The Iraq Thread 2

[bmgarcangel 0]

We will stay there as long as we can. And frankly, the Soviets made more crucial errors in Afghanistan than you could ever imagine. You just have to study there war, the tactics they did, etc.etc,

Anyhow, yes, we have UN troops there. British, American, and now some french troops. Pretty soon we'll even have some Spanish troops. And I don't think it will be even close to loosing extreme amount of cassaulities at all. Our forces are slowly getting smarter, we just have to be more on the alert than we have been.

Helicopters ( blackhawks and other transports ) the gunners are being armed a head set that will detect the heat signatures on the ground, preferable human beings and weapons they are carrying in the hot sun. Thus allowing them to spot targets and such.

But the other problem is that these stinger missiles that the Isurgents all the sudden prefer to use, is that they are medium range missiles. We are going to try and have to find a way to find them before they find us.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Nice to see that people are finaly taking the Iraq situation seriously instead of living in "We have the Technology!" Cuckoo land.

Occupying a foriegn country requires people on the ground. Infantry. Lots of it. Enough to crush any attempt at rebelion before it starts. The US needs at least 4 times as many troops as now and they need to have a liberal number of mature reservists from the first responder units such as the fire, police, and ambulance services. They may need to consider a Draft of policemen to fill it out.

All the troops going in need to have Arabic in particular local Iraqi dialects as part of their Basic Training. Best to use deep imersion (only alowed to speak Arabic for the whole of their basic training)

They also need a thourough understanding of Iraqi culture and history.

With these skills they will be able to do the job quicker.

For the transition to an Iraqi army they could do worse than use a few more kurds it will bring them more into the southern politics which is needed anyway. Forcing a mix of Kurds Shiites and the minority Sunnis would also allow better integration of the three cultures. You could also mix in a right to a free college education as part of the Iraqi volunteer profesional army benefits. This would help use more of the educated classes in teaching; Iraq was in the past famous for its education. This could be used to restart it.

The whole idea is to get the country back in motion. industrialy Iraq was once the most active country in the Middle East. We need to get it back there and to push it beyond that level.

Kind Regards Walker

Kind Regards

[Baron von Beer 0]

Why do people think its another vietnam? forgods sake, its a peace keeping duty right now, thats all it is, and we have hardly lost any soldiers. Say 1000, but hell, we gots tons of them man, even though every life is precious.

It's not another Vietnam. It's another Afghanistan (Soviet, 80's, not the recent one).

Quote[/b] ]Anyhow, the attackers have lost more lifes than we, so much more. If we had lost the amount of soldiers that the terrorists and the fighters against the US forces and UN forces, than one thing would be true............we'd have lost alot of military might

What UN forces? There are no UN forces in Iraq.

Afghanistan? Suggest doing some reading. Coalition deaths, from combat and accidents are ~< 500. Injured number ~2000. This from going on 9 months of continuous action. Number of vehicles destroyed is relatively small as well.

Here is a simple list of losses of the Soviet military from '79-89. Note that the casualties in 1979 and 1989 are quite light. This is beacause "1979" represents the last week of the year (end of December), and "1989" represents up to the beginning of February. 1 month. I would say that just in numbers, the current war is going just a tad better, in terms of numbers, let alone effect. Also keep in mind, the death's listed here are on the conservative end of most estimates.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/afghanlosses01.htm

Things may not be perfect in Iraq, but they could sure be a whole hell of a lot worse.

[TheMarshal=TOB= 0]

Why do people think its another vietnam? forgods sake, its a peace keeping duty right now, thats all it is, and we have hardly lost any soldiers.  Say 1000, but hell, we gots tons of them man, even though every life is precious.

Anyhow, the attackers have lost more lifes than we, so much more.  If we had lost the amount of soldiers that the terrorists and the fighters against the US forces and UN forces, than one thing would be true............we'd have lost alot of military might

I wasn't trying to say that this war was anothe vietnam.(yes it is still classified as a war...we never ceased the war with Iraq, just the major military engadgment.) I was merely making a comparison on about gurilla warfare. Fight fire with fire, so to speak.

Basiclly what I'm trying to say is the only way to gain full control of Iraq is to pull the kid gloves off and do what needs to be done. The military is held back so much due to "Public Pressure". In my opinion, screw the public opinions, they are not the ones in there risking their lives to do their job. This is combat and bad things happen, and people die, military and civilian. It's a cold hard fact that everyone must face, but when the general public hears about how acivilian died from a bomb blast or cross fire in a battle zone they shun the military and tell us how bad of a job we are doing.

Here's something for the general public to think about (a little something I saw in the phillipines last year). When I was on detatchment to the Phillipines we were taking heavy small arms fire while coming into our flight path to land in our airfield on a US military base (suspected the cause of fire from terrorist group MILF). The crewchief on my plane searched for the source of the small arms fire, when he found it he told our pilot and requested permission to fire. Our pilot said no due to the pressence of civilians in the area. Due to this our helicopter took alot of damage from the small arms fire. We got lucky and so did our dash 2 (second helicopter) there were no casulties, no one even got a scratch. Now imagine if there were casulties in the back of our helicopter, or worse the small arms fire took out a flight essential system and caused the helicopter to crash. Then what would the public opinion be ... "why didn't they shoot back". We are dmaned if we do and damned if we don't.

Now to me if you are a civilian and you are standing there watching someone shoot at a military vehicle or aircraft you are just as guilty if you stand and watch and not try to stop them. Even if they are unarmed they could at least flee the area...they just stood there and cheered...the same civilians that we were told that were in the area...so you see the problems we have...we are held back because public opinion tells us that it is unacceptable to open fire due to a few civilians, who either want us shot down or are to stupid to run, are in the area.

We are held back by your opinions of how we should fight a war. To be totally honest the main people who disaprove of this are people who have never served a day in their life in any branch of the military (no matter what country they live in). This war, conflict, disagreement, or whatever you want it to be called would have been over a long time ago if the public opinion did not reflect how we had to fight.

Now before it comes up, I'm not saying we go around and shoot first ask questions later, or just become ruthless thugs, but the military needs to be allowed to do it's job without fear of being crucified on TV by every press corps in the world every time a civilian gets killed or something bad happens that the general public disagrees with. The US military trains us to do one thing, kill the enemy and we do a dman good job of it....when we are allowed to. Why train an attack dog and then leave him in his kennel the rest of his life?

Sorry for the long post...just saw some stuff that riled me up on CNN that made me start thinking about all of this.

[hellfish6 7]

Well, you can train a dog to attack, but it doesn't mean you should unleash it. Civillian control over the military is vitally important. If national opinion is against having the military fighting in Iraq, then it's not a matter of the public trying to restrain the military to prevent it from doing it's job. Rather, it's a matter of the leadership that has done something that the country does not agree with, and does not support.

This has been the case in all wars and military actions - if the public thinks that the war is justified (Desert Storm, WWII, etc.), our forces will always win. If the public is largely ignorant of the war (Korea, Bosnia, etc.) then nothing decisive will come of the conflict. If public support is against the war (Vietnam, Lebanon, etc.) then we will lose. We still win the battles, but we lose the war.

My opinion is that if the public is against a military action, then there should be no military action. It's democracy. It means that someone is doing something against the wishes of the body politic.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

As soon as possible an iraqi military force should be established.

"welcome back soldiers"

The logical consequence from this is clear. Former soldiers will be reactivated and soon the iraqi military will be guided and supervised by the same powers as once under Saddam.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do people think its another vietnam? forgods sake, its a peace keeping duty right now, thats all it is, and we have hardly lost any soldiers.  Say 1000, but hell, we gots tons of them man, even though every life is precious.

Peacekeeping mission? What the hell? Yes and protecting the world from the establishment of a communistic satelite state was considered as a peacekeeping mission as well.

It was called the vietnam trauma not because a certain amount of soldiers returned in bodybags but because Vietnam was a psychological desaster for the US.

A war that was once proclaimed as absolutely necessary to safe the future of the world quickly turned out to be very bloody. But which way was there for the american politicans to retreat from this war? None! And in the end the war in Vietnam could have been stopped much earlier IF the ruling parties had prepared an alternative strategy of how to excuse a retreat in case the Vietnam war would turn bad.

But they had not, and they were stuck. So is it today. The US is stuck in Iraq and right now there is no way for Mr. Bush to retreat and defend such a step in public.

Just like in Vietnam a withdrawal from Iraq would result in thousand of silent executions. The Baathists would fight their way back to power with all brutality as they did it during the first time.

Now listen to the following that had been said during the Vietnam war by the 3 presidents involved:

For the United States, this first defeat in our Nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but throughout the world

. . we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence.

Kennedy or Bush?

"We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Viet-Nam(iraq), but Southeast Asia(entire middle East). So we are going to stay there."

Oh this could be Mr Bush too!

I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world

Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam(iraq) without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of world conquest.

This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace-in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere.

For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would thus be a disaster of immense magnitude.

A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends.

Ultimately, this would cost more lives.It would not bring peace; it would bring more war.

The way of retreating/withdrawing forces from Vietnam was politically blocked after such ultimate statements. How would Kennedy have been able to justify a change in strategy? How could the next president finish the war without admiting a failure of the proud american military?

(to end the war)...From a political standpoint this would have been a popular and easy course to follow. After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office. I could blame the defeat which would be the result of my action on him and come out as the Peacemaker.

Imagine a democrat would win the next election. Could that democrat then easily withdraw all troops from Iraq without committing an ideological sin?

No, Bush blocked the retreat from Iraq as once Kennedy did from Vietnam. And this is the difference to Afghanistan.

The americans could easily return from Afghanistan saying that fundamental terorist networks had been destroyed, training camps blown up and their hideouts smoked out, job done!

But the job in Iraq is done when the country is secure, democratic, free of terorism and open to capitalism. This is like turning Somalia into Utopia, and no way to justify a retreat. You havent thought about how to justify a change in policy Mr Bush in case things turn realy bad, have you?

[theavonlady 2]

While you're here, Dr. Schweizer , what did the writing on the wall say in that pic you posted yesterday 2 or so pages back?

[bmgarcangel 0]

The problem is the oridinary american and the forigen person who doesn't look into the hard facts and consequences. They say get out of Iraq. Are friends are dying. Are fathers are getting shot. But sadly, its life, its a war, that we are involved in. Now we are in the peace keeping stages.

Now yes we need more men but no matter how many men you have I can still bring a dozen Stinger AA missiles in. RPG's are another thing that can probably be brought in fairly easily.

Consider that americans have found the RPG tubes inside pipes in cars and same with rockets. The Insurgents will stop it anything to get in there.

On top of this, the Iraq people are probably scared that they will be killed by a neighboor or someone who is against america. They can't support it all the way like they would wish because they could be turned and shot at the next day. Only some do accept that saddam is gone and accept that peace is possible. Others are scared he will come back and if they support the americans then doom will be on them.

Now the Iraqi military is growing stronger too. So far it is around 20,000 strong and is being trained by highly trained american instructors. We will soon have a big enough force to patch in the spots that we can't defend. And when that time comes, then we will probably get stability in the region.

In the Soviet war from 79 to 89 in afghanistan, they weren't in there for peace keeping duties. They were trying to take over all of Afghanistan but the Resistance was just too strong and it was too organized for them to prevail.

[EiZei 0]

The problem is the oridinary american and the forigen person who doesn't look into the hard facts and consequences. They say get out of Iraq. Are friends are dying. Are fathers are getting shot. But sadly, its life, its a war, that we are involved in. Now we are in the peace keeping stages.

I think you ought to read this thread more carefully, while most people are condemning the invasion pretty much everyone realizes that leaving Iraq now would just make a pretty damn ugly mess.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Now we are in the peace keeping stages.

I'm not sure it's actually possible to act as 'peace keepers' when you (meaning the coalition, or whats left of it), are one side of the reason for the absence of peace.

[bmgarcangel 0]

One thing I don't like. The british people, alot of them, want the british to pull out.

[TheMarshal=TOB= 0]

Are they insane! They pull the british out and leave an even bigger whole for coalition forces to fill....yeah thats a smart way to go. This is the problem with public opinion...they never look into would could happen..they just want what makes them have that warm and fuzzy inside...anyone who says different is lieing to themselves.

Quote[/b] ]Well, you can train a dog to attack, but it doesn't mean you should unleash it. Civillian control over the military is vitally important. If national opinion is against having the military fighting in Iraq, then it's not a matter of the public trying to restrain the military to prevent it from doing it's job. Rather, it's a matter of the leadership that has done something that the country does not agree with, and does not support.

This has been the case in all wars and military actions - if the public thinks that the war is justified (Desert Storm, WWII, etc.), our forces will always win. If the public is largely ignorant of the war (Korea, Bosnia, etc.) then nothing decisive will come of the conflict. If public support is against the war (Vietnam, Lebanon, etc.) then we will lose. We still win the battles, but we lose the war.

My opinion is that if the public is against a military action, then there should be no military action. It's democracy. It means that someone is doing something against the wishes of the body politic.

Now I would like to repeat something my Officer in charge once told me....

"If you don't know all of the facts then don't make the opinion. Sometimes we don't get all of the information to make that opinion due to the sensitivity of the information"

Now the general public will never get the full scoop on what is going on until after the fact due to sensistivity of specific information. There are many times where leadership does what the public doesn't support...if the leadership did what the public supported 100% of the time then they wouldn't be leaders...they would be followers and believe it or not that is not how you lead. A leader must learn that there are times when you must go against what to popular belief is, take the long hard route instead of the short and easyroute. The leaders who know how to do this right make the best leaders.

The general public never wants to send our troops in to harms way, which is why I love and protect the general public, but what they need to know is that's why we joined the military...so they wouldn't have to put themselves in harms way.

Quote[/b] ]My opinion is that if the public is against a military action, then there should be no military action. It's democracy. It means that someone is doing something against the wishes of the body politic.

Yes it is a democracy, but this doesn't mean that the public will always get what they wish for...this isn't a perfect world and if it was only then would democracy work the way it was meant to...this is why the government (the US gonvernment at least) is set up the way it is. The public has the defining call on most decisions in this country but there are a lot that is left only up to the top leaders in our country....actions of war is one of the biggest ones. It is left up to them because they are the ones who make the decisions that the general public won't. If everyone remembers the general public wanted the US to go into Iraq or else we wouldn't have went there...now that there are a few casulties they are getting pissed....my brother died, my father died, my mother died...yes this is all sad and I truelly feel for the families of these service men and women, but they knew why they were going there and they knew when the risks were...it's their job, thats why they enlisted into the military.

Now the general public wants us to leave, well we can't. We started this war now we have to fix it. We can't go into a country and tear out it's government and then leave without setting up a new government and armed force to protect that government. To do this would put that country into a civil war and even more deaths would come of it.

Here's a perfect example of leadership making the decision that the public would never make. During WWII the United States Government dropped 2 Atom bombs on japan killing thousands and injuring over twice as many as was killed. They leveled two great cities within this small country. The government knew what kind of casulties would become of this and they did it. Why? To stop a long a bloody war. Now do you really think if the general public had to make this decision, knowing all of the facts of would happen if they did. Hell no they wouldn't have done it and the war would have went on for years and would not have ended after the bombs were dropped. Now I'm not saying go drop a nuke on anyone, but it is the perfect example of making hard decisions the public won't make.

Public decision sent us to Iraq, now let us do our job so we can leave...the longer the public bickers about whats they think should or shouldn't happen, the longer coalition forces are in harms way.

Quote[/b] ]Well, you can train a dog to attack, but it doesn't mean you should unleash it. Civillian control over the military is vitally important.

Yes it is important, until they are unleashed...once they are leashed we must be able to do what the general public has had us trained to do. The restraint the general public has put on the military indangers us more then anything else. There are many occasions we are not allowed to return fire due to this restraint and it has cost many lives in the past...this is where we need to be allowed to let us take the kid gloves off and let us do our job. We need to be swift and take care of the aggressions against the military & Iraqi people in Iraq before it gets to a point where it is overwhelming.

One thing that everyone needs to remember is that that civilan control sent us to Iraq. When you send in your attack dog don't try to pull him out when he isn't finished with his job. The jobs not done until that country has a stable government and the agreesive forces are eliminated.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Sometimes it is astonishing to see the pressure some americans have to simplify issues. You are bringing up easy-life examples of "dogs". You are talking about facts, and you come forward with "let them to the job". Right now there is no simplification to the issue. It has already been oversimplified by TBA before the war and I propose not to do this mistake AGAIN. Now the time has come to go away from silly simplification (bring peace, destroy terorism, implement democracy bla bla bla) and move towards analysing the multi-dimensionality of the conflict.

First of all be aware that people CAN HIDE! And in their own country they are assumingly better in their job than the foreign troops having to find them.

Second, answer the following question: who has the longer breath, who can play with time? From my point of view it is the Baathists.

Thridly, Americans by cultural heritage have a very small chance to be regarded as liberators by a muslim nation. Or lets put it this way: they are given very short time to proof they are liberators (or in other terms improvers).

Fourth: Time heals wounds! But which wounds? The longer it will take to stabilise Iraq the more people will stop beliving in the occupators and the more people will fear Saddam might come back. Consequence: -> People will switch back to the old rules of the former regime. That means shut up cause every collaboration might cost you your life once the Baath Party is back in power. The best indicator for that is that the old Baathists are already back in power. Who are the most powerful iraqis right now? it is the ones owning and dealing with oil and it is FACT that the entire oil-smuggling business is organised by former Baathists.

So who has to be patient? We, the world or the Baathists? As I said the Baathist are the ones that will profit from time not the US (not to speak about the costs involved with this conflict).

And the longer it takes the more the bargaining power in negotiation will switch to european nations. The longer it takes to bring peace to Iraq the more France and Germany will grow arrogant. And all this not only to the disadvantage of the US but of Iraq.

As I said. Some of you people think that time plays into the hands of the US, but quite the opposite is the case!

Oh, btw. 216 days and still no WMD found in Iraq.

[TheMarshal=TOB= 0]

Wow some people always try to make everything sound so complex when they're really not. If you think that it is hard to do then it is. This issue is simple. Only those who wish to make it more then it is will always come out and try to complicate things. Well nice to meet you. You sound like a highly educated person and you have spoken in a very well though out manner on every post in this topic, some I agree with and some I don't. This post you just added is one of the ones I don't agree with.

I'll say one thing about your whole statement, I love making things SIMPLE   The world believes that all Americans are trying to save the world one country at a time and that we are starting with Iraq. In truth we are being proactive in the defence of our own country and our allies. If Iraq had been given the chance to use Nukes or chemical weapons they would have. Their leadership was a danger to themselves and the rest of the world. If the United States had not gone into Iraq and disolve it's government, no other country would have until it's to late. Whether you agree or disagree, it's true.

The leaders of that country that were the cause of it are the ones who are being hunted. You may think that the Baathists will profit from this, of course they will, but the coaltion forces and the rest of the world will as well. The Baathists, without Saddam and his family, will feel the PUBLIC OPINION of their surrounding peers and like every other country they will fall into a more peaceful role then their previous leaders. They see what is happening to their country and they want it to end just like the rest of us. Once it does end do you really think they will want us back in there?

Everything you and many others are saying, about us in Iraq, sounds alot like the sceptics of the cold war.

[bn880 5]

I'll say one thing about your whole statement, I love making things SIMPLE The world believes that all Americans are trying to save the world one country at a time and that we are starting with Iraq. In truth we are being proactive in the defence of our own country and our allies.

Unfortunately this is false, you may be protecting some future interests, but not being proactive in defense. In fact your security is much more compromized now than it was before, and you have so many troops over seas you are more vournerable to some invasion (ok not likely), and there was an inspection and disarmamanet process in progress. Which appears to have worked quite well by the lack of WMD evidence and the destruction of rockets prior to the invasion. (I'm still waiting for some falsified WMD claims, or is that not even necessary to brainwash the US voting population)

Quote[/b] ]

If Iraq had been given the chance to use Nukes or chemical weapons they would have.

Right, they were not because they were disarmed by the UN and IAEA... and so far the US has proven to be the biggest user of WMD's remember.

Quote[/b] ] Their leadership was a danger to themselves and the rest of the world. If the United States had not gone into Iraq and disolve it's government, no other country would have until it's to late. Whether you agree or disagree, it's true.

False again, UN members were in Iraq, with US pressure, but without invasion.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The world believes that all Americans are trying to save the world

yes we do believe that. Or we believe that the mayority of americans has that intention. And it is very noble indeed.

We are sceptics? Yes we are, cause we know that war and occupation is a highly complicated issue. In the end it is so complicated that basically no not even a single preassumption turns out to be correct.

All media were wrong about Afghanistan. Everyone, including me believed the US would get slaugthered like the russians.

Iraq the same, everyone believed the americans would be trapped inside Baghdad and be knocked down by treacherous house to house combat. Wrong again!

But in the end we dont know what is going to happen. We dont even know if Iraq can still be saved. Not even with UN troops, not even if the power is handed over to the new Iraqi authority. It is so complicated that one must prepare for the worst in order to be suprised positively! That is the advantage of scepticism!

[bn880 5]

to be honest the thing I'm worried about the most, is that the US will leave behind another Afghanistan in Iraq. I believe everyone understands what is meant by that, and Iraq was not some 3rd world country to start off with.

[walker 0]

Hi all

@TheMarshal=TOB=

I need to get it clear what do you see is the mission in Iraq?

If there were/are subsiduary missions can you list those too?

You need a full mission statement to understand whether you have achieved your aims and to give a mark to aim for.

Kind Regards Walker

[TheMarshal=TOB= 0]

Quote[/b] ]But in the end we dont know what is going to happen. We dont even know if Iraq can still be saved. Not even with UN troops, not even if the power is handed over to the new Iraqi authority. It is so complicated that one must prepare for the worst in order to be suprised positively! That is the advantage of scepticism!

I believe Iraq can be saved, once the US and UN troops can pull out. I believe if the coalition forces don't rush the process due to outside pressure it can be done. I believe that it can be done. The one thing about the American people and our allies is we have that drive and I honestly don't think that we will allow this mission to fail. Everyone has their doubts about what we can do, but we havebeen proving people wrong left and right.

Now as far as WMD I also agree...I would to see them myself. Kinda irritates me that we went in under false conditions, or so it seems, but now that we are there we need to finish it. Also you need to understand that anything can be hidden, we might never know if they had them or not.

Quote[/b] ]to be honest the thing I'm worried about the most, is that the US will leave behind another Afghanistan in Iraq. I believe everyone understands what is meant by that, and Iraq was not some 3rd world country to start off with.

You, myself, and the rest of the world are there with you on this one.

Quote[/b] ]Hi all

@TheMarshal=TOB=

I need to get it clear what do you see is the mission in Iraq?

If there were/are subsiduary missions can you list those too?

You need a full mission statement to understand whether you have achieved your aims and to give a mark to aim for.

Kind Regards Walker

Edited by walker on Dec. 04 2003,23:43

Our original mission was to oust Saddam and find his WMD, obviously in doing so the country was put without a government and we haven't found any WMD. So now our missions has changed. Our mission now is to find Saddam, his high ranking officials. We also have the mission of restoring the government, water and elecrtic systems, fix destroied transit ways and put the country back together, while eliminating any agressive forces left within the country.

In my opinion (which I'm not even allowed to give) The US should have waited for positive proof before going into Iraq, but we didn't. We're there and now we have to fix our mess.

[denoir 0]

In truth we are being proactive in the defence of our own country and our allies.

You mean all the allies that told you not to go to war? And defence from what? The imaginary WMD? Rising oil prices? Democrats winning the next election?

Quote[/b] ]If Iraq had been given the chance to use Nukes or chemical weapons they would have.

They didn't have them! And if you claim otherwise then you have invalidated your own point since no WMD were used even in Saddam's final hour. If Saddam was so dangrous and had WMD then surely he would have used them to protect the one thing that is most precious to him: staying in power.

Quote[/b] ]Their leadership was a danger to themselves and the rest of the world. If the United States had not gone into Iraq and disolve it's government, no other country would have until it's to late. Whether you agree or disagree, it's true.

It's not. Iraq was contained. Saddam didn't even have resources to control his country, much less attack anybody. Sooner or later relations with Iraq would have been normalized, sanctions lifted and Saddam welcomed back into the international community as a long line of friendly dictators. Would it suck for the Iraqi people? Absolutely, but right now they're not better off. Before there were political persecutions, now nobody is safe, regardless of political activity. And the worst thing of all, the region has been additionally destabilized. Now you've given your real enemy - the extreme fundamentalist a cause. Besides facilitating the recruiting process, you've given them a nice convenient place too. Terrorists are making pilgrimages to Iraq now to kill Americans and destabilize Iraq.

The Arabs were sceptical of the US in the first place. And that led to extremists comitting terrorist acts. Did you really think that invading another Arab country, that by the way had no ties to the terrorists that attacked you, would reduce the number of people that hate your guts? The invasion of Iraq was christmas coming early for bin Laden & Co.

In terms of the War on Terror? Iraq was a big gamble. If succesful a western-style democracy in an Arabic country could possibly lead to better understanding and appriciation of western values. If not, you would make things ten times worse and that's what we are looking at today. It was a huge gamble and bloody irresponsible to do it.

Quote[/b] ]

Our original mission was to oust Saddam and find his WMD, obviously in doing so the country was put without a government and we haven't found any WMD. So now our missions has changed. Our mission now is to find Saddam, his high ranking officials. We also have the mission of restoring the government, water and elecrtic systems, fix destroied transit ways and put the country back together, while eliminating any agressive forces left within the country.

In my opinion (which I'm not even allowed to give) The US should have waited for positive proof before going into Iraq, but we didn't. We're there and now we have to fix our mess.

Yepp and it's imperative that you stay. The question is just if you're capable of it. Half your military is deployed, but in terms of units doing the actual peace-keeping, you would need ten times as many people on the ground, patrolling the streets. I don't see how it can be done without the EU/UN helping out. And considering the attitude of the Bush administration, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Edit: When I'm saying "you", I'm refering to the US, so I'm not blaming you personally in any way

[walker 0]

Hi TheMarshal=TOB=

I am glad to see such realism in your answer

So the current mission is.

Re-stabilize and rebuild Iraq.

Physical

Get all services: electricity, water, roads, education, health and hospitals, police, bureaucracy, markets etc up beyond pre GWI levels

Political

Ensure transition to a stable strong egalitarian Iraqi government.

Review.

Since whenever you do a mission you need to access the current state of play.

Original war aims.

Failed to find WMD indications are it never existed.

Failed to make the secondary aim of removing Sadam a clear primary aim. It was always listed to the UK administration as a secondary not a primary aim.

Failed to achieve secondary/primary aim of removing Sadam from Iraqi politics (he is still there casting his long shadow)

Failed to adequately assess rebuilding needs basically Iraq is in the same position as Japan or Germany in WWII.

Current War Aims

Yet to be accessed lets look in 3 months that is in early March 2004.

Consequences (Heads must roll)

The current administrations of the US and UK have clearly failed at a time of war they need to be removed. They may need to be brought to court either for lying in their war intentions or for criminal negligence in their complete failure to access the situation correctly. Compensation may need to be paid as I have always said TBA and TBA2 family fortunes are the logical point for such reparations to be first recovered from.

I saw a recent assessment that puts the cost to US tax payers in the range of a 70% increase in taxes to pay for the US economic deficit and partly the consequences of this war at the moment the costs are held back by the US borrowing to pay the interest (very bad fiscal policy) until after the election. http://www.msnbc.com/news/940556.asp I am as one who lives in the UK hoping and praying that good economic sense of our current chancellor means we wont be as hard hit as the the US tax payer is by the costs of this war.

With costs like that how big do you think future military spending will be over those 30 years. Where is you pension invested?

Kind Regards Walker

[TheMarshal=TOB= 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yepp and it's imperative that you stay. The question is just if you're capable of it. Half your military is deployed, but in terms of units doing the actual peace-keeping, you would need ten times as many people on the ground, patrolling the streets. I don't see how it can be done without the EU/UN helping out. And considering the attitude of the Bush administration, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Well to be honest I don't know where you see that half of our military is deployed. What statistic did you get this from. Now Half of the Marine Corps is deployed, but that is the same as it would be in full peace time. Our military has always been spread out across the world since the end of world war two. If you check the news you'll notice that it's mostly special force units and Marines in Afghanistan. In the Phillipines it's mostly the same mix, Marines and special forces. So to say that half of our MILITARY forces are deployed is a false statement. right now with how our military rotation is working if something were to break out in another part of the world we could deal with it, without delay or and forseeable problems.

Quote[/b] ]You mean all the allies that told you not to go to war? And defence from what? The imaginary WMD? Rising oil prices? Democrats winning the next election?

You mean the same allies that had to much to loose if Saddam was ousted. France who sold them weapons in trade for oil or germeny who had an oil agreement with Iraq. Come on say it isn't true. I've read intel documents on different country ties to Iraq in preperation to go over there, before I was routed to Japan. These same ALLIES were only concerned for their interests, but aren't we all. Those were the allies that told us not to go. The UK never told us not to go...remember that the UK was one of the biggestallies for going in to Iraq right along with us.

Quote[/b] ]The Arabs were sceptical of the US in the first place. And that led to extremists comitting terrorist acts. Did you really think that invading another Arab country, that by the way had no ties to the terrorists that attacked you, would reduce the number of people that hate your guts? The invasion of Iraq was christmas coming early for bin Laden & Co.

No ties to terrorests!?! what part of the world you been hiding in brother! Iraq has harbored terrorist groups for years, along with Iran, Syria, and a few other smaller middle eastern countries. There has been intel on the Iraqi government dealing with terrorist groups, including "bin ladan & co." for years. Where do you think the terrorist groups get their weapons, ammo, special intel, ect. You think they just use ESP or somthing. Come on give me a break. The funniest part is it was the british government that first tipped us off to the ties between bin ladan and saddam.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

He meant Army, and yes, over half the Army is deployed right now, which is unprecedented. That, coupled with our other commitments, means that realistically, we actually have no strategic reserve right now. The normal formation that would carry that out, the XVIII Airborne Corps, is almost 100% committed, what with the 101st, 82nd, and 3rdID either deployed or rotating off of deployment.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Found a good source for deployment of US Army combat forces around the world: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm

That just covers combat brigades, so numbers for support formations are obviously much higher. Not to mention that the Reserve and National Guard deployments right now are extremely high. Keep in mind that this info is about a month old, though.

[theavonlady 2]

The way I heard it they did fly AF1 into Baghdad Intl., but didn't use "Air Force One" as their callsign.  It was at night, and they were only there for about 2 hours.  So even if an enemy soldier noticed that AF1 was parked in Baghdad they wouldn't of had much time to organize a very big attack.

Apparantly AF1 crossed paths with a BA 747 on the trip back. when the BA pilot questioned the aircrafts ID, they responded by saying AF1 was a Gulfstream. Needless to say, the BA pilot wasn't blind, and responed with a 'hhmmmm' over the radio.

The saga continues.

Quote[/b] ]White House Version of Mid-Air Exchange Disputed

Mon Dec 1, 4:36 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - British Airways said on Monday that none of its pilots made contact with President Bush's plane during its secret flight to Baghdad, contradicting White House reports of a mid-air exchange that nearly prompted Bush to call off his trip.

The Never-Ending Story.

Quote[/b] ]White House Changes Story on Bush Plane Incident

Thu Dec 4, 9:56 AM ET

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In another White House correction, the Bush administration on Wednesday changed its story of a British Airways pilot's spotting of Air Force One during the president's stealth trip to Iraq last week.