So I was thinking about the war in Vietnam, and the war in Iraq, and how they were so closely related. Alot of people i'm sure can easily see the relation with the insurgents, and the viet-kong. So you might be able to say "they fight dishonerably and were not going to stoop to there level" or somthing along the lines of THERE fighting style.

What I was thinking, is what if it's not there strategy whos changed? What if it's our? From a moments glance you don't see much. I didn't either until I was talking about this with dad.

I'm not sure when the media started to get big, but we fight alot differently today, then we did in the old times.. "when we actually won wars." Today, we have morals, ethics, and politcs behind everything.

In WW2 we never thought about taking the nazi party out of power, then rebuilding germany. All we did was destroy them until they surrenderd and then we divided up there land, or made them pay us or w.e. We never considered rebuilding them, or there residence. We won japan by bombing them. We bombed civilians.

Todays propaganda and media makes our style of war completely different. Soldiers can't even shoot unless shot at. They can't even search iraqi women unless a female does it.

The army even has a seperate civilian group caled back water I think dad said. They are basicly mercinarys. They make about 300k a year. Basicly since there civilians, they do not have to adhere to the geneva conventions regulations. This is what our army has come too. Having to hire civilians just to be able to killed someone without worrying about the media spreading it to the world, and ruining our image.

What do you think pls?

In WW2 we never thought about taking the nazi party out of power, then rebuilding germany. All we did was destroy them until they surrenderd and then we divided up there land, or made them pay us or w.e. We never considered rebuilding them, or there residence. We won japan by bombing them. We bombed civilians.


The winners were very hard on Germany after WW1. That may have had something to do with why the Germans were willing to follow Hitler into WW2.

After WW2 we (USA) were generous and did help rebuild Germany (Marshall Plan). That might have helped the Germans to not want to fight WW3. I think we also helped rebuild Japan.

There was another difference; they attacked us so they did not feel so wronged when we attacked them back.

You already stoop to their level when you indiscriminately bomb civillians (as in Vietnam) and when you let murderers off with a small charge.

Restrictions on ROE are there for a reason, Its to ensure funding keeps coming.

There really isn't any overarching parallel between Vietnam and Iraq. There are discrete comparisons to be made, yes, but the two conflicts are almost nothing alike intrinsically. To address your example, the Vietcong were a monolithic, nationalist insurgent movement, and Iraq does not have one of those, despite the many that have come and gone who claimed to be the only ones faithful to the country. Also, the NVA was a symmetrical enemy that enjoyed a massive amount of logistic and advisory support from the Soviets. The most foreign interference by state actors you could find in Iraq on a good day would be cross-border meddling from the Iranian IRGC in the form of weapons and materiel support to the SIIC (formerly SCIRI) elements within the country, which doesn't tip the balance of power like the Soviets were doing in Vietnam, in any case.

The reason we operate under such restrictive ROE in Iraq is because we need to, in order to have support of the population. As the counterinsurgency manual says...there are cases when it is better to not kill ten insurgents because doing so will create a hundred more. The trick in COIN warfare is not to destroy the enemy and take/hold terrain, as it is in maneuver warfare against an organized opponent, but to make the enemy not want to fight you anymore. Deliberate attack missions, where we mobilize to go out and attack a particular target, are a very rare occurrence. More often you will find shooters walking presence patrols down neighborhood streets, stuffing the pouches of their rucks with toys and candy instead of grenades and extra rifle magazines. Because popular support is a prerequisite for any sort of lasting peace between the national government, coalition military elements, and the people, it is accorded a much higher level of importance than combat superiority (which has never been in question anyway). If somebody tries to tell you that all we need to do to turn Iraq around is to start cracking some heads, it is a good indicator that they have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

As far as Blackwater goes, they are glorified security guards. They are hired for and perform very well in certain niche roles like VIP protection and physical security, which uniformed military elements are poorly suited for and too busy to bother with.

This war isn't really so much a war as its a facade for other things. That we aren't supposed to know about. I think its a little obvious now. I didn't live during vietnam or ww2, but I never knew a war could chage goals so often like this one has. This war has no winners or losers. America gets what it wants and the people of Iraq are still miserable, nothing changes. But I'm just being cynical.

Lets not confuse our opinions and emotions with the facts pls.

If you dont have a reply to the main point, pls dont post. It diverts the subject.

Well, we could have bombed iraq untill sadam husein steped down and stoped the regime or w.e, or we could have killed him and stoped the regime.

after that... usa wins go home, let them rebuild themselves.


Now-a-days we have to fix what we destroy...

mypoint is... usa will never win a war again. were too soft and politicaly correct

Well, we could have bombed iraq untill sadam husein steped down and stoped the regime or w.e, or we could have killed him and stoped the regime.


Going home was never the plan. The goal always was to have permanent military bases in Iraq and an allied Iraqi government running Iraq.

The NeoConservatives who advised Bush felt that the USA needed a presence in the Persian Gulf as part of their plans for "A New American Century" in which not alliance of nations would dare to challenge US supremacy in the way that the Warsaw Pact did. The NeoCon "Project for a New American Century" was concerned about China allied with other nations challenging American supremacy. China needs Arab oil. If we control Arab oil we control China.

In WW2 we never thought about taking the nazi party out of power, then rebuilding germany. All we did was destroy them until they surrenderd and then we divided up there land, or made them pay us or w.e. We never considered rebuilding them, or there residence. We won japan by bombing them. We bombed civilians.

Todays propaganda and media makes our style of war completely different. Soldiers can't even shoot unless shot at. They can't even search iraqi women unless a female does it.

In the first place, there is a huge difference between WWII and the current Iraqi Bush Adventure. That difference, of course, is that we were invited to the dance. This time around, we invited ourselves. And, while our international neighbors were hoping we'd come to the dance in Europe during the Second World War, this time they were looking at one another, saying, "Um ... there's a dance?"

The army even has a seperate civilian group caled back water I think dad said. They are basicly mercinarys. They make about 300k a year. Basicly since there civilians, they do not have to adhere to the geneva conventions regulations. This is what our army has come too. Having to hire civilians just to be able to killed someone without worrying about the media spreading it to the world, and ruining our image.

(chortle!)

It's called "privatization". Conservatives love it. And it's generally a disaster.

mypoint is... usa will never win a war again. were too soft and politicaly correct

If we were too soft and politically correct as you suggest, we wouldn't have gone in the first place.

Maybe your daddy forgot to tell you that every reason Dubya gave us for going turned out to be bogus. Of course, a lot of people were as sure as they could be about that before we went, but it wasn't "politically correct"—er, excuse me, "patriotic"—to say so.

Oh, right. One more thing (with this war party, there always is): If the war dogs had sent enough troops to secure the theater, and if the people in charge had chosen some other course of action than violating the Geneva Conventions because maintaining law and order was too much to ask of our military services, perhaps the situation would have evolved differently.

If you have a complaint about the war, take it to Bush and Dick. The mess we have now is exactly what they were hoping for.

Pretty good similarities between Vietnam and Iraq in my opinion. Vietnam was fought on the basis of the Domino theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_Theory), which was the predecessor of the War on Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror).

In Vietnam, they used Operation Passage to Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Passage_to_Freedom) which was run by the CIA (Edward Lansdale) to prop up support for the fascist dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem) and his secret police.

Diệm's rule was authoritarian and nepotistic. His most trusted official was his brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, leader of the primary pro-Diệm Can Lao political party, who was an opium addict and admirer of Adolf Hitler. He modeled the Can Lao secret police's marching style and torture styles on Nazi designs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Ngo_Dinh_Diem_at_Washington_-_ARC_542189.gif/300px-Ngo_Dinh_Diem_at_Washington_-_ARC_542189.gif


In Iraq, they used the CIA (probably RIchard Helms) to prop up Saddam.

Saddam Hussein in the past was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism in the 1960s and 1970s.[16] His first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with ousting then Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassim

The Vietnam war was planned to be a massacre:

The Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force Curtis LeMay, however, had long advocated saturation bombing in Vietnam and wrote of the Communists that "we're going to bomb them back into the Stone Age".

So was Iraq:

When US Secretary of State James Baker III warned Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq in Geneva in 1991 that Iraq would be bombed backed into the Stone Age, he was true to his word and more.

In both cases, the wars were fought for bullshit hubris.

Wars today are fought to get money to the arms dealers and their buddies in Congress. :mad:

Well, we could have bombed iraq untill sadam husein steped down and stoped the regime or w.e, or we could have killed him and stoped the regime.

after that... usa wins go home, let them rebuild themselves.


Now-a-days we have to fix what we destroy...

mypoint is... usa will never win a war again. were too soft and politicaly correct



Right. let those that never supported saddam rebuild after a war that they didn't ask for and didn't want. Yes, you could have put efforts into assassinating him, but you didn't. Why ? because there were ulterior motives around.

If you don't fix your mistakes they will come back to haunt you. Saddam was a counter to Iran, which was also another mistake. Now Iraq is the US trying to fix that mistake.
WWII was a direct result of not helping countries rebuild themselves.

Nothing wrong with the USA being soft. Just make sure it's in the right places. PC can be taken to the extreme, but if there was no political influence on military actions then there would be the problem of vietnam.

We can win wars. As a veteran of the Vietnam era, we could have won Vietnam if we were willing to pay the price in treasure and blood. But it was very apparent that the government of South Vietnam was not worth supporting. It was corrupt and incompetent. It was a bad investment.
Iraq was a botched operation, and it has not gotten any better. Afganistan is another botchted operation. But because we are not making the investments on the ground that are necessary to produce political successes. Additionally, Bin Laden should have been killed or captured along with the Taliban leadership in the initial days of the invasion. But that did not happen because of failed leadership on our part. That was the problem in Vietnam and it is the problem in Afganistan and Iraq as well. But both Afganistan and Iraq are complicated because of poorly planned and executed invasion plans.
So yes, we can still win wars if we have good leadership in the Whitehouse and Congress. Hopefully, we will not have any more wars. But to win wars requires competent political leadership in the United States which is not there today. Political correctness is an excuse used by the Limbaugh's and Hannities of the world to manipulate the masses. No one likes political correctness.

Iraq and afghanistan are botched operations, yes, but not due to Political correctness.

It was due to confusing directives, misinterpetations and a gross misunderstanding by the top of proper counter insurgency tactics.

That and the reason was illegal in the first place.

Challenger, I agree. I won't get into the legality business. I think Afganistan was justified, but Iraq was certianly questionable. And was it was certianly not executed well militarily or politically. The military errors were made at senior flag officer (generals)and civilian leadership levels.

I think Afganistan was justified,

Because 15 of the 19 came from there. Oh, sorry, my bad...

Now there is a difference between a revenge/teaching them a lesson retaliation and a full occupation...

The nature of war has changed. Insurgencies have a real advantage in most cases, unless we have the overwhelming numbers. It's hard to get the overwhelming numbers to fight a war, unless you an convince the people that our lives are really at stake, which they weren't in Vietnam or Iraq. Also, it's really expensive if you don't have the rest of the world with you.

We are winning in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, the casualties are by far not the same.

Ethics were always at play in war, at least on the outside, for the common folk.

Western countries will only 'win' when they have the moral imperative and the goals are not ambivalent. If there is such a thing as a 'just war' then the end has to justify the means.

I agree with the late Robert Macnamara is his reflections on Vietnam and Iraq. (He was a Defense Secretary during the Vietnam War). If you can't convince your like-minded allies to go to war and you can't convince an overwhelming percent of your own population, then put the brakes on. A war shouldn't 'be sold' to the population or allies but the reasons should be in your face and self-evident. If a war is 'sold' (like Vietnam and Iraq) then the shine will come off quickly when reality sets in. With 24/7 media there's no where to hide bodies and repaint the room for a controlled photo shoot.

So sure, the USa can win a war. But there has to be a darned good reason to start killing hundreds of thousands of 'them' and that reason can't be because of phony propaganda or a threat that doesn't impact the USA directly. If Iran or N. Korea ever launched a missile at the USA, they'd be wiped out in a matter of hours. But you can't go declaring war on some 'axis of evil' when most of the world rolls their eyes and sees the USA as the bad guy...drop a bomb and kill 50 women and children and it'll be splashed across the world and it does more harm to U.S. interests than any so-called threat.

George Bush is probably the most hated man in the world or among the most hated. The USA is among the most despised countries and seen as the most danger to world peace. Any potential (even if unlikely) military victory in Iraq doesn't change that.

By the way it is not really the winning part that the problem is, but the occupation part. It is relative easy to bomb a country into the stonage, but the troops have to hold the land....

We already won the battle against Saddam's army. What we're doing there now isn't war, it's an underfunded, undermanned, unnecessary occupation.

Well, we could have bombed iraq untill sadam husein steped down and stoped the regime or w.e, or we could have killed him and stoped the regime.

after that... usa wins go home, let them rebuild themselves.
The US incurred a moral (and legal) obligation to fulfill a commitment to the Iraqi people, which was undertaken when civilian leaders decided to depose Saddam. Had we rolled our forces back down to Kuwait in May of 2003 after the last vestiges of the regime were obliterated, Iraq would have ceased to exist as a country in short order. The violence and disorder that seems so bad now is nothing compared to what would result from us abandoning our effort there.

The war was never really about Saddam, as much as a strategic repositioning of American assets in the middle east, and a rather significant course change in our foreign policy in that part of the world.

It's almost impossible to win a war in todays tense political enviorment. In the old days, they'd burn the cities, kill all the men and boys, and enslaved the women. As long as you strike strategic targets only, that gives the insurgency the cushion they need to assemble their forces. Today, if you tried to really vanquish your enemy, you'll be considered the great satan.

Uh, killing civilians creates the insurgency. It's in the Army's field manuals on counterinsurgency.

The US incurred a moral (and legal) obligation to fulfill a commitment to the Iraqi people, Well, it's too bad, because we can't fulfill any such commitment. We haven't the ability. You go into foreign policy with the government you have, not the one you want (or need).

At some point, the phrase "we have fucked it up, and we can't fix it" needs to surface in consciousness, and actions taken accordingly.

The violence and disorder that seems so bad now is nothing compared to what would result from us abandoning our effort there. There is no evidence that the Iraqis would handle their own affairs in any significantly worse manner than we've handled them. And if they did, at least we would no longer be in the middle of it, fucking up some more.

When do we quit pretending we're doing them any favors ?

We can always assauge our richly deserved guilt by throwing a few trillion dollars into the pile, and if we were out of the area much less of it might be siphoned into offshore accounts.
It's almost impossible to win a war in todays tense political enviorment. In the old days, they'd burn the cities, kill all the men and boys, and enslaved the women. Something like that happened to Fallujah, and a couple of other places. That didn't work either.

Is it even worth mentioning that the US had no legal standing to enforce UN resolutions?

Well, it's too bad, because we can't fulfill any such commitment. We haven't the ability. You go into foreign policy with the government you have, not the one you want (or need).

At some point, the phrase "we have fucked it up, and we can't fix it" needs to surface in consciousness, and actions taken accordingly.

There is no evidence that the Iraqis would handle their own affairs in any significantly worse manner than we've handled them. And if they did, at least we would no longer be in the middle of it, fucking up some more.

When do we quit pretending we're doing them any favors ?
You really need to start reading these threads for content and following the path of discussion before you jump in with this rhetorical cock waving.

You really need to start reading these threads for content and following the path of discussion before you jump in with this rhetorical cock waving. I was replying directly to your post, guy - which was a bit longer on the BS rhetoric and shorter on the relevance (since when does fucking someone over create a "moral obligation" to fuck them over even more ? ) than mine.

Unless you want to deal with the slim relevance to topic your post had, which would be (at a guess) the possibility that we could in some sense "win" the Iraq War as it has now become established, as well as other future similar conflicts.

What do you think - can this be "win" somehow ?

Because 15 of the 19 came from there. Oh, sorry, my bad...

Now there is a difference between a revenge/teaching them a lesson retaliation and a full occupation...

SYZGYS just a minor point of relevance, it is generally accepted that you do not attack where the enemy was, but rather where the enemy is!

The US incurred a moral (and legal) obligation to fulfill a commitment to the Iraqi people, which was undertaken when civilian leaders decided to depose Saddam. Had we rolled our forces back down to Kuwait in May of 2003 after the last vestiges of the regime were obliterated, Iraq would have ceased to exist as a country in short order. The violence and disorder that seems so bad now is nothing compared to what would result from us abandoning our effort there.

The war was never really about Saddam, as much as a strategic repositioning of American assets in the middle east, and a rather significant course change in our foreign policy in that part of the world.

it was about the oil

SYZGYS just a minor point of relevance, it is generally accepted that you do not attack where the enemy was, but rather where the enemy is!

For the record, the Afghan occupation is about pipelines (avoding Iran) and not about retribution...

If Afganistan was about pipleines where are the pipelines, it has been more than 5 years since we took it over. That is more than enough time to at least begin preparation for the pipeline of which you speak. But there are no plans. No one is or has acted on a plan to construct a pipeline in Afganistan since the takeover.
And Afganistan was never about retribution or at least it should not have been. It was about taking out a security threat. We have 3k dead bodies to prove the threat.

If Afganistan was about pipleines where are the pipelines, it has been more than 5 years since we took it over.

Have you ever heard things not going according to plans?? Let me see, Iraq is about oil, but where is the oil? Well, if you heard, things aren't going according to plans...

No major oilcompany is going to start a multibillion dollars construction as long as the area is COMPLETELY pacified....Interestingly, if you connect the army bases in Afghanistan, you can see the line of the planned pipeline... :)

And taking out a security threat? You don't need to OCCUPY a country for that...

I was replying directly to your post, guy - which was a bit longer on the BS rhetoric and shorter on the relevance (since when does fucking someone over create a "moral obligation" to fuck them over even more ? ) than mine.

Unless you want to deal with the slim relevance to topic your post had, which would be (at a guess) the possibility that we could in some sense "win" the Iraq War as it has now become established, as well as other future similar conflicts.

What do you think - can this be "win" somehow ?
Read the following very carefully:

The poster of this thread was not understanding why the coalition remained in Iraq to rebuild the country and restore order after deposing the regime. I explained why. But in your typical MO, the handful of buzzwords you spotted in your cursory read of the thread were enough to launch you onto a tangential rant against arguments that I never made. Do you not understand why so many of us find that infantile behavior irritating?

Also, I'm not interested in sharing my personal thoughts in this thread, for reasons I've explained before in this forum.

You do need to occupy the country if the country is not stable, else you get an even worse enemy down the road...wittnes WWI. The problem, aside from the poltical problem in the United States (President and & Republicans) the United States and its' allies are not investing enough in Afgani infrastructure inorder for a stable Afghan government to form. Under current circumstances, leaving the country would result in even more chaos down the road.
As for the gas line, you keep thinking that if it gives you some comfort. As there is no proof it is or was an objective. Now it was talked about at one point in history. But it was not a motive for the invasion. The motive for the invasion of Afganistan was to take out a proven security threat.

The poster of this thread was not understanding why the coalition remained in Iraq to rebuild the country and restore order after deposing the regime. I explained why. And I found your explanations naive and immature, and contradicted in plain fact, and redolent of propaganda, and ethically questionable. But I didn't devote my response to that reaction.
Do you not understand why so many of us find that infantile behavior irritating? I think so, yeah. But I don't waste thread space calling you out on it, delivering my opinions of your behavior and "irritation", etc.
Also, I'm not interested in sharing my personal thoughts in this thread, for reasons I've explained before in this forum. So you have said. Interesting policy choice, given the recent evidence. Implementing it would require better acknowledgment (or maybe even recognition ) of when you are in fact sharing your own personal thoughts - such as the reasons for the US occupation of Iraq.

Myself, everything I post on this forum is my own personal thought, unless quoted. I don't disown the stuff.

Meanwhile, the OP remains, and remains IMHO interesting. Can the US, as it is in the world as it has become, "win" a war in some sense of that word ?

The inability of the US to fulfill whatever legal or moral obligations it had five years ago after the initial invasion of Iraq, and its inability to extricate itself from compounding disaster there or fulfill the legal and moral obligations its citizenry has been discovered to have incurred in subsequent events, bears directly on the OP. Is such fulfillment necessary for the declaration of a "win" ?

The war in Iraq isn't a Total War; you're saying the tactics have changed, that's true, however the goal has also changed.

In WW2 the goal was different, since it wasn't about taking down specific targets while minimizing civilian casualties; America is not at war with Iraq, they are at war with terrorists.

In WW2, the goal was about winning at all costs. Yes, that included civilians. It was a total war, so anything went, and it was about wining, about annihlating the enemy, and about completely destroying them. America wasn't fighting a specific group of people, they were fighting ALL of Germany and ALL of Japan; each and every civillian was collateral, and there's no problem with killing them (in such a situation)


The entire situation and goals were different

But it was not a motive for the invasion. The motive for the invasion of Afganistan was to take out a proven security threat.

Since justabout half of the world hates the US now, are we going to take them out one by one??

Seriously, what if there is a coup in Pakistan which happens to be nuclear and Muslim and OBL is more popular than the elected leader??? Occupying such a big country is pretty much out of the question.

Oh yeah, and why aren't we in North Korea???

[QUOTE=Norsefire;1807346]The war in Iraq isn't a Total War; you're saying the tactics have changed, that's true, however the goal has also changed.

In WW2 the goal was different, since it wasn't about taking down specific targets while minimizing civilian casualties; America is not at war with Iraq, they are at war with terrorists.

In WW2, the goal was about winning at all costs. Yes, that included civilians. It was a total war, so anything went, and it was about wining, about annihlating the enemy, and about completely destroying them. America wasn't fighting a specific group of people, they were fighting ALL of Germany and ALL of Japan; each and every civillian was collateral, and there's no problem with killing them (in such a situation)


The entire situation and goals were different[/QUOTE

It should also be noted that technology has been greatly improved over WWI. Weaponry is much more effective because it can be effectively targeted. Destroying non military targets is a waste of ammunition, not to mention the moral and humanitarian issues it creates. But still in war some innocents will be injured and killed...much less now than then.

Since justabout half of the world hates the US now, are we going to take them out one by one??

Seriously, what if there is a coup in Pakistan which happens to be nuclear and Muslim and OBL is more popular than the elected leader??? Occupying such a big country is pretty much out of the question.

Oh yeah, and why aren't we in North Korea???


If the nukes wind up in the hands of those who threaten us, we will need to take action to nullify the threat. I don't know how much of the world hates us and how much of it likes us. I doubt anyone really knows. But how is it important? I think we all know Bush Junior is an idiot and achieved office by nefarrious means.

Why are we not in North Korea, because Americans don't want war or military action unless absoutely needed. Americans would not stand for a war with North Korea without justification. The justification Bush II gave for war with Iraq turnned out to be false. So not only has Bush II destroyed his trust with the international community. He has destroyed the trust the American people gave him. He lied to the American people about the reasons for going to war against Iraq. So why should we trust him again?

And I found your explanations naive and immature, and contradicted in plain fact, and redolent of propaganda, and ethically questionable. But I didn't devote my response to that reaction.
If you're the sort of moral vacuum that doesn't think an invader has an obligation to protect the civilian population of a country being invaded as much as possible, including events subsequent to regime collapse...well, I disagree. For the legal part, you also may want to read the part of the Geneva Conventions relevant to this. Tiassa already hinted at it.

So you have said. Interesting policy choice, given the recent evidence. Implementing it would require better acknowledgment (or maybe even recognition ) of when you are in fact sharing your own personal thoughts - such as the reasons for the US occupation of Iraq.
Or you could just try exercising standard forum etiquette; reading threads for content, staying on topic, and not pigeonholing people you know almost nothing about.

If you're the sort of moral vacuum that doesn't think an invader has an obligation to protect the civilian population of a country being invaded as much as possible, including events subsequent to regime collapse...well, I disagree. For the legal part, you also may want to read the part of the Geneva Conventions relevant to this. You have apparently not read my posts carefully, and are going of half-cocked with insults again. I will attempt to simplify things for you:

Where I drew the line was in passing on glib and unsupported presentation of these obligations as the reason the US occupied, and continues to occupy, Iraq.

There's not the slightest physical or practical evidence that any such motive or reason was behind this occupation, or would justify the five years of what we have seen as the execution of it. Whatever obligations the US had, moral (whatever was not obviated by the wrong of the invasion), or legal (again, the invasion itself was illegal under Geneva), they played no visible part in the major planning or management of the occupation.

And if they were somehow shown to have been a factor at first, the failure of their execution does not create an obligation to continue failing, at great cost and misery to the Iraqi people, and apparently for ulterior and unadmirable purposes. Someone else's country is not some kind of military playground where you try until you get it right - at least, not if morality and legality is a concern.

These obligations, if such moral and legal obligations indeed existed as attendant on the enactment of amoral and illegal atrocity that was the invasion, have been failed. That pooch is screwed. They are not honest or legitimate justifications for continued US presence in Iraq, and new ones are necessary for any policy that genuinely rested on them.

And, to bring around the relevance you discarded in the first place, there is no obvious way to "win" a war of this kind. Is it, then, realistically possible for the US to win a war in modern times ?

Where I drew the line was in passing on glib and unsupported presentation of these obligations as the reason the US occupied, and continues to occupy, Iraq.
Dude, get off your high horse. We have had radically different exposure to and experience with the operations in Iraq, so our conclusions are bound to differ. This thread isn't the place to debate them.

The only point I was making (which was abundantly clear given the context) is that an invader - any invader - has a moral and legal obligation to provide security to the civilian population of the nation it invades in order to keep them from harm after the law and order of the former regime it went to war with disappears.

And, to bring around the relevance you discarded in the first place, there is no obvious way to "win" a war of this kind. Is it, then, realistically possible for the US to win a war in modern times ?
The entire premise of this question is bullshit to begin with. We won the war in about three weeks.

E3R: "We won the war in about three weeks."

We won nothing- We're not in control of where this is heading. We only defeated Saddam- not the armed resistance against the US presence and agenda. Since the first 3 weeks of this expedition, we've had over 3,500 KIA and more than 30,000 wounded- and that's ignoring the unprecedented ratio of USAmerican mercenary involvement in hostilities. The invasion/occupation of Iraq continues to seriously damage the United States' volunteer armed forces, damage our economy, damage our international standing, damage our national interests, and damage our national security, while Iraq continues to fragment politically.

Equating that with winning isn't realistic, nor is it honest- not even in the strict military sense. It was clear to all of us who had even a little knowledge of Iraq before the invasion, that the real challenge would not be in merely toppling Saddam, but in maintaining Iraqi cohesion in the absence of a strongman, and in the presence of intense ethnic and regional pressures. That was the insurmountable challenge for the US military from the outset. Claiming "Mission Accomplished" because the spell of fear and loyalty toward Saddam was broken by the invasion is a foolish ruse. Similarly, if the United States armed forces were tasked with the continued toppling of regimes and sowing of chaos elsewhere, such outcomes will never equate with military victories.

Saddam was smart. He knew he couldn't win,so he distributed arms caches across the nation. So in theory, he's still winning.

Saddam was smart. He knew he couldn't win,so he distributed arms caches across the nation. So in theory, he's still winning.

Thats not true.

Iraqis don't believe in banks and keep their wealth at home. Under a dictatorship, I guess financial security can't be delegated to the government. And like most Americans, they believe in the right to bear arms. So most of them will come to the door with a gun in hand if they see a stranger. Which makes them perfect targets for the American troops (who probably under war like conditions in the US would also keep a gun handy near the door).

Dude, get off your high horse. You make a habit of projection, or what ? You want to see someone on a high horse behaving like its ass, review your posts on this thread, "dude". We have had radically different exposure to and experience with the operations in Iraq, so our conclusions are bound to differ. This thread isn't the place to debate them. Then don't start that debate, as you did, and don't lecture people from some imaginary position of comprehension, which you lack, and so forth. Your posts are not privileged.

And few, if any, of your experiences in Iraq are necessarily relevant to the matter under discussion, something you do not seem to recognize - when you carefully supply the official line on "why we occupied Iraq", for example, you included no demurral about that being your opinion only, and unsupported by evidence, and only one of several (more likely) possibilities, and not necessarily an explanation of why we continue to occupy Iraq, and all around dubious at best.

Stating opinions as simple declarative sentences here is no problem. Pretending they are something more than that, without argument or evidence, betrays a confusion. The only point I was making (which was abundantly clear given the context) is that an invader - any invader - has a moral and legal obligation to provide security to the civilian population of the nation it invades in order to keep them from harm after the law and order of the former regime it went to war with disappears. And I regard that as fundamentally misleading in this situation. Bullshit, in other words. And I elaborated a bit, above, with no relevant response from you.

It's based on at least two premises not met: one is that the invader is more capable than the invaded of "providing security", the other is that the entire operation was not an amoral, criminal operation in its totality, in the first place.

The entire premise of this question is bullshit to begin with. We won the war in about three weeks. That's not relevant to the premises here - that's an answer to the question posed by the OP. You say yes, we can win wars of this type, and point to Iraq as an example of a "win". OK, that's a relevant argument - others may now disagree that Iraq is a "win", and continue to debate whether the US can - in real life - "win" wars in the modern situation.

If we cut to the chase, this discussion may boil down to the argument (which I consider specious) that Vietnam and Iraq represent military victories undone by political failures. To me, this is nothing more than cult militarism evading reality- It's aggressive primitivism in a cheap modern suit.

In reality, the United States lacks a defensible cause in Iraq, as it did in Vietnam. While some worshipers of militarism like to promote military contests as a separate arena from such considerations, the lack of a just or defensible cause is always a very real military issue. Asserting that cause does not apply to victory is like saying that weapons and personnel do not apply. The USA can not enjoy military victory in this Iraq campaign, because the multifaceted resistance has much more durable causes; they will fight on beyond our own capability to persist as occupiers.

