| 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: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Iraq...an albatross around our necks? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 24 2003, 09:21 AM (461 Views) | |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 24 2003, 09:21 AM Post #1 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
***Edit: This news story has been retracted since my posting this morning. However, the sentiment that I expressed throughout this thread still holds true. ******* "On Sunday, gunmen in Mosul shot two American soldiers driving through the city center, sending their vehicle crashing into a wall. About a dozen swarming teenagers dragged the men out of the wreckage and beat them with concrete blocks, the witnesses said. "One of the soldiers was shot under the chin and the bullet came out of his head. I saw the hole in his helmet. The other was shot in the throat," said Bahaa Jassim, a witness. The city is 250 miles north of Baghdad." Warning***Arrogant American remark*** War is a nasty business, but this shouldn’t be happening to the most powerful military in the world. **End*** Heck this kind of madness shouldn’t be happening at all…no one wants to see war, human rights abuses and people needlessly dieing. Yeah, yeah the theory goes that things always get worse before they get better. Well my theory is that it isn’t going to get better unless we modify our strategy in Iraq. We can begin by shipping massive amounts of troops back into Iraq. Our National debt is already sky high and it is not going down any year soon. So why not go in debt a few more trillion dollars now, take care of this Iraqi problem once and for all and go about our business without having this Iraqi albatross around our necks for the next 20 years (I chose 20 years as an example, because we really don't know how long)? But you ask, aren’t we creating another albatross by increasing the National debt to such astronomical levels? Maybe, maybe not. Should we spend unknown amounts for the next 20 years on Iraq? Or do we spend one lump sum taking care of the problem now? Well, if it means that mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands and wives don’t have to worry about two soldiers showing up at their front door with news that their loved ones were beat to a bloody pulp with bricks…then why not? I might change my mind about the situation tomorrow. At this moment, I just don’t see things getting better unless there is a change in strategy. I have proposed more troops, because this makes the most sense to me. However, I am not a military strategist…but there are many out there who are, and do get paid the “big bucks” to figure the rest out. I know we can make it happen, we have many (non-nuclear) resources at our disposal. We have talented military leaders, money, troops, weaponry and technology (I am sure I left some out). Are we really taking full advantage of the (non-nuclear...non carpet bombing of Iraq) resources that we have available to us? **Edit: The following news story has been retracted since my original posting: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103901,00.html |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 24 2003, 11:15 AM Post #2 |
|
Time to put something here
|
All I know is that I am glad I do not have to make the decsions. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 24 2003, 11:20 AM Post #3 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Believe it or not, I actually think things are improving in one area. This is how my tactical mind sees things: Note how the terrorist attacks are poorly organized and almost seem random. Note the materials used... a donkey cart as transportation on Saturday, poorly-made car bombs, and Sunday's ambush of two American soldiers seemed to be spur of the moment. We've broken the backs of al Queda and the Ba'ath parties. They have little money and are using home made materials or the remnants of weapons caches. What is involved is mopping up. I don't think that we need to send massive amounts of troops into Iraq again, but rather we need to better use the ones there. This is now being done (note Operation Iron Hammer). It will work. We've just developed the largest conventional weapon on Earth, meant to be launched from the bay of a B-2... the new and improved MOAB. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't use a few of those for effect. There has been a spate of violence in Iraq, coinciding with their holy month of Ramadan (more proof that the Ba'athists are hypocrites as well as murderers). It will end. Yes, war is a nasty business, but these things happen to any military. We can't send people out in platoon strength all the time. The ambush (the troops were already dead when they were beaten with bricks) was not a common thing. THESE ATTACKS ARE NOT AIMED AT THE TROOPS IN IRAQ BUT AT THE PEOPLE AT HOME WATCHING ON THEIR TELEVISIONS. They are meant to demoralize us. What they don't understand is that they may MOBILIZE us instead. Interesting post, 24. Thanks! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Nov 24 2003, 12:18 PM Post #4 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Not to mention the fact that al Quida is kicking itself in the pursestrings every time it bombs a country like Saudi Arabia and Turkey. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Nov 24 2003, 12:37 PM Post #5 |
|
Admiral
|
I don't like the situation over there either 24, but I think we only have 2 choices. One is to continue on the road we have been going. The other is to get more countries involved. I don't think adding more military is a good idea. Of course, getting more countries involved isn't so easy when we just turned our backs on them when we started this war and it was a large reason I didn't like the way we went about it. But now I'm digressing... I hear your point about why it might be more important to spend money to protect ourselves right now than to worry about the build-up of the national debt. However, deciding it is worth spending money is not the same as deciding to spend it in Iraq. I wouldn't want us to spend huge amounts of additional money on Iraq only to find that some other pressing problem popped up. There are still plenty of terrorists at large and we may have tangles with other countries before this is all through. Or we may see countries like North Korea (for example) creating issues that are non-terrorist in nature, but might still require our military. And, aside from military spending, there are still plenty of national security expenses that we might need to spend that money on. The airlines are only one such area and we still haven't gotten even that right. If I was convinced the extra military was needed and would really help in Iraq, I might go along with your suggestion. But I'm not convinced of that and, given what I just said above, I wouldn't be in favor of sending additional military to Iraq right now. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 24 2003, 03:57 PM Post #6 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
You know, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people claim to understand Americans and can predict our responses, yet the terrorists and other bad guys never seem to understand (or see it coming) this one American trait (reaction). Or more to the point, some people tend to underestimate how pissed off Americans can get; and instead of cowering in fear as falsely predicted, we go on the offense and make them regret they were ever born. The anti-Iraqi democratization/anti-American crowd do seem to be exhibiting a last ditch effort to inflict casualties among the Coalition forces (from the techniques used to the low-tech materials used in the construction of bombs). However, I am still not totally convinced that this is an indicator of a decrease in attacks. People are unpredictable and no situation is the same. That is why I think it extremely important that we (government, DOD) don’t underestimate the resilience or ingenuity (using low tech materials) of a people who feel wronged on an extreme level. That is pre 9/11 thinking…something that we accuse others of doing all the time. Before 9/11, our government only speculated that such a catastrophic event could occur. Unfortunately, we underestimated our enemies. I don’t want to ever see us do that again. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 24 2003, 04:00 PM Post #7 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
IE, you are right about current and future needs that will require monetary attention from our government. I too share your concerns about our national security, airport security, North Korea (IMHO, this country should have been dealt with before Iraq) and other anti-terrorist programs/techniques that will need to be implemented. Allocating so much money toward one situation (Iraq) would definitely hinder so many other programs. Also, logically, I know sending more troops back into Iraq is not the answer. I think my frustration stems from my initial impression that there was a premature withdrawal of some troops (not long after "major" fighting ended). As a result of this impression, I am beginning to associate current problems with that withdrawal. For example, the incident this weekend… I ask myself, would this incident have happened if there were a greater number of troops/vehicles in the patrol? Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and there are a number of variables that could make the situation turn out just the way it did regardless. Still there is that nagging question of, could it have been prevented if there were just a few more troops available? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 24 2003, 04:02 PM Post #8 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
More troops? That could help or hurt. In the short term it helps "pacify" the area. In the long run it sends the message that we are there for the purpose of conquest and occupation, not liberation. We need an adequate size force to handle the security issues that need our own attention and we need to continue working to put Iraqi operated security in place. Yes, there will still be attacks on American personnel for how ever long we are there. Partly, it is meant to demoralize us with the images that will inevitably get broadcast. Partly, it is an opportunity for those that do want to attack us to take their shot at more readily available targets on the ground there... We have been trying to reach out to the UN again and what has been happening? Russia, Germany, and France are continuing to hem and ha about it. They were against action in the first place (I really do believe nothing would have convinced all three to go with a military action at all) and remain unwilling to support the nations that are present there today... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 24 2003, 04:02 PM Post #9 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
You and me both Dante.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 24 2003, 11:09 PM Post #10 |
|
Lieutenant
|
24 C - I hear the real anger and shock in your post about the killing of these two soldiers and their treatment - it does conjure up awful pictures in one's mind. (which may be why this story has now been officially retracted, as being untrue, or perhaps it simply was untrue; who knows - truth was certainly the first casualty of this war ). may I respectfully add though, to what has been written already by others, that there seems to be no way out for your troops, IMHO. The longer they stay, the worse the killing will get, probably on both sides. They can not pull out either for that would destroy the credibility of American foreign policy, probably forever almost. The big difference with what many people see and what (respectfully) Americans see is that, things ARE getting worse, week by week. There is no other sensible interpretation of the facts as we know them. The death toll is accelerating due to more bold and more sophisticated attacks on US troops and civilians. Bremmer cancels a meeting with President of a coalition ally at the last moment, to rush to Washington. There is still no reliable services to much of the country. Relief and diplomatic agencies are reducing their presence or pulling out completely. Countires which promised help (Japan, Turkey) are now hesitiating due to the worsening situation in Iraq. Casualties have gone from single ones to two's and three's to now multiple ones with helicopter missile shootings. It is simply childish for Mr Bush to attribute the growing sophistication and confidence of the attacks to "desparation". It is also cruel to mislead the American people like that. Surely, if an adversary was truely desparate, they would be using less and less sophisticated methods, not more and more sophistcated ones. (?) Remember Vietnam - peasant people worked around the clock, in their hundreds, rebuilding bridges, trails, etc with their bare hands, each time US bombs destroyed it. It only took another bombing raid to destroy the bridge again, but again and again the bridge was rebuilt, using nothing much at all apart from the will to do it. I beleive that Mr Rumsfeld and his cronies, having learnt nothing from history, have badly under estimated the enemy this time round. Unless some bold new initiative comes about by President Bush, I can't see any let up in the continuing decline of Iraq. Was being "mobilised" any help in Vietnam ? I think your description of an albatross is tragically accurate, but as I have said before, only time will tell. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 24 2003, 11:13 PM Post #11 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Of course you want us to remember Vietnam, as do the Iraqis... but this time it isn't going to work. Why? 9/11. And stop with the "things are getting worse" crapola. They are not. These are last ditch efforts from an increasingly desperate group with little funding or weapons, trying to do what they can on the spur of the moment. This is NOT vietnam... Northern Ireland maybe, but not Vietnam. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 24 2003, 11:31 PM Post #12 |
|
Time to put something here
|
So (respectfully) the American people are unsensible sheep? Hmmm and you say you aren’t a hate full man. Sorry I really don’t buy it. What’s your hang up with putting down Americans, does it make you as a New Zealander feel better? I really don’t understand it, New Zealand isn’t that bad a country, even if it doesn’t play as big a role in world politics as America does, its still a nice place to live. yes you are right lets remember Vietnam, where people died hundreds by the day, and now in Iraqi its a few ever few days. Thanx for showing me that things are a lot better today then they where back during Vietnam. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 24 2003, 11:40 PM Post #13 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Some of bombs may well be primitive - but they are still lethal and killing GIs and others. There is also this rash of attacks using RPGs and small missiles - maybe these guys using these weapons are only now starting to use them because they needed to get trained in their use (and unfortunately Iraq now has terror groups moving in as it) has now become a powerful magnet for radicals, zeelots and loonitunes (not just the Islamic variety) from all over the planet and all wanting a piece of the American and British blood being spilt. And isn't the aim of an effective resistance movement to appear random in their actions - this makes them hard to track down and put counter measures in place, or to capture - eg the actions of the French Resistance in WWII and of coast-watchers / snipper coys in New Guinea, Borneo and other places (Z-force) in WWII. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Nov 25 2003, 08:25 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
According to this news story on Foxnews:
Apparently the Sadam loyalist's attacks on the coallition have not borne fruit so they continue to go after softer targets. I wonder what kind of news they aire in New Zealand and Australia where everything is doom and gloom and we're all gonna die and it's all a big miserable failure?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 25 2003, 09:15 AM Post #15 |
|
Time to put something here
|
(respectfully) you are being an unsensible American again. Its not that they have different news in New Zealand – (respectfully) its just that New Zealanders (and the rest of the world for that matter (respectfully)) are more capable of sensibly interpreting the situation then Americans. Especially (respectfully) since Americans are unable to see that they are being lied to by a moron, and are too patriotic (which - respectfully is a bad thing ) to see the truth. The only sensible conclusions that one can come up with are that, Americans are always wrong. Or (respectfully) Americans are as stupid as everyone believes they are. These are the only two explanations that a civilized country could come up with. … (respectfully) This has been a satire … and should not necessarily be seen as the only sensible truth – but (respectfully) I doubt you Americans will be able to understand that, and your moronic government will most likely claim it was never said. … (respectfully of cores) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




2:13 PM Jul 11