quade 3
Recommended Posts
Quote***
As it turns out, Bush (41) may have gotten it right the first time.
If we would have solved the Sadam problem in '91, and put in a new gov. then, we wouldn't be back there right now. We are only fixing the problem that should have been dealt with after the first conflict.
***He may have realized that taking it downtown on the ground was a bad idea and would lead to a situation just like this.
No battle can be won purely on Air Supremacy, if that were the case then there wouldn't be troops on the ground right now and the Air Force would still be flying 300 combat sorties a day, like we did when we started this thing. We sent troop in on the ground because that was the only way that this operation would succeed, it had to be up close and personal. Yes soldiers die in war that is the nature of the beast but we understood that when we signed up.
"Pilots without Maintainers are just pedestrians with cool jackets and sunglasses"
Quote
This didn't have to happen. The people of Iraq know this.
I agree. [IMHO] Didn't have to happen. But it did. Guess all the Monday morning quarterbacking in the world can't do anything about it now. But, one things for sure, we {the coalition} are there, let's press, finish the job, help those poor people. If we leave now, look who will be left in power......
quade 3
I suggest to you that we should not have waged this war at all.
If we wanted regime change in Iraq, that would be a want and not a need.
If we wanted regime change in Iraq, we have a LONG history of supporting insurgent movements, but in most instances we do not wage war simply because we do not like the leader.
If we wanted regime change, we could have repealed EO 12333 and taken him out with a single bullet.
There were a LOT of options for simply getting rid of Hussein rather than waging war.
Further, the reasons stated for going into this war were, by all accounts, false.
Imagine for a moment some other country doing that to us. What would your reaction be? What was your reaction on September 11, 2001? You wanted to get back and the people that did that to us -- yes?
Per capita, Iraq has lost far more people than we did on September 11. They know we launched an attack on them under false pretense. Yeah, I'd be pissed off too.
If we wanted regime change in Iraq, that would be a want and not a need.
If we wanted regime change in Iraq, we have a LONG history of supporting insurgent movements, but in most instances we do not wage war simply because we do not like the leader.
If we wanted regime change, we could have repealed EO 12333 and taken him out with a single bullet.
There were a LOT of options for simply getting rid of Hussein rather than waging war.
Further, the reasons stated for going into this war were, by all accounts, false.
Imagine for a moment some other country doing that to us. What would your reaction be? What was your reaction on September 11, 2001? You wanted to get back and the people that did that to us -- yes?
Per capita, Iraq has lost far more people than we did on September 11. They know we launched an attack on them under false pretense. Yeah, I'd be pissed off too.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
point taken
"Pilots without Maintainers are just pedestrians with cool jackets and sunglasses"
"Pilots without Maintainers are just pedestrians with cool jackets and sunglasses"
quade 3
Quote
But, one things for sure, we {the coalition} are there, let's press, finish the job, help those poor people. If we leave now, look who will be left in power......
Oh, without question. We have to do something to make the situation "right" again.
We need to make this an international effort and give the international community a reason to help us because, right now, we don't have the man power to do it ourselves.
However, the Administration hasn't been willing so far to give the international community a reason to help us. There is little reason for the UN to come to our rescue on this. We pretty much blew them off when we went in and now we're paying the price. Unfortunately, some of that will be in American blood for quite some time.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Quote***
We need to make this an international effort and give the international community a reason to help us because, right now, we don't have the man power to do it ourselves.
However, the Administration hasn't been willing so far to give the international community a reason to help us. There is little reason for the UN to come to our rescue on this. We pretty much blew them off when we went in and now we're paying the price. Unfortunately, some of that will be in American blood for quite some time.
Spain (for the time being), Poland, Ukraine, Great Britain, South Korea, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Norway, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Phillipines, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Kazachstan, Azerbijan, Domincan Republic, Honduras, El Salvador all have troops commited to the war in Iraq. No, the United States is not exactly alone.
The reason the French, the Germans and the Russians aren't in there is because their companies were making millions doing business with Hussien. As for the UN, a corrupt bunch of pussies. They only stalled the war so Hussein could continue to pay kick back's to Koffi Annan's son under the oil-for-food program. It's a shame that American blood is being spilled. But we're there and we have to finish what we started (12 years to late).
BTW, the people of Iraq, most notably the Shiites and the Kurds (who were murderously oppressed by Hussien) have welcomed us enthusiatically. What's going on now is an insurgency by 2 elements: those loyal to Hussien and those loyal to a fundamental Islamist who has a minority following in the Shiite community; both are vying for power in post-war Iraq and hoping the US will cut and run. al Sadr's forces number 6,000 while the private militias of Ayathollah Sistani (the theological Shiite ruler) number several HUNDRED THOUSAND. If the Shiite community as a whole were against us, our forces would stand as much chance as Custer did.
As for the photos of the poor Iraqi children. They're awful and break my heart (truly), but how do you know they weren't hurt by their fellow Iraqis; after all a man named Hussein had no problem slaughtering kids, women and the elderly for his own purposes.
quade 3
Care to supply the number of troops each country sent?
No?
I wonder why.
(yeah, I'm sure there's a LOT of troops from the Dominican Republic fighting in Iraq)
No?
I wonder why.
(yeah, I'm sure there's a LOT of troops from the Dominican Republic fighting in Iraq)
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
What relevance does that have? Would your argument be different if the UN was there but only contributed 100 men instead of 100,000? And thank you for saying "NO ?" before I had the opportunity to reply. Sarcasm doesn't become you; it's like the reference to Hitler ... when all else fails.
quade 3
That wasn't sarcasm. It was a question.
A better reply on your part would have been to actually supply the numbers to prove me wrong about the international involvement.
But, um, I don't think you'll find that line of attack very satisfying.
A better reply on your part would have been to actually supply the numbers to prove me wrong about the international involvement.
But, um, I don't think you'll find that line of attack very satisfying.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Again, my question to you was the relevance of the number of troops committed to Iraq as a measure of international political support. Your premise is that because we have the overwhelming majority of combat troops (an agreed upon point), we are acting outside the international political community. My point is that a large number of nations have supported us to the point of sending troops, even if it's merely a token gesture. No the UN doesn't support us, but, the UN's credibility is pretty much shot.
My question to you: what magical number of combat troops means we have "international involvement?" Or maybe we should look at the number of counties who support the war vs. the number who don't? You do the research and prove me wrong.
Btw, here are the numbers:
Iraq Troop numbers March 2004
1 USA 130,000
2 United Kingdom 9,000
3 Italy 3,000
4 Poland 2,460
5 Ukraine 1,600
6 Spain 1,300
7 Netherlands 1,100
8 Australia 800
9 Romania 700
10 Bulgaria 480
11 Thailand 440
12 Denmark 420
13 Honduras 368
14 El Salvador 361
15 Dominican Republic 302
16 Hungary 300
17 Japan 240
18 Norway 179
19 Mongolia 160
20 Azerbaijan 150
21 Portugal 128
22 Latvia 120
23 Lithuania 118
24 Slovakia 102
25 Czech Republic 80
26 Philippines 80
27 Albania 70
28 Georgia 70
29 New Zealand 61
30 Moldova 50
31 Macedonia 37
32 Estonia 31
33 Kazakhstan 25
Sources: The Australian, 17th March 2004.
OK, go ahead and take out Spain's 1,300 troops
My question to you: what magical number of combat troops means we have "international involvement?" Or maybe we should look at the number of counties who support the war vs. the number who don't? You do the research and prove me wrong.
Btw, here are the numbers:
Iraq Troop numbers March 2004
1 USA 130,000
2 United Kingdom 9,000
3 Italy 3,000
4 Poland 2,460
5 Ukraine 1,600
6 Spain 1,300
7 Netherlands 1,100
8 Australia 800
9 Romania 700
10 Bulgaria 480
11 Thailand 440
12 Denmark 420
13 Honduras 368
14 El Salvador 361
15 Dominican Republic 302
16 Hungary 300
17 Japan 240
18 Norway 179
19 Mongolia 160
20 Azerbaijan 150
21 Portugal 128
22 Latvia 120
23 Lithuania 118
24 Slovakia 102
25 Czech Republic 80
26 Philippines 80
27 Albania 70
28 Georgia 70
29 New Zealand 61
30 Moldova 50
31 Macedonia 37
32 Estonia 31
33 Kazakhstan 25
Sources: The Australian, 17th March 2004.
OK, go ahead and take out Spain's 1,300 troops
Kennedy 0
QuoteIf we wanted regime change in Iraq, we have a LONG history of supporting insurgent movements, but in most instances we do not wage war simply because we do not like the leader.
Everytime we financed an insurgent movement, it came back to bite us in the ass (Afgahnis, Iranis, South America a few times over, etc).
Besides, would you send militias against somebody you expected to use NBCs?
QuoteIf we wanted regime change, we could have repealed EO 12333 and taken him out with a single bullet.
Assassination is not acceptable.
QuoteThere were a LOT of options for simply getting rid of Hussein rather than waging war.
Name a few.
As has been made clear, the people fighting us would be fighting whether we had UN support or not. These people lost their cushy little dominance that SH provided. The people who were oppresed love us and the people who lost their warlord are fighting us. Go figure. Blue helmets or not, these people wouldn't be lying down.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
billvon 2,426
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>The reason the French, the Germans and the Russians aren't in
>there is because their companies were making millions doing
> business with Hussien.
So? We did the same; didn't slow us down.
------------------
June 23, 2001 (UPI) -- Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.
------------------
>As for the UN, a corrupt bunch of pussies. They only stalled the war
> so Hussein could continue to pay kick back's to Koffi Annan's son
> under the oil-for-food program.
They stalled it because their weapons inspectors said they needed more time; they could not find any WMD's. Turns out they were right.
>BTW, the people of Iraq, most notably the Shiites and the Kurds
> (who were murderously oppressed by Hussien) have welcomed us
> enthusiatically.
---------------
(ABC News) March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.
. . .
More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion, but by just 48 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent expressing no opinion — hardly the unreserved welcome some U.S. policymakers had anticipated.
-----------------
NAJAF, Iraq - Thousands of followers of a virulently anti-American Shiite cleric heeded his calls for an uprising against the U.S.-led occupation, storming police stations and government buildings in major cities Sunday and triggering clashes that left at least eight coalition soldiers and 21 Iraqis dead.
Hundreds of Iraqis -- and more than three dozen U.S. soldiers -- were wounded in heavy fighting in central and southern Iraq. The seemingly coordinated attacks demonstrated the power of Iraq's Shiite majority and fanned long-held fears of an uprising in that population's southern stronghold
-----------------
I hope they don't get any more enthusiastic or we're going to need a lot more bodybags.
>If the Shiite community as a whole were against us, our forces would
>stand as much chance as Custer did.
We have a few more Apaches, AC-130's and A-10's than Custer did.
>As for the photos of the poor Iraqi children. They're awful and break
> my heart (truly), but how do you know they weren't hurt by their
> fellow Iraqis; after all a man named Hussein had no problem
> slaughtering kids, women and the elderly for his own purposes.
So it is your premise that local Iraqis are maiming and killing their own children to make the US look bad? Hmm.
>there is because their companies were making millions doing
> business with Hussien.
So? We did the same; didn't slow us down.
------------------
June 23, 2001 (UPI) -- Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.
------------------
>As for the UN, a corrupt bunch of pussies. They only stalled the war
> so Hussein could continue to pay kick back's to Koffi Annan's son
> under the oil-for-food program.
They stalled it because their weapons inspectors said they needed more time; they could not find any WMD's. Turns out they were right.
>BTW, the people of Iraq, most notably the Shiites and the Kurds
> (who were murderously oppressed by Hussien) have welcomed us
> enthusiatically.
---------------
(ABC News) March 15— A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.
. . .
More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion, but by just 48 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent expressing no opinion — hardly the unreserved welcome some U.S. policymakers had anticipated.
-----------------
NAJAF, Iraq - Thousands of followers of a virulently anti-American Shiite cleric heeded his calls for an uprising against the U.S.-led occupation, storming police stations and government buildings in major cities Sunday and triggering clashes that left at least eight coalition soldiers and 21 Iraqis dead.
Hundreds of Iraqis -- and more than three dozen U.S. soldiers -- were wounded in heavy fighting in central and southern Iraq. The seemingly coordinated attacks demonstrated the power of Iraq's Shiite majority and fanned long-held fears of an uprising in that population's southern stronghold
-----------------
I hope they don't get any more enthusiastic or we're going to need a lot more bodybags.
>If the Shiite community as a whole were against us, our forces would
>stand as much chance as Custer did.
We have a few more Apaches, AC-130's and A-10's than Custer did.
>As for the photos of the poor Iraqi children. They're awful and break
> my heart (truly), but how do you know they weren't hurt by their
> fellow Iraqis; after all a man named Hussein had no problem
> slaughtering kids, women and the elderly for his own purposes.
So it is your premise that local Iraqis are maiming and killing their own children to make the US look bad? Hmm.
quade 3
Quote
Assassination is not acceptable.
I disagree.
As morally wrong as it may appear on the surface, I think it's far more preferable than the killing of innocents (aka collateral damage) by bombings.
Further, the U.S. didn't seem to have -any- problem with the concept right up until the time President Reagan got shot. We tried to assasinate Castro several times.
As for the goings on in other countries and our abilities to direct insurgencies . . . personally, I don't think it's any of our freekin' business. But we've held that open as an option many times in the past.
I -personally- don't believe we had any business -caring- what went on in the political lives of the people of Iraq. If their lives were so bad, it wasn't our business to give them freedom -- it was theirs.
That said, if we wanted regime change to whatever reason, we didn't have to bomb the shit out of them.
We did and now -we- are paying for it.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
As it turns out, Bush (41) may have gotten it right the first time.
He may have realized that taking it downtown on the ground was a bad idea and would lead to a situation just like this.
Bush (43) made an amazingly poor choice of launching a war in Iraq.
This didn't have to happen. The people of Iraq know this.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites