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:
Add Reply
Enlarged British Zone in Iraq
Topic Started: Apr 26 2004, 02:42 PM (680 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
It'd be better off if I sent it to Dick "Big Time" Cheney! He's the word master (Case in point, his spanking of Kerry today.)!

I have absolutely no desire to run for office.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I wonder how things would be different if Nixon didn't pull America out of Vietnam. Would we still be there now? When do you decide to end an occupation when the residents are killing soldiers? Should we continue to occupy territory that continuously costs hundreds of lives and millions of taxpayer dollars? I wonder how our economy and society would change if we had a steady death rate of young people and constant debt to continue an occupation. Something to think about.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I wonder how soon that war would have ended if we were actually allowed to FIGHT it.

Look up all the restrictions placed upon our soldiers, sailors, and airmen in Vietnam. We could have paved that country over in a year, but LBJ had to be an armchair general, and there was the (later found to be way overstated) fear that the Russians would supply troops to support the North Vietnamese.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Well, we could've just nuked them like Nixon first suggested to Kissinger as I heard in his tapes, but as Kissinger pointed out, that may have been the trigger to get China involved.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
[Fesarius has For What Its Worth by The Buffalo Springfield in his head now--and that's a good thing, BTW. ;)]

I recall vividly the shock when LBJ decided not to run for a second term. What I don't know, or recall very well, is Westmoreland's overall role during the height of the Conflict (or until Tet). Question: In retrospect, do you think he helped or hindered our cause in Vietnam? Also, I've frequently heard over the years that 'had we bombed Manchuria,' Vietnam would never have occurred. Can anyone (in a nutshell) shed some light on this?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Apr 26 2004, 06:08 PM
Well, we could've just nuked them like Nixon first suggested to Kissinger as I heard in his tapes, but as Kissinger pointed out, that may have been the trigger to get China involved.

There was no need to nuke them. We won every single battle fought, but lost the war. We couldn't prosecute the war, that was the problem.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I think different tactics could play a part. I know that we are talking about different areas but the comparison has been made between British troops helping to rebuild schools and other instructure, holding regular friendly meetings with local people, where possible travelling on foot without helmets. To the American approach of heavy armed forces on the streets, tanks and the like, attack helicopers over residental areas etc etc. I mean there were pictures recently of US troops playing loud rock music outside a Mosque during Friday prayers. I dont think that creates any kind of respect for the coalition.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
You realize we are building schools, restoring infrastructure (electricity and water), and keeping the Iraqi citizens safe (or trying to) to go about their business, right?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Apr 26 2004, 07:01 PM
When do you decide to end an occupation when the residents are killing soldiers?  Should we continue to occupy territory that continuously costs hundreds of lives and millions of taxpayer dollars?

In my humble opinion I would have to say its not with in a year of the occupation. You have to give these kinds of things time to improve, any one nave enough to have believed this was going to be a quick operation where we would be in and out in a matter of months was not listing to the president. In every speech he made prier to invasion and every speech afterward, he said this would be a long and hard operation. He also said that we would stay and do our job no matter the hardship. To pull out now because relatively few have died (not to discredit those who have, I have the utmost respect for them) would be the most foolish thing to do, and would be akin to not merely losing but handing the enemy their victory. Our country despite our lavish military has built up a reputation of pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory and we can no longer afford to keep going that way. There is a lot more at stake here then Iraqi and the people who have died their, their are many reasons we need a victory (not just to find WMD) and we should not throw it all away because we don’t have the stomach for it.

In times like these I take comfort in the words of a man who is considered by many to be one of our greatest presidents:

Quote:
 
We do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard.


When we set out to do the hard things in life the pay off can be immensely more rewarding then if we took the easy road. Yes we could have cow toed the issue of terrorism and the problems in the middle east and yes in the short term we would all be happier and safer. But appeasement and sweeping things under the rug never solves the problem, some times you just got to get in their and get dirty. Some times you need to take the riskier road because the treasure at the end is greater.

My friends we are at the twilight of our existence and make no mistake it will get darker before it ever gets light. But don’t be afraid of the dark because as surely as the earth rotates a new day will arise.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I dont think we need to pull out of Iraq and I dont think any solution is going to be easy. I do think that some of the current tactics of the coalition, if not changed soon, are certainly going to making this MUCH harder than it needed to be if not impossible.

Yes I am aware US troops have been doing infrastructure work, I am aware they face a difficult set of problems but I am also aware that some of their tactics have been, in my opinion, excessively heavy headed and insensitive to the population.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 26 2004, 05:44 PM
NO! Never!

We will NOT slink away from another one (like in Vietnam).

Benetil, you can't please everyone, and I'd rather have 80% happy with us. If I said that 99% were happy with our presence, you'd probably counter that there's that 1% who wants to kill us.

We will end terrorism. Only cowards run away. We are not cowards.

End of message.

In my estimation, Islamist terrorism, if ended, will be ended by 'forces' from inside the Islamic world/culture - moderate, peaceful Muslims taking control of the militants. It seems to me that our presence in Iraq has only aggravated the problem and strengthened the cause of the militants.

As for the willingness of "Arab" states to deal with the problem of Islamist terrorism - I think the proof is in the pudding. We see few, if any, troops from countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt standing with American troops. Hell, even Iraqi 'law enforcement' isn't standing with us in many cases in their own country! In fact, we even see nations like France and Germany constrained by the Muslim populations inside their own borders.

I have always agreed with something that Vice President Cheney said a couple of years ago - that we cannot reason with or negotiate with terrorists. How then are we to end a fanatical movement that idolizes homocide bombers and rewards (posthumously) followers for dying a firery death? Our troops in Iraq are having a very difficult time distinguishing the murderers from the ones who are "happy with us" - and are being systematically murdered by the terrorists.

Being a coward or not has nothing to do with this mess we're in - I simply do not see a way for civilized people to attain victory over this sort of enemy. The whole thing distresses me.
| Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I agree that we should fight terrorism, but we should restrict our targets to people who actually have something to do with the people who attacked us instead of going after any government we don't agree with. There's lots of dictators in the world, some of which rule with our approval. To take on the responsibility of making all nations adhere to our standards might be overstepping our bounds a bit in my opinion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

ds9074
Apr 27 2004, 07:48 AM
I think different tactics could play a part. I know that we are talking about different areas but the comparison has been made between British troops helping to rebuild schools and other instructure, holding regular friendly meetings with local people, where possible travelling on foot without helmets. To the American approach of heavy armed forces on the streets, tanks and the like, attack helicopers over residental areas etc etc. I mean there were pictures recently of US troops playing loud rock music outside a Mosque during Friday prayers. I dont think that creates any kind of respect for the coalition.

Jesus Christ, ds9074 - our troops are in heavily armored vehicles because they're being murdered by the dozen - nearly daily fatalities! I'm a little less than sympathetic about the "Mosque" scene you mention because I've heard about too many instances where terrorists use these holy sites as attack positions - even while worshippers are paying tribute at the Mosques.

I know that the British forces have done many great things in Iraq - I'm sure that American forces have built schools, too. But in the bombings that recently occurred in Basra, the civilians took to the streets and angrily demonstrated against the British troops for not providing security rather than demonstrating against the monsters who planned and carried out the bombings. The general population in Iraq seems to have so little loyalty toward the "liberators" that I'm having a hard time seeing their appreciation.
| Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Apr 27 2004, 12:32 PM
I agree that we should fight terrorism, but we should restrict our targets to people who actually have something to do with the people who attacked us instead of going after any government we don't agree with.  There's lots of dictators in the world, some of which rule with our approval.  To take on the responsibility of making all nations adhere to our standards might be overstepping our bounds a bit in my opinion.

I feel that you aren’t looking at the bigger picture, first there are more terrorists then just the ones that attacked us on 9/11. The "war of terror" in all its forms should be geared to try our best to stop all of them not just one group. Second the problems in the middle east are paramount to and are a big part of the "war on terror", whether Iraqi has attackd us or not, that country is a strategic point in which combat these problems and we need it. For example people say - why Iraqi why not Saudi Arabia they are much worse when it comes to terrorists. The problem is we depend to much on Saudi Arabia, and until we can lessen that dependency we cant do a think about them. Building a free Iraqi will lessen that dependency. There are a plethora of other strategic advantages to having Iraqi. Also since Iraqi was run by a reprehensible government that by all rights should have been taken out for their treatment to their people, it makes the idea of needing and taking Iraqi that much more justified.

Maybe the president was wrong to have sold this war to the American people with the threat of WMDs. But first the threat was there it turned out to be “wrong (maybe)” but we couldn’t know that for sure until we went in, when it comes to threats of WMDs I would rather air on the side of caution rather then complacency. Second we Americans are a fickle lot, unless we feel there is an immediate threat to our selves (individual as in selfish and uninvolved) then we just don’t care. Any president that wants to rally use these days has to go to extraordinary measures (thank the media industry).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Also, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least STARTING to open their eyes to the prospect that maybe Al Quida isn't looking out for their best interests. The attempted chemical bombing is a good example. The governments of these countries are now finally asking for assistance in ridding themselves of extremists and terrorists when they used to deny that there were ANY radicals in their country.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus