Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
what would be worse............?
Topic Started: Nov 12 2003, 04:50 PM (319 Views)
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Stubbornly staying IN Iraq without a change in course, (as this US administration seems to want to do) watching the situation there deterioate more and more OR getting OUT now and watching the situation deterioate more and more, but at least without further coalition casualties ?

ie : IN or OUT ?

I have had a knawing suspicion for some time now that Rumsfeld lost his zeal for nation building some time ago - if he really ever had it - and now, after encouraging Bush into this action, has basically left him with the mess.


PS : I didn't know Donald was Sec of Defense 25 years ago under President Ford - how is it that has been able to skulk around that long ?
Offline | Profile ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
The fundamental flaw in your post is that you assume Iraq's deterioration is the only possibility. While I didn't like going to war in Iraq when we did and in the manner we did, the fact is we are in there now and, one way or another, Iraq will be restored. :yes:

The real question is how much of a role the current coalition should have vs. how much additional help to allow. But that's an entirely different question than the one you posed.
Offline | Profile ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
ImpulseEngine
Nov 12 2003, 05:05 PM
The fundamental flaw in your post is that you assume Iraq's deterioration is the only possibility. While I didn't like going to war in Iraq when we did and in the manner we did, the fact is we are in there now and, one way or another, Iraq will be restored. :yes:


I realise that's how the post reads.....I just thought it was obvious.

After all, we're nearly in election year, can George stand a whole year more of the "success" achieved so far ? Things will deteriate for months, maybe even years the way things are going now.

I don't share your rather optimistic view of things UNLESS the administration does one of a few things, which they don't seem to really want to do as this would involve eating that dish called humble pie......

admit to the world the whole thing has been a shambles, show some humility and maybe a few more countries might hop on board, or

immediately double or triple the number of US troops there - it could be done - they just don't want to, or

just leave the Iraqi to it

One of the lessons of Vietnam was that small slow increments in committed resources only give time to the other side to adapt and adjust. I mean, how could it take 650,000 troops just to stampepde a beaten army across a dessert in 91, but only 150,000 to occupy the whole country.

It just doesn't add up.

Having gotten itself into one huge whole, this govt doesn't seem to have any idea what to do next. Using more force will only kill more civilians, harming the cause, using less force only helps the extremists.
Offline | Profile ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
NZ, you presented a series of bad choices of which the administration must choose one in order to salvage the Iraq situation. However, you forgot one other bad choice: allowing Iraq to deteriorate. In the end, that will be the bad choice the administration will most want to avoid...
Offline | Profile ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
ImpulseEngine
Nov 12 2003, 05:29 PM
NZ, you presented a series of bad choices of which the administration must choose one in order to salvage the Iraq situation.  However, you forgot one other bad choice: allowing Iraq to deteriorate.  In the end, that will be the bad choice the administration will most want to avoid...

ummmm.....just to my eyes, IMHO, it seems to me, that it is not accurate to call "leaving Iraq to deterioate" a "choice".

It seems rather obvious that the coalition has no idea how to STOP the deterioation going on now, yet alone, how to turn the situation around.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie
Nov 12 2003, 05:18 PM
ImpulseEngine
Nov 12 2003, 05:05 PM
The fundamental flaw in your post is that you assume Iraq's deterioration is the only possibility.  While I didn't like going to war in Iraq when we did and in the manner we did, the fact is we are in there now and, one way or another, Iraq will be restored.   :yes:


I realise that's how the post reads.....I just thought it was obvious.

After all, we're nearly in election year, can George stand a whole year more of the "success" achieved so far ? Things will deteriate for months, maybe even years the way things are going now.

I don't share your rather optimistic view of things UNLESS the administration does one of a few things, which they don't seem to really want to do as this would involve eating that dish called humble pie......

admit to the world the whole thing has been a shambles, show some humility and maybe a few more countries might hop on board, or

immediately double or triple the number of US troops there - it could be done - they just don't want to, or

just leave the Iraqi to it


First of all, moron, THIS IS NOT VIETNAM. It is more analogous to Northern Ireland than Vietnam. Can't you Socialists get over Vietnam already? You act as if you care about our troops (and yours) but you couldn't give a rat's rear end. You simply want to find some excuse to bash American foreign policy.

Successes that Bush can run on:

Iraq will NOT be ruled by someone who left THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE in 267 mass graves. That says something in itself.

Saddam's bioweapons and nuclear programs will never threaten anyone.

Lastly, Iraq is NOT deteriorating. There is no need for humble pie to be consumed, except by you oh-so-snotty know-nothings who insist on the worst. Instead life is returning to PRE-Saddam normalcy. Iraqi citizens are not "rising up" against Coalition troops. Saddam's dwindling supporters are. I've stated why on numerous occasions so I'm not going to again. You (NZ) don't have the background to understand. Read von Clausewitz and get back to me. Take your time.

P.S. Your HO (humble opinion) ain't worth jack squat.
Offline | Profile ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 12 2003, 05:47 PM
[Iraq will NOT be ruled by someone who left THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE in 267 mass graves. That says something in itself.


give him a chance bill - it's only been a few months.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ONLY A SCUM would try and twist this HORROR and make a joke out of it. [UNKIND WORD] like you would rather see Saddam still there.

That's the problem with you Socialists... your petty jealousy over our successes warps your thinking.

You've crossed the line again. Consider this a warning.
Offline | Profile ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 12 2003, 06:14 PM
ONLY A SCUM would try and twist this HORROR and make a joke out of it. [UNKIND WORD] like you would rather see Saddam still there.

That's the problem with you Socialists... your petty jealousy over our successes warps your thinking.

You've crossed the line again. Consider this a warning.

just so your posts at least have one less inaccuracy in them bill, I would just like to say that I consider my "conservative" credentials as good as anyones on this board.

I own 4 properties, run my own business, work for an American multi national, have been door knocking for conservative politicians, active in local politics, generally against endless govt handouts, against abortion, for self repsonsibility, never voted for even a centre left politician in my life, etc............

so please don't refer to me as a socialist, or leftie etc.

I do however, reserve the right to use common sense and raise contentious issues however it may make others feel, which is probably why I get under your skin so bad - deep down, you just know I'm like you and you just know I'm right.

(except I try not to use personal abuse or name calling)
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
All right... how about simply "Anti-American [UNKIND WORD]"

I'm friggin' infuriated at that LOW crack you made about the mass graves. If you were in front of me I'd show you JUST how angry that callous piece of [USE YOUR IMAGINATION] comment made me.
Offline | Profile ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 12 2003, 08:34 PM


All right... how about simply "Anti-American [UNKIND WORD]"

I'm friggin' infuriated at that LOW crack you made about the mass graves. If you were in front of me I'd show you JUST how angry that callous piece of [USE YOUR IMAGINATION] comment made me.

humour is a very complex business.........if you're so angry at that comment, imagine how it feels to live there, both before and after Saddam.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. The "situation" in Iraq for the average Iraq has improved a THOUSAND FOLD since Saddam Hussein was deposed, and you know it damned well. Your KIND is just afraid to admit it.

I'm angry at the comment, and I meant every word of what I said, because you made an INCORRECT and DAMAGING statement as an attempt at humor. I'll bet you thought that Dachau and Auschwitz were a laugh riot.

Keep your anti-American swill for your own websites. Don't spew your filth here.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
If I may interject, why are you letting this guy get to you Bill. Its obvious that’s all he is interested in. All his so called Common sense remarks are attempts to get a rise out of people. He feels good when you get mad because of what he says it makes him feel right. Just blow him off and hill leave like he did before.
Offline | Profile ^
 
polarslam
Member Avatar
Lieutenant Junior Grade
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 12 2003, 05:47 PM
Read von Clausewitz and get back to me. Take your time.


It seems that a great deal of Iraqi's are following Clausewitz to a tee, and bringing diplomacy by other means to their occupiers....

I like Clausewitz, but he's one of those thinkers that can be used in any sitution to justify anything.

And I'll take the Art of War anyday...but it to can be used for anything...hell I've seen books applying the art of war from everthing fomr office politcs to gardening. :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dandandat
Nov 12 2003, 10:29 PM
If I may interject, why are you letting this guy get to you Bill. Its obvious that’s all he is interested in. All his so called Common sense remarks are attempts to get a rise out of people. He feels good when you get mad because of what he says it makes him feel right. Just blow him off and hill leave like he did before.

Because I'm tired of foreigners coming here to run down a country I am PROUD of, Dante! I put up with this while I was in the Navy, and I'm fed up with his "type" of jealous, envious foreigner.
Offline | Profile ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus