Iraq War Is ‘a Nightmare’ - Page 2 - PhillyBlog

#11 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seand

You are completely insane. Supposedly we went into Iraq as part of a larger battle with extremist jihaadist Islam. We attacked them without the support of the UN or any of the other countries in the region. In World War II the US faced agressor nations who attacked us, that were hell bent on teritorial expansion that quite literally were bent on controlling the entire globe. Saddam might have had private wet dreams like that but in atuality posed no substantive threat to any of his neighbors and everyone in the world knows it.

A nation that carpet bombed the civilain population of another nation unilaterally would quite literally become a justifiable target of any freedom loving nation on this planet. The US in a scenario like that would really be no different ethically than the Kaiser's Germany or Musolini's Italy and would probably deserve the treatment that each of those nations recieved after we were justly defeated.

If we were to behave like that we would be inviting a world of constant unending war on a scale comparable to WWII, complete politicla and economic isolation - basically the end of the so called Pax Americana of the last 50 years.

Again you are completely insane. I take it you live in a box and pay no attention to the news. There are 7-8 million displaced Iraqui's, 5-6 million turned out of ther homes internally more than 2 million living as refugees in neighboring Syria and Jordan since the beginning of this war. Its the largest refugee crisis in the history of the Middle East - period. Their economy (except for graft on American funded "reconstruction" contracts and the booming business in kidnapping by both the various ethnic militias and criminal gangs) is total collpse. Formerly one of the most well read and best educated countries in the Middle East the entire educated class has fled the country due to the crime, kidnapping and constant car bombs

We have inflicted plenty of suffering and damage to the civilians in Iraq and it gets exagerated and broadcast all over the Islamic world nightly on satelite TV feeding the recruitment lines for Islamic extremist organizations like Al Queda in a way they could barely have dreamed of 10 or 15 years ago.

The point is that if you're going to have a war, then have one. All laws and countries are just hypothetical constructs. If a country is so afraid of hurting feelings of breaking laws then they don't have the correct mindset for war, which is loosely organized insanity.

seand · #12 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAdlerian

The point is that if you're going to have a war, then have one. All laws and countries are just hypothetical constructs. If a country is so afraid of hurting feelings of breaking laws then they don't have the correct mindset for war, which is loosely organized insanity.

The type of war you are advocating is the kind where the generals and president all justifiably get hung at the end because the civilian population overthrows them and puts them on trial. I also think its a pretty serious mischaracterization of WWII and a dishonor to my grandfather's and many other veterans service in that war.

It was not a good idea to go into Iraq at all but most civilians lives in Iraq are already plenty miserable. Maximizing civilian death and suffering is an absolutely lousy way to end up with a stable ally after the war but its huge gift to any insurgency and to the cause of Islamicist extremism world wide.

five apples · #13 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAdlerian

The point is that if you're going to have a war, then have one. All laws and countries are just hypothetical constructs. If a country is so afraid of hurting feelings of breaking laws then they don't have the correct mindset for war, which is loosely organized insanity.

You seem to have little or no grasp of modern geo-politics and the effect your war policy would have on the united states and its citizens. If we did what you suggested in Iraq we would be finished as international player, relegated as a near pariah state, unable to influence world opinion and unable to project our power globally. Perhaps your world view would have worked better before the advent of democracy, public opinion polls, or any modern version of news, including the printing press.

kotok · #14 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAdlerian

Supposedly we were like five minutes from winning in Vietnam and quit, but maybe not.

In Iraq I have no idea why we need ground troops. They're just morale building targets for the bad guys. The best idea would be bombing and misery inducing tactics until the population grew to hate themselves, their culture, and the defenders, and begged us to stop and help. Then, as with WWII you come in and rebuild and you're the hero, even though you caused the destruction to begin with..

I read a few books about the vietnam war and from the sounds of I think we were far from winning that war. They started the whole vietnamization program like 3 or 4 years before the war ended where they slowly sent some troops over while taking more home. From the sounds of it, it was an attempt at saving face to a losing war. Not only that, but they were just going to outwait us anyways. Iraq, will be the same.

I think you always need ground troops unless you want to drop nuclear weapons or carpet bomb the entire country. Either way you kill a lot of innocent people and foster worldwide hate towards the U.S. which is counter-productive to winning a war on terror. I also think it is bad that we have hired mercenaries fighting. Who do they answer to when they decide to go rambo and wipe out a village?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAdlerian

It makes no sense that the average Iraqi should be able to have a business, make money, feed their family, and hate America, while we are HAVING A WAR THERE. What kind of war is that? Things should be so inconvienent that people can't stand it.

It makes sense if they don't want us there to begin with. If you have a family, you're number one priority is to feed them and take care of them. If you have gung-ho U.S. and gung-ho anti-us factions fighting, why get involved if it jepordizes your family's well being?

Bottom line it was ignorant and naive to think that we could walk in and impose our culture and government on a country that is very different from us.

TWalsh3378 · #15 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 04:41 PM

[quote=kotok;600724]I read a few books about the vietnam war and from the sounds of I think we were far from winning that war. They started the whole vietnamization program like 3 or 4 years before the war ended where they slowly sent some troops over while taking more home. From the sounds of it, it was an attempt at saving face to a losing war. Not only that, but they were just going to outwait us anyways. Iraq, will be the same.

What books were you reading? Because almost all experts and even the North Vientnam generals admitted they were close to surrender

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/cor...tnam/north.asp

What was their main motivation? Good ol John Kerry and the anti-war movement. Sound familiar? John Murtha Cough Cough Cough

nuleader · #16 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWalsh3378;600790
What books were you reading? Because almost all experts and even the North Vientnam generals admitted they were close to surrender

[URL

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/vietnam/north.asp[/url]

What was their main motivation? Good ol John Kerry and the anti-war movement. Sound familiar? John Murtha Cough Cough Cough

What books are YOU reading? Even the Sect'y of Defense at that time, Bill McNamara, admitted that it (Vietnam War) was nothing more than a bunch of colossal failures...

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=000...3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

TWalsh3378 · #17 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 05:02 PM

I posted my source, and if the Norther general said he was ready to surrender, then he was ready to surrender.

kotok · #18 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 05:15 PM

[quote=TWalsh3378;600790]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kotok

I read a few books about the vietnam war and from the sounds of I think we were far from winning that war. They started the whole vietnamization program like 3 or 4 years before the war ended where they slowly sent some troops over while taking more home. From the sounds of it, it was an attempt at saving face to a losing war. Not only that, but they were just going to outwait us anyways. Iraq, will be the same.

What books were you reading? Because almost all experts and even the North Vientnam generals admitted they were close to surrender

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/cor...tnam/north.asp

What was their main motivation? Good ol John Kerry and the anti-war movement. Sound familiar? John Murtha Cough Cough Cough

One was about the VC tunnels. They were pretty dug in to southern vietnam with complex 3 story tunnel systems, Which is part of the reason to why we had trouble claiming land in some of the areas.

A lot of history shows and books discussed the fact that we were never able to sever the ho chi minh trail.

Not to mention the fading morale of troops and U.S. at home.

I didn't catch the word surrender in the article you posted. He said the southern forces where nearly wiped out after the tet offensive and that they had to use the nva.

#19 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seand

The type of war you are advocating is the kind where the generals and president all justifiably get hung at the end because the civilian population overthrows them and puts them on trial.

The kind of war you support is the kind where you lose.

seand · #20 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAdlerian

The kind of war you support is the kind where you lose.

No because nobody wins the type of war you propose. Democracy is unsustainable in a society that employs those kind of tactics. If you call living in a militarist, pseudo-facist state with a crap economy and no civil liberties "winning" I guess you are right but personally I don't call that "winning". I call that "losing" - both for the country inflicting the damage and driving itself into a form of international isolation that forces the country to become nothing but war machine with an increasingly authoritarian government constantly jealous of losing its grip on power and for the country thats being pummelled back into the stone age.

I gues it all depends on how one defines "you" - if you mean the general population they definitely lose out in that scenario, but I guess you could argue that a handful of the generals in Burma are doing pretty well for themselves and their immediate family with a similar polciy.