6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29758543/page/2/]6 years later, Iraq better but still shaky - Invasion Iraq: Six Years Later- msnbc.com[/url]

Regardless of whether you believe we should be over there, it seems we've made some good strides over the last year. It's funny how we don't hear much about these strides though. I guess or horrendous economy has something to do about it.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=redsk1;538542][URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29758543/page/2/"]6 years later, Iraq better but still shaky - Invasion Iraq: Six Years Later- msnbc.com[/URL]

Regardless of whether you believe we should be over there, it seems we've made some good strides over the last year. It's funny how we don't hear much about these strides though. I guess or horrendous economy has something to do about it.[/quote]

Yes it is funny. The Iraq War went from being the "worst foreign policy blunder in American history" and "lost" to hardly worth mentioning in no time flat. The economy is part of the reason but it's not all of it. Let's see what the former head of the Nevada Gaming Comission has to say:

[yt]niPmXym7u3g&feature=related[/yt]

[yt]PR144kCjORc&feature=related[/yt]

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

cant we move on?

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=dmek25;538555]cant we move on?[/quote]

How about this, we file it away as a Bush win, and then in a year and half when Obama starts claiming it was his victory, we all agree that it was in fact a win for Bush. If Obama and the Democrats never bring it up, we all here agree not to either. Deal?

edit: I am also cool if we do the reverse for the economy, file it as a loss for Bush and the Dem Congress.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[URL="http://deliveriesgalore.com/2009/03/18/one-trillion-dollars/"]Have you ever wondered what one trillion dollars looks like?[/URL]

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=saden1;538571][URL="http://deliveriesgalore.com/2009/03/18/one-trillion-dollars/"]Have you ever wondered what one trillion dollars looks like?[/URL][/quote]

wow that's pretty crazy

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

Cannot see the page...help

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;538560]How about this, we file it away as a Bush win, and then in a year and half when Obama starts claiming it was his victory, we all agree that it was in fact a win for Bush. If Obama and the Democrats never bring it up, we all here agree not to either. Deal?

edit: I am also cool if we do the reverse for the economy, file it as a loss for Bush and the Dem Congress.[/quote]
how about instead of saying its a Bush win, or an Obama win, we just say its a win for the United States?

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=dmek25;538633]how about instead of saying its a Bush win, or an Obama win, we just say its a win for the United States?[/quote]

simple, because politics do not work like that, and when re-election campaigns come around, the same person who said "lets set this aside will" will say peace came through my candidate. If we have a win now it should be noted that Bush's strategy worked. of course, Bush bashers would rather wait a year - year and a half and then let politicians make wildly false claims.
Let me ask you, if it is a US win, whose strategy brought about the win?

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

Win? How about we start choosing our words more carefully?

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

Yeah I have a hard time calling any war a win, especially this one. What happened to Mission Accomplished anyway?

[IMG]http://www.yougotstyle.org/archives/images/mission-accomplished.jpg[/IMG]

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=saden1;538650]Win? How about we start choosing our words more carefully?[/quote]

I am content with my word. Simply put DMek said "can't we move on", which I replied "... call it a win..." . I did not say we did win as in a done deal, simply that if we are going to move on, then let's put the W in Bush's column since it was his plan/strategy that brought us to this point, and now at most it is like a 3rd string qb coming in to finish out the last 2 minutes in a game that is over, as opposed to a Save in baseball.
I tell you what again, let's give Bush the W in Iraq, and a No decision if Afghanistan, and if Obama gets Afghanistan under control he gets the Save.
But, and this is just what I believe, those who want to "just move on" now, will be the first to use a revisionist schtick in a year and a half, to proclaim Bush had failed and the war was won through Obama's presidency. And that just isn't the case.

-if you know me, i have a belief that both political parties spin fiction to reduce their liabilities. and i know that bush haters will not give him credit on anything (i don't give him credit on much), but the fact is that iraq is going to be a "win", and it was Bush's strategy that will have won it.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=Mattyk72;538659]Yeah I[B] have a hard time calling any war a win,[/B] especially this one. What happened to Mission Accomplished anyway?
[/quote]
So the American Revolutionary War, was not a win?

World War II, not a win?

Sadly this war will probably be more of a WWI style win, because America, as is normal, is going to cut out before true stability takes place. The current government most likely will parallel the Weimar Republic, with a fanatical sect coming back into power once america backs out of the country, similar to the league of nations once america refused to join. It cost us around 4,000 good men and women, plus the 10's of thousands who were injured, and instead of honoring their sacrifices many mock Bush by asking "what happened to mission accomplished". Bush politicized that statement so he mocked it as well. But the sailors on that ship, had accomplished their mission, and our troops on the ground over there have toiled long and hard to make iraq a country where every sect can come to the political discussion without their wives and children being gassed or killed, so yes that is a win. In the noblest sense of American military(regardless of political mumbo jumbo) our soldiers gave their lives so that people in another part of the world could be free from tyranny, yes that is a win.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;538661]So the American Revolutionary War, was not a win?

World War II, not a win?

Sadly this war will probably be more of a WWI style win, because America, as is normal, is going to cut out before true stability takes place. The current government most likely will parallel the Weimar Republic, with a fanatical sect coming back into power once america backs out of the country, similar to the league of nations once america refused to join. It cost us around 4,000 good men and women, plus the 10's of thousands who were injured, and instead of honoring their sacrifices many mock Bush by asking "what happened to mission accomplished". Bush politicized that statement so he mocked it as well. But the sailors on that ship, had accomplished their mission, and our troops on the ground over there have toiled long and hard to make iraq a country where every sect can come to the political discussion without their wives and children being gassed or killed, so yes that is a win. In the noblest sense of American military(regardless of political mumbo jumbo) [B]our soldiers gave their lives so that people in another part of the world could be free from tyranny, yes that is a win.[/B][/quote]

I wonder if the dead soldiers' families consider it a "win" ??

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=Beemnseven;538662]I wonder if the dead soldiers' families consider it a "win" ??[/quote]
I served 5 years my friend, in the early 90's; if I had given my life, my family would have considered it a personal loss, but they would have known i joined with open eyes, and would have been proud of my contribution. No one forced me to join, and when i swore my oath, i did not say "but if i die it is a loss" I did not want to die, i did not even want to go to bosnia (and thankfully didn't, my unit left 1 month after i pcs'd to the states) but it was my duty, and one i would have done if called upon. to ask that question demeans our soldiers and their families. No one person will consider a lost life a win in any situation. If a man goes to jail, his family will consider it a loss, but if it upholds our country's laws it may very well have been a win. No one family, when focused on their child/sibling/parent will consider a death a win, but they may see the it as a part of a greater truth, and gain strength and peace in that vision.

My friend, every loss is tragic, 9-11 was tragic, the kurds who were tossed in the mass graves were tragic, our soldiers sacrifice is tragic, but if in the end a government is formed that prevents any more mass grave, allows free participation in the political process, and provides for stability in the region then our families will look on their personal tragedy with a belief that it was not in vain.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;538670]I served 5 years my friend, in the early 90's; if I had given my life, my family would have considered it a personal loss, but they would have known i joined with open eyes, and would have been proud of my contribution. No one forced me to join, and when i swore my oath, i did not say "but if i die it is a loss" I did not want to die, i did not even want to go to bosnia (and thankfully didn't, my unit left 1 month after i pcs'd to the states) but it was my duty, and one i would have done if called upon. to ask that question demeans our soldiers and their families. No one person will consider a lost life a win in any situation. If a man goes to jail, his family will consider it a loss, but if it upholds our country's laws it may very well have been a win. No one family, when focused on their child/sibling/parent will consider a death a win, but they may see the it as a part of a greater truth, and gain strength and peace in that vision.

My friend, every loss is tragic, 9-11 was tragic, the kurds who were tossed in the mass graves were tragic, our soldiers sacrifice is tragic, but if in the end a government is formed that prevents any more mass grave, allows free participation in the political process, and provides for stability in the region then our families will look on their personal tragedy with a belief that it was not in vain.[/quote]



very good post.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

With respect to Iraq I'd love to see you add up your wins and losses.

Edit: I'd like to focus on Iraq.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=saden1;538571][URL="http://deliveriesgalore.com/2009/03/18/one-trillion-dollars/"]Have you ever wondered what one trillion dollars looks like?[/URL][/quote]

That pic/diagram is pretty mind-blowing IMO...

While the current cost may sit around $1 trillion there's two larger points: 1) the ultimate cost, which factors in long-term veteran care costs and other things, at least according the the Nobel prize holder Stiglitz, will cost well over $3 trillion ([url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846_pf.html]The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More[/url]) 2) the opportunity cost is literally unfathomable and even under the best case scenario for Iraq I think it's very hard for an honest person to argue that is worth more than the betterment we could have seen domestically (i'm totally w/ Pat Buchanan on this one)

But i think more importantly people should realize Bush did little to nothing to turn things around in Iraq. The tide turned w/ the surge strategy of "clear, hold and build," which was devised by Gen. Jack Keane and implemented within state dept., almost in clandestine fashion, by Condi Rice. Rummy pushed hard against the idea initially and it was only Condi's somewhat devious tactics that got the strategy on the ground. Bush had little to do w/ that; however, as i think is totally expected of the conservative base a women, let alone a minority, was never going to get the credit.

[url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/view/]FRONTLINE: endgame: watch online | PBS[/url]

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=saden1;538681]With respect to Iraq I'd love to see you add up your wins and losses.

Edit: I'd like to focus on Iraq.[/quote]

I really don't understand the question. Again, my point started in relation to the statement "can't we move on", if we are able to move on, and leave iraq be, certainly it would be a win, meaning no more major loss of life, troops eventually come home, etc etc. The fact is that iraq was a major negative day in and day out when bush was in office, and now suddenly we just move on?
(i am not asking for a glowing endorsement of a war, or that it was a perfectly run war - to keep with the sports analogy of earlier- maybe it was a 7 - 6 win and you hate the team that won, but they won. )

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=The Goat;538686]... [B] Bush had little to do w/ that; however, as i think is totally expected of the conservative base a women, let alone a minority, was never going to get the credit.[/B]

[url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/view/]FRONTLINE: endgame: watch online | PBS[/url][/quote]
and as is to be expected by the vilify bush crowd - bush will never get credit. bush brought in condi, she was a close advisor to him, that he followed her advise is not a surprise nor even unexpected. it is a fallacy to portray her advice as uncredited, regardless of race or gender.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;538692]and as is to be expected by the vilify bush crowd - bush will never get credit. bush brought in condi, she was a close advisor to him, that he followed her advise is not a surprise nor even unexpected. it is a fallacy to portray her advice as uncredited, regardless of race or gender.[/quote]

Well be honest when's the last time you heard a right-winger, from Lush Bimbo on down to the local listener, give Condi credit for what happened?

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;538689]I really don't understand the question. Again, my point started in relation to the statement "can't we move on", if we are able to move on, and leave iraq be, certainly it would be a win, meaning no more major loss of life, troops eventually come home, etc etc. The fact is that iraq was a major negative day in and day out when bush was in office, and now suddenly we just move on?
(i am not asking for a glowing endorsement of a war, or that it was a perfectly run war - to keep with the sports analogy of earlier- maybe it was a 7 - 6 win and you hate the team that won, but they won. )[/quote]

Lets go with go with the sports analogy...say you're Zorn, it's the Monday after a tough win against the hated Cowboys. You break down game film and start rating the performance of the players, coaching, and the team. What battles did you win and what battles did you lose? Any injuries?

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=The Goat;538694]Well be honest when's the last time you heard a right-winger, from Lush Bimbo on down to the local listener, give Condi credit for what happened?[/quote]

honestly, i'm so sick of politics, the only place I come close to listening/discussing it is here, and that is only because it is person to person kinda, not just political rhetoric for a national audience. I mean, I know I may not agree with Saden or DMek, but I believe that the discussion will be civil, and thoughtful.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=saden1;538732]Lets go with go with the sports analogy...say you're Zorn, it's the Monday after a tough win against the hated Cowboys. You break down game film and start rating the performance of the players, coaching, and the team. What battles did you win and what battles did you lose? Any injuries?[/quote]

k, well first i'm glad you went with the home team getting the overall win, and that was what my comments were intended. I see the "W" as being a regime change that works for the betterment of both the international and iraq's national societies. The "W" means that no more kurds will be slaughtered, just because they are kurds. It means that no more chemical attacks will be conducted on iraqi civilians by their own government. (By the way if you want to compare for real purposes wouldn't iraq be better cast as the raiders? although with some of the players that dallas has had maybe it works) It means that women and children will not be tortured because of their husband/father's political or religious beliefs.

But it definitely was not a victory without cost:
America lost some of its best players - the corporals, the privates, and the 2lt's who make up the backbone of our armed forces.
We took a black eye for a personal foul call at Abu Ghirab(sp)
We overspent on old line equipment and new fangled rookie technologies, where the opponent was more like the buffalo bills(pre TO) and way under the financial cap by using cheap "expendable" players (suicide bombers, small IED's)


Here is the "game" breakdown (my apologies to GTripp for not being nearly as good as his):

In the 1st quarter it looked like a blowout, we rolled through their defensive line, took out the 1st string line and had their QB scrambling, and eventually he went down with a severe head injury.

In the 2nd and 3rd quarters, they started clawing back, negating our fast strike offense, with well timed offensive strikes. But our defense kept forcing them to settle for FG's( IED strikes, skirmishes). They made one strong attempt to get at the Green Zone, but were re-buffed and we established a solid defensive front.

Late in the 4th quarter our coach, encouraged on by asst head coach-offense (nicknamed "Condi" (Goat ref)) called for a strong ground game to pound it out and secure the win. By solidifying the political ground gains with a strong offensive surge, the game was nearly over when Dan Snyder (the american people) saw that the coach, along with vinny(the congress) ran roughshoud(sp) over the organization's internal structure and was so angry that he fired the coach with 2 minutes to go. The new coach came in and had his qb kneel down during the final two minutes and the win was official.

Battles won:
we took out their 1st line offense quickly, and did not let them use any devastating trick plays.
we took away homefield advantage, and actually got the crowd on our side (by putting political structures in place, opening the political process and ensuring no retaliation against opposing sects occurred (or minimized them when they did)
we reduced the effectiveness of their backup plans(ied's suicide bombers).

Battles lost:
politically we lost clout
financially we took a hit
our soldiers paid heavy emotional, psychological, and physical costs
but honestly, i don't see any as lost, just a lot harder fought then some people expected.

(i digress to politics for a minute, I remember early on Bush told the american people, that this war would not be easy, and it would go on for a long time- he was speaking of the process- not specifically of the land war and occupation of iraq - because commentators the world over were saying that america did not have the resolve to fight. We lost roughly 4000 good soldiers, the enemy talked of sending home 10s of thousands of american bodies, i have posted earlier, no lost life is a good life, but the enemy did not do what they wanted to do, we limited their ability to kill our soldiers, but once we set foot over there they were going to kill some of us. WWI had 10's of thousands dead in a single day, vietnam had nearly 60,000 american dead - 1.5 million total dead, war is not fun, it is not nice, the opponent is not without ability, we limited that ability. end of digression)

Coaching:
i would say game prep was good, hence the strong 1st quarter, but shallow, we did not anticipate and make in game adjustments very well. The coach relied to heavily on one coordinator, didn't listen soon enough to other assistants, and waited until the win was in jeopardy to change the strategy.

I would liken most of the press to JLC except instead of Danny being the hated entity it was the coach. They absolutely hated the coach, and any story they ran, even "positive" ones had slight, or not so slight, digs at him.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

^^ Nicely done.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;538670]I served 5 years my friend, in the early 90's; if I had given my life, my family would have considered it a personal loss, but they would have known i joined with open eyes, and would have been proud of my contribution. No one forced me to join, and when i swore my oath, i did not say "but if i die it is a loss" I did not want to die, i did not even want to go to bosnia (and thankfully didn't, my unit left 1 month after i pcs'd to the states) but it was my duty, and one i would have done if called upon. [B]to ask that question demeans our soldiers and their families[/B]. No one person will consider a lost life a win in any situation. [B]If a man goes to jail, his family will consider it a loss, but if it upholds our country's laws it may very well have been a win. [/B] No one family, when focused on their child/sibling/parent will consider a death a win, [B]but they may see the it as a part of a greater truth, and gain strength and peace in that vision[/B].

My friend, every loss is tragic, 9-11 was tragic, the kurds who were tossed in the mass graves were tragic, our soldiers sacrifice is tragic, but [B]if in the end a government is formed that prevents any more mass grave, allows free participation in the political process, and provides for stability in the region then our families will look on their personal tragedy with a belief that it was not in vain.[/B][/quote]

Okay, there are several statements here I profoundly disagree with. First of all, here's the question Americans must ALWAYS ask whenever our troops are sent into harms way: is this conflict worth the life of the person that I love most? Casually tossing around the notion that "we won" without considering the families of dead or injured soldiers is what's demeaning. Especially when you know that they died when Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States.

Secondly, comparing the death of a soldier in an armed conflict to a criminal who breaks the law and is sent to jail is truly disgusting and certainly not what I would expect to hear from a former serviceman.

Finally, what "greater truth" are you talking about? Is it the truth that politicians have been sending Americans to their deaths in unnecessary, unconstitutional conflicts for far too long? The truth that no American should have to die to support some other country's political process? How about the truth that stability in the Middle East was shaken, not enhanced by our presence in Iraq?

Here's the real truth -- Iraq was not worth the life of ONE SINGLE AMERICAN.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;538738]"The "W" means that no more kurds will be slaughtered, just because they are kurds. It means that no more chemical attacks will be conducted on iraqi civilians by their own government."[/quote]

It might have been better if the United States government hadn't sold those chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the first place.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

Beemnseven, i agree about the chemical weapons. i respectfully disagree with the rest. and i guess it's why i get aggravated with political discussions. Often times people, including me, use diversions or ignore valid points to distract the argument, here are a few examples:


[quote]Okay, there are several statements here I profoundly disagree with. [B]First of all, here's the question Americans must ALWAYS ask whenever our troops are sent into harms way[/B]: is this conflict worth the life of the person that I love most? Casually tossing around the notion that "we won" without considering the families of dead or injured soldiers is what's demeaning. Especially when you know that they died when Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States.[/quote]
distraction 1 - make the question fit your view, don't look at the view of the writer. it's fine to put a new question out there, but my post was not addressing that question, I think going back in time, the american people clearly supported going to war, once that decision was made (and here people will distract with WMDs talk, but again I am saying once the decision was made).

[quote]Secondly, comparing the death of a soldier in an armed conflict to a criminal who breaks the law and is sent to jail is truly disgusting and certainly not what I would expect to hear from a former serviceman.[/quote]
distraction 2: change the context of the statement, or take it out of context, and maybe i wasn't clear enough; I was not comparing the soldier who dies in battle to the man goes to jail, i compared the family's feeling of loss. That is no less tragic, and yes i know families who have felt that type of loss.
[quote]Finally, what "greater truth" are you talking about? Is it the truth that politicians have been sending Americans to their deaths in unnecessary, unconstitutional conflicts for far too long? The truth that no American should have to die to support some other country's political process? How about the truth that stability in the Middle East was shaken, not enhanced by our presence in Iraq?
[/quote]
distraction 3: cherry picking lines here is my quote:
[quote]but [B]they may see the it as a part of a greater truth[/B], and gain strength and peace in that vision.
[/quote]
I indicated that the families may find solice by seeing a greater truth, it is not really my, or your, place to say what a family who lost a loved one finds that peace in as each may be different
[quote]Here's the real truth -- Iraq was not worth the life of ONE SINGLE AMERICAN. [/quote]
distraction 4: layout as real a truth that is clearly a personal opinion. I don't argue that you believe that iraq was not worth a single american life, but i think i could find equally passionate americans who differ in that view.

with all that, i respect your opinions, i understand you passionately believe them, and they have merit in and of themselves. we just disagree.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=Beemnseven;538743]Okay, there are several statements here I profoundly disagree with. [B]First of all, here's the question Americans must ALWAYS ask whenever our troops are sent into harms way: is this conflict worth the life of the person that I love most?[/B] Casually tossing around the notion that "we won" without considering the families of dead or injured soldiers is what's demeaning. Especially when you know that they died when Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States.

Secondly, comparing the death of a soldier in an armed conflict to a criminal who breaks the law and is sent to jail is truly disgusting and certainly not what I would expect to hear from a former serviceman.

Finally, what "greater truth" are you talking about? Is it the truth that politicians have been sending Americans to their deaths in unnecessary, unconstitutional conflicts for far too long? The truth that no American should have to die to support some other country's political process? How about the truth that stability in the Middle East was shaken, not enhanced by our presence in Iraq?

Here's the real truth -- Iraq was not worth the life of ONE SINGLE AMERICAN.[/quote]

I think you hit the nail on the head Beem and here's why: when we look at Iraq or any war from that perspective things become crystal clear. I cannot count how many times i've been at parties, family gatherings or just typical conversations while someone carries on about the greatness of the war. I always ask whether they encouraged their son, daughter, brother, sister to sign up. It's actually pretty fascinating to see the response... nobody ever says yes. Nobody. If I'm feeling a bit grouchy i ask whether they would have encouraged it during WWII... some people are honest and say they get the idea but then again some just get f'n peeved. My favorite incident was a relative who berates anyone not supportive of Bush and Iraq. When I mentioned the military was really short on good soldiers and his oldest son would be a perfect fit his wife literally went rigid w/ terror... and he finally stopped w/ all the speeches.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=The Goat;538775]I think you hit the nail on the head Beem and here's why: when we look at Iraq or any war from that perspective things become crystal clear. I cannot count how many times i've been at parties, family gatherings or just typical conversations while someone carries on about the greatness of the war. I always ask whether they encouraged their son, daughter, brother, sister to sign up. It's actually pretty fascinating to see the response... nobody ever says yes. Nobody. If I'm feeling a bit grouchy i ask whether they would have encouraged it during WWII... some people are honest and say they get the idea but then again some just get f'n peeved. My favorite incident was a relative who berates anyone not supportive of Bush and Iraq. When I mentioned the military was really short on good soldiers and his oldest son would be a perfect fit his wife literally went rigid w/ terror... and he finally stopped w/ all the speeches.[/quote]

I know exactly what you mean -- lots of Americans seem to be warhawks as long as somebody else's loved one has to fight.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=saden1;538571][URL="http://deliveriesgalore.com/2009/03/18/one-trillion-dollars/"]Have you ever wondered what one trillion dollars looks like?[/URL][/quote]

That is pretty insane.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=The Goat;538775]I think you hit the nail on the head Beem and here's why: when we look at Iraq or any war from that perspective things become crystal clear. I cannot count how many times i've been at parties, family gatherings or just typical conversations while someone carries on about the greatness of the war. I always ask whether they encouraged their son, daughter, brother, sister to sign up. It's actually pretty fascinating to see the response... nobody ever says yes. Nobody. If I'm feeling a bit grouchy i ask whether they would have encouraged it during WWII... some people are honest and say they get the idea but then again some just get f'n peeved. My favorite incident was a relative who berates anyone not supportive of Bush and Iraq. When I mentioned the military was really short on good soldiers and his oldest son would be a perfect fit his wife literally went rigid w/ terror... and he finally stopped w/ all the speeches.[/quote]


that's really a stupid question that you posed to the party goers. you ask it already knowing the answer, which makes you look like your making a good point but really your not. most people are not gonna encourage their child to join anything that raises the possibility of them getting injured or being killed. kinda like "hey son i think you should become a cop in the worse city around here so you can get shot at" or "hey daughter i think you should become a firefighter so you can run into burning buildings". joining the military should be a personal decision and the person joining should understand the possabilities of going to war.
just because someone supports going to war does not mean they should encourage their child to join the army. i support the chesapeake city police department but i'm not gonna encourage my son or daughter to become a cop.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=Beemnseven;538858] lots of Americans seem to be warhawks as long as somebody else's loved one has to fight.[/quote]



thats really a jackass statement.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=wolfeskins;538868]thats really a jackass statement.[/quote]

Do explain, please.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=wolfeskins;538868]thats really a jackass statement.[/quote]

after you just said that (paraphrasing) "of course no one wants to put there children in harms way" (which, by the way, agrees with the statement you just called asinine).

It is a good question though, cause it gets people to think about being so gun-ho about a fight that they're taking no part in.


as for iraq, the political structures aren't really what got the home crowd on our side. we lost them when we made them all jobless (go back to any war including alexander the great, and rule #1 is keep people employed, that way they have better things to do than sit around all day thinking about how to hurt you).

then we got smart and put awakening counsels on the payroll (which is 100,000 extra bodies) and increased troop counts and some tactics - and that was that. we'll have to see if the militants are just waiting for us to leave, but it looks like the political parties are starting to break away towards more nationalist groupings, which is good for stability.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=wolfeskins;538865]that's really a stupid question that you posed to the party goers. you ask it already knowing the answer, which makes you look like your making a good point but really your not. most people are not gonna encourage their child to join anything that raises the possibility of them getting injured or being killed. kinda like "hey son i think you should become a cop in the worse city around here so you can get shot at" or "hey daughter i think you should become a firefighter so you can run into burning buildings". joining the military should be a personal decision and the person joining should understand the possabilities of going to war.
just because someone supports going to war does not mean they should encourage their child to join the army. i support the chesapeake city police department but i'm not gonna encourage my son or daughter to become a cop.[/quote]

I'll spell it out for u since u somehow missed the point... in WWII there was no question. People DID encourage their loved ones to join because the fate of the world rested in our hands. My parents and grandparents (when they we're living) can attest to this. Iraq is the opposite. People of a certain political persuasion r gung-go until it involves their loved ones. You might say this war doesn't pass the smell test, because people aren't willing to see their loved ones in harm's way. It's pretty simple.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

So let me get this straight. The argument supporting the stance that the Iraq war was a failure is based upon saying that we never should have been there in the first place?

That's a whole separate argument. If I take a shot from half court in a non-buzzer beater situation, my coach might not like that I did it, but if it goes in you can't argue it wasn't a success.

There were massive failures with this war, failures that led to spending way more time and money there than we had imagined. But that country now has a democracy instead of an unstable dictator. The economy is beginning to get its legs. Order is being maintained to a level consistent with other middle east nations. And most importantly, human rights have improved 100000% as women are now voting and becoming a significant part of society.

I won't argue that the reasoning to go to war wasn't shaky. But nobody here should argue that the decision in any way diminishes what was accomplished.

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

What would be really interesting is to poll Iraqi citizens: Are you better off/happier today than you were 6-7 years ago?

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;538738]k, well first i'm glad you went with the home team getting the overall win, and that was what my comments were intended. I see the "W" as being a regime change that works for the betterment of both the international and iraq's national societies. The "W" means that no more kurds will be slaughtered, just because they are kurds. It means that no more chemical attacks will be conducted on iraqi civilians by their own government. (By the way if you want to compare for real purposes wouldn't iraq be better cast as the raiders? although with some of the players that dallas has had maybe it works) It means that women and children will not be tortured because of their husband/father's political or religious beliefs.

But it definitely was not a victory without cost:
America lost some of its best players - the corporals, the privates, and the 2lt's who make up the backbone of our armed forces.
We took a black eye for a personal foul call at Abu Ghirab(sp)
We overspent on old line equipment and new fangled rookie technologies, where the opponent was more like the buffalo bills(pre TO) and way under the financial cap by using cheap "expendable" players (suicide bombers, small IED's)


Here is the "game" breakdown (my apologies to GTripp for not being nearly as good as his):

In the 1st quarter it looked like a blowout, we rolled through their defensive line, took out the 1st string line and had their QB scrambling, and eventually he went down with a severe head injury.

In the 2nd and 3rd quarters, they started clawing back, negating our fast strike offense, with well timed offensive strikes. But our defense kept forcing them to settle for FG's( IED strikes, skirmishes). They made one strong attempt to get at the Green Zone, but were re-buffed and we established a solid defensive front.

Late in the 4th quarter our coach, encouraged on by asst head coach-offense (nicknamed "Condi" (Goat ref)) called for a strong ground game to pound it out and secure the win. By solidifying the political ground gains with a strong offensive surge, the game was nearly over when Dan Snyder (the american people) saw that the coach, along with vinny(the congress) ran roughshoud(sp) over the organization's internal structure and was so angry that he fired the coach with 2 minutes to go. The new coach came in and had his qb kneel down during the final two minutes and the win was official.

Battles won:
we took out their 1st line offense quickly, and did not let them use any devastating trick plays.
we took away homefield advantage, and actually got the crowd on our side (by putting political structures in place, opening the political process and ensuring no retaliation against opposing sects occurred (or minimized them when they did)
we reduced the effectiveness of their backup plans(ied's suicide bombers).

Battles lost:
politically we lost clout
financially we took a hit
our soldiers paid heavy emotional, psychological, and physical costs
[B]but honestly, i don't see any as lost, just a lot harder fought then some people expected. [/B]

(i digress to politics for a minute, I remember early on Bush told the american people, that this war would not be easy, and it would go on for a long time- he was speaking of the process- not specifically of the land war and occupation of iraq - because commentators the world over were saying that america did not have the resolve to fight. We lost roughly 4000 good soldiers, the enemy talked of sending home 10s of thousands of american bodies, i have posted earlier, no lost life is a good life, but the enemy did not do what they wanted to do, we limited their ability to kill our soldiers, but once we set foot over there they were going to kill some of us. WWI had 10's of thousands dead in a single day, vietnam had nearly 60,000 american dead - 1.5 million total dead, war is not fun, it is not nice, the opponent is not without ability, we limited that ability. end of digression)

Coaching:
i would say game prep was good, hence the strong 1st quarter, but shallow, we did not anticipate and make in game adjustments very well. The coach relied to heavily on one coordinator, didn't listen soon enough to other assistants, and waited until the win was in jeopardy to change the strategy.

I would liken most of the press to JLC except instead of Danny being the hated entity it was the coach. They absolutely hated the coach, and any story they ran, even "positive" ones had slight, or not so slight, digs at him.[/quote]


Your assessment to me boils down to the highlighted line. According to you Vietnam was a win, Korea was a win. As with everything in life taking a long term view tremendously increases the chance of success. I could take the same long term view with respect to Iraq and say in 100 years Iraq would become a "democracy" without us having to go to war.


Few more thoughts:
[LIST=1][*]Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, et al are all under one cocktail umbrella with Bush the Olive at the center. Some see a Martini, others see a Molotov.[*]The reason why we went to war shouldn't be relegated to the back seat. We went in for WMDs, terrorists, and the threat of future attacks on us. If you're going to conduct a preemptive war you aught to have your predictive knife sharp.[*]People who say "no one could have predicted [...]" are either liars or don't know how our defense department actually works. Does our defense department not being capable of doing some predictive work make sense?[*]Bush at least had the smarts to say "we're making progress," and "we're winning." I don't think we've "won" anything just yet, there's still a host of problems in Iraq.[*]Anyone that thinks they can win against international terrorists militarily is delusional.[*]Iraq war negatives include: people wanting to get nukes for protection, more people committing to join the terrorist ranks, and some lone SOB with bio-tech knowhow creating bio-agents.[/LIST]

Re: 6 Years Later Iraq Better but Still Shaky
 

[quote=Beemnseven;538869]Do explain, please.[/quote] sometimes going to war is the correct thing to do regardless of if you have a loved one in the military or not. thats what the military is for. thats their job, it's in their contract. if they're called upon to go to war then they go. i supported going to war in iraq , your jackass statement makes it sound like the only reason i and anyone else that supports going to war only support it because i/we do not have a loved one in the military.