one way to win a war: obvious, over-powering strength. Leave them no doubt that they can't win. Of course, this only works on a somewhat rational enemy (which the current insurgency is not).

The longer-term option is to take away the will to fight, the now-trite-sounding "hearts and minds". Do you realize how many local tribes are turning against Al Qaeda on a daily basis? Do you know why they're doing this? Because we have improved their quality of life. When we're there, we don't rape/murder/extort them until they help us. Once the majority of the country wants Al Qaeda out, there is no way they can stay. It's an organization that relies on the local populace aiding and abetting it (much like the Viet Cong). If the local populace refuses to do that, it cannot survive. Plain and simple.

/Basic Warfare 101

 

[Zorak]

Listen to what you're saying. Basically, if anyone ever decides to fight a guerilla-type war against us, we should just quit. That's insane.

Guerilla warfare CAN be defeated, but it takes a long time, often more than "conventional" warfare. It takes a truly dedicated country to defeat guerillas, which is exactly why I've never had a problem with us staying in Iraq.

One example?

Generally, people will fight for their homes and religion longer than an invading army will fight for skewed politics.

 

[FreeWorkVest]

There are many ways to militarily win a war. For example, dropping nukes on Japan. After that, they had no desire to fight us anymore. That's one way to win a war: obvious, over-powering strength. Leave them no doubt that they can't win. Of course, this only works on a somewhat rational enemy (which the current insurgency is not).

The longer-term option is to take away the will to fight, the now-trite-sounding "hearts and minds". Do you realize how many local tribes are turning against Al Qaeda on a daily basis? Do you know why they're doing this? Because we have improved their quality of life. When we're there, we don't rape/murder/extort them until they help us. Once the majority of the country wants Al Qaeda out, there is no way they can stay. It's an organization that relies on the local populace aiding and abetting it (much like the Viet Cong). If the local populace refuses to do that, it cannot survive. Plain and simple.

/Basic Warfare 101

LOL. Just, LOL. Because we left the job unfinished in Afghanistan, the Taliban has regained a foothold on the Pakistan borders, and Al Queda fighters are joining with them. In his blood lust, Bush left a vipers nest in his wake.

Heck, I was very nervous that the Iraqis were leading US troops forward to stretch the supply lines. When we commited our reserve forces to defend the supply lines, I was extremely nervous. If the Republican guard had broken up into smaller units, they could have wreaked havoc on us. Thank goodness there was no credible leadership

 

[IntruderLS1]

Heck, I was very nervous that the Iraqis were leading US troops forward to stretch the supply lines. When we commited our reserve forces to defend the supply lines, I was extremely nervous. If the Republican guard had broken up into smaller units, they could have wreaked havoc on us. Thank goodness there was no credible leadership

IF this happened, AND IF that happened, than this COULD have been a POSSIBLE result.... Dude... you can make those arguments about any subject with no end.

What if all the intel was right? What if Saddam got a hold of a nuclear weapon? Maybe he would have been able to smuggle it into Washington DC and kill millions!! :willy_nilly:

 

[Minor Axis]

What if all the intel was right? What if Saddam got a hold of a nuclear weapon? Maybe he would have been able to smuggle it into Washington DC and kill millions!! :willy_nilly:

Anyone who questioned "the intel" was summarily removed from their position in the government. This pattern of abuse reaches out to all parts of the government. When the head of the accounting office threatened to speak out against what the medicare bill would actually cost, he was told to keep his mouth shut or else. I guess he was a lucky one.

Wanting to defend America against attack is a worthy ambition, just don't be a pawn or a sucker. There was an agenda here and it definitely was not defending against 911.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Anyone who questioned "the intel" was summarily removed from their position in the government. This pattern of abuse reaches out to all parts of the government. When the head of the accounting office threatened to speak out against what the medicare bill would actually cost, he was told to keep his mouth shut or else. I guess he was a lucky one.

Wanting to defend America against attack is a worthy ambition, just don't be a pawn or a sucker. There was an agenda here and it definitely was not defending against 911.

You know, I kinda like the way this was put.:clap

 

[FreeWorkVest]

IF this happened, AND IF that happened, than this COULD have been a POSSIBLE result.... Dude... you can make those arguments about any subject with no end.

What if all the intel was right? What if Saddam got a hold of a nuclear weapon? Maybe he would have been able to smuggle it into Washington DC and kill millions!! :willy_nilly:

The BBC knew it was false, so did the CIA. The memo they referenced was written in 1994, the BBC world service (I listened to it then) reported it, but we never heard aobut it. When British Intelligence questioned Bush, he told them it was new intel. Bull from the beginning. We knew exactly how much nerve gas Iraq had, becaus ewe gave it to him. We knew they didn't have it, but lied about it. Sad that the only way to get real news is from The Daily Show and BBC World Service.


Yours are suppositions with no historical reference, mine is a standard technique used for centuries by armies defending themselves from superior troops. You don't even need a large army. Its how the US was able to slow the Red Coats down in the Revolutionary War. Luck, plan and simple. They totally muffed the invasion. There were not enough troops commited to holding captured territories because Chaney and Rumsfeld wanted to prove Perlmann's (?) Revolution of Modern Warfare thesis. Rummy at first only wanted 50,000 troops. Total failure from the beginning. They only cared about getting to Baghdad. Bush and company are nothing more than carpet bagging theives raping the US treasury for their friends.

 

[Minor Axis]

As you feel good about making headway in Iraq watch these for some perspective. The Center for Public Integrity put together a massive report on all most a thousand lies told by this Administration. Here is a LINK to the report. Other videos over at UTube.

Here is just one example:
On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' ".

Center for Public Integrity Videos:

Bill Buzenberg and Lee H. Hamilton.

C-span.

Keith Oberman: Countdown.

I am still amazed that people are not screaming about justice for this Administration's crimes.

The real question: Why exactly did we go to war in Iraq?

 

[Zorak]

I am still amazed that people are not screaming about justice for this Administration's crimes.

The real question: Why exactly did we go to war in Iraq?

Which ever way you cut it, it stinks something rotten.

a) The administation truely believed there were WMD's and unaccounted weapons
b) They had an ulterior motive that warranted a bare-faced lie that they must have known would have been discovered eventually.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

So if the cops bust through my door and trash my house looking for drugs that aren't there, shoot my kids and dog, turn off my heat, water and empty my refrigerator... I should be happy if they have the place 40 to 80 percent cleaned up after 6 years?

Sure, less violence is GREAT news for our troops over there and I am very glad to hear about it, but it doesn't address the millions of lives that were destroyed over a lie.

Well if the cops came to your door to search for drugs and you gave them the run around for 12 years playing games and trying to frustrate them....yes you should be happy they have the place 40-80% cleaned up after 6 years.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Psst! You left out how you're a genocidal dictator who beat your kids and raped your wife and tried to steal your starving neighbors food.

Oh yes. Forgot about that.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

There are many ways to militarily win a war. For example, dropping nukes on Japan. After that, they had no desire to fight us anymore. That's one way to win a war: obvious, over-powering strength. Leave them no doubt that they can't win. Of course, this only works on a somewhat rational enemy (which the current insurgency is not).

The longer-term option is to take away the will to fight, the now-trite-sounding "hearts and minds". Do you realize how many local tribes are turning against Al Qaeda on a daily basis? Do you know why they're doing this? Because we have improved their quality of life. When we're there, we don't rape/murder/extort them until they help us. Once the majority of the country wants Al Qaeda out, there is no way they can stay. It's an organization that relies on the local populace aiding and abetting it (much like the Viet Cong). If the local populace refuses to do that, it cannot survive. Plain and simple.

/Basic Warfare 101

Bravo. :clap Well said.

 

[Tim]

Well if the cops came to your door to search for drugs and you gave them the run around for 12 years playing games and trying to frustrate them....yes you should be happy they have the place 40-80% cleaned up after 6 years.

Yet another piece of misinformation... You are aware that the US ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq before the invasion, right? They were there, they were doing their job, they were not kicked out by Saddam.

 

[Minor Axis]

Yet another piece of misinformation... You are aware that the US ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq before the invasion, right? They were there, they were doing their job, they were not kicked out by Saddam.

During that period I was saying to family and friends, why don't they just allow the UN Inspectors to finish their work? I also heard U.S. Representatives come out of secret meetings and say "We really heard nothing new."

And I remember Bush say "Give up those weapons of mass destruction!" But I don't remember Saddam saying anything in return. If he had been smart, he would have gotten real cooperative with the U.N. imo.

The longer-term option is to take away the will to fight, the now-trite-sounding "hearts and minds". Do you realize how many local tribes are turning against Al Qaeda on a daily basis? Do you know why they're doing this? Because we have improved their quality of life. When we're there, we don't rape/murder/extort them until they help us. Once the majority of the country wants Al Qaeda out, there is no way they can stay. It's an organization that relies on the local populace aiding and abetting it (much like the Viet Cong). If the local populace refuses to do that, it cannot survive. Plain and simple.

I'm not saying you are wrong. But one factor you did not include in your hypothesis is that we are infidels occupying a Middle East Country. Someone is always bound to dislike us. Don't get me wrong, the sooner things get right in Iraq the sooner we can leave town.

 

[Alien Allen]

Hussein I bet thought we would never invade.

His fall back plan was to then go into hiding if we did. and wait it out.

I suspect he anticipated his troops would do the same and then we would get nickle and dimed to death so to speak and then Hussein could arise from the ashes save the day from all the chaos.

I said elsewhere this conflict was eerily like Nam. Not because of the enemy so much but how we would run out of will to see it thru.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Yet another piece of misinformation... You are aware that the US ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq before the invasion, right? They were there, they were doing their job, they were not kicked out by Saddam.

We went into this before Tim. It was to the end that they were pulled out. After years and years of run around by Saddam.

 

[Tim]

OMG you are so right... he thumbed his nose at us so we needed to kill him, destroy the country and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis... We sure showed him.

 

[dt3]

OMG you are so right... he thumbed his nose at us so we needed to kill him, destroy the country and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis... We sure showed him.

My take on it is this: Saddam, whether he had WMD's or not, wanted the world to THINK he did. I believe he wanted everyone to think he had them in order to bolster his standing/power in the region and in his country. We called his bluff, and he lost.

My question to you is this: IF we had found WMD stockpiles, would the invasion and subsequent attempt at rebuildng the nation have been justified in your mind?

 

[Tim]

Justified? Maybe. There are worse regimes out there that have known weapon stock piles.

The point is that there were too many people saying he did not have them and he was no real threat. Yet the absolute biggest decision a president can make was made with way too many unknowns. War is always the last resort, it is not to be used to make a point.

Let me ask you this... Even if he did have the weapons, why did we go in when we did? They would have been no threat to us. Was he going to use his air force, navy or his rockets?