Ignoring such considerations as this does help to preserve a myth of militaristic superiority, by ignoring the reality that cause in any elective campaign is part and parcel of a nation's military potency. A discredited cause can destroy alliances and create enemies sufficiently to cancel out any superiority of weapons and personnel through unlimited attrition. The US agenda in Iraq has been rejected as thoroughly as it was in Vietnam, and it is only a matter of time until a US withdrawal that will be no more "victorious" than our departure from Vietnam.

Contributing considerably to the senseless delay in our withdrawal is the same fallacy that needlessly killed millions in Vietnam: That a military solution is attainable, if only political concerns can be separated and dismissed, and the military unleashed to destroy the "enemy". This is a completely anachronistic mythology of war competing with reason, often masquerading as something more sophisticated than primitive brutality. Although powerful interests still promote the myths of militarism (such as the myth that military superiority can overcome moral inferiority) and although we're still often fooled, busting these myths is the core of our incremental, progressive development toward a future when brutality has no cover left for masquerading as nobility.

Will the US ever win another war? Can any open and democratic society win a war? Not without a reason.

Then don't start that debate, as you did, and don't lecture people from some imaginary position of comprehension, which you lack, and so forth. Your posts are not privileged.

And few, if any, of your experiences in Iraq are necessarily relevant to the matter under discussion, something you do not seem to recognize - when you carefully supply the official line on "why we occupied Iraq", for example, you included no demurral about that being your opinion only, and unsupported by evidence, and only one of several (more likely) possibilities, and not necessarily an explanation of why we continue to occupy Iraq, and all around dubious at best.

Stating opinions as simple declarative sentences here is no problem. Pretending they are something more than that, without argument or evidence, betrays a confusion.
Fair points. I'll concede that post #22 was misleading, but I'll also ask that you read what I was responding to. I'm betting you also disagree that deposing Saddam was the sole objective of the invasion, yes?

It's based on at least two premises not met:
No, it isn't. The requirement for post-invasion security exists irrespective of how capable the invader is of providing it. The Geneva Conventions are quite clear about this.

That's not relevant to the premises here - that's an answer to the question posed by the OP. You say yes, we can win wars of this type, and point to Iraq as an example of a "win". OK, that's a relevant argument - others may now disagree that Iraq is a "win", and continue to debate whether the US can - in real life - "win" wars in the modern situation.
Don't be deliberately obtuse. I know you know what I meant because I've been over this with you (and hypewaders) before. You could try rephrasing the question into something more clear, and explaining what you mean by "the modern situation", if you're still confused about something.

Stating opinions as simple declarative sentences here is no problem. Pretending they are something more than that, without argument or evidence, betrays a confusion.

LOL...

Well this settles it. Barbie is Genji.

Well this settles it. Barbie is Genji.

How can you be sure?

Well i dont know but hopefully this person has me on ignore.

*Note to OP put John on ignore*

Echo why do you even bother... you know how to talk to crazy people, don't you? You smile and nod... and point and laugh :)

No, it isn't. The requirement for post-invasion security exists irrespective of how capable the invader is of providing it. The Geneva Conventions are quite clear about this. I doubt the Geneva Conventions require an incompetent invader to destroy the local means of providing security, and substitute its own less effective means, regardless of circumstances. If security is better provided by the invader not providing it, but instead getting out of the way, how would Geneva object ?

The second factor in the legal security issue was time: IIRC the Geneva requirements do not include provisions for how long the invader is supposed to keep attempting to meet them in cases of initial failure, but installing its military in permanent bases and settling in for the duration seems difficult to justify. The US has already failed to meet its Geneva obligations in Iraq, as of years ago. That failure is part of the historical record. It does not justify any current behavior.

I'm betting you also disagree that deposing Saddam was the sole objective of the invasion, yes? Not "also", would be my bet - the sense in which I have thought deposing Saddam was not the "sole objective" is probably different.

Mine is: it's quite likely that deposing Saddam was an excuse for the invasion, and not really, or significantly, an "objective" at all, of the people in the US government responsible for launching the thing. Rather than the occupation being an attempt at providing security as per obligations incurred by deposing Saddam, deposing Saddam would have been a fulfillment of an obligation to provide justification for invasion and occupation - the seizure of the strategic and economic power inherent in Iraq's location and oil reserves, and the takeover of the Iraqi economy by interested parties.

That would make the context of the legal and moral obligations much different, and change their nature considerably, IMHO.

Without a doubt, our soldiers today operate under much greater restrictions than they did in WW2. My grandfather, for instance, was told by General Patton to shoot German prisoners because it was cheaper than keeping them as POW's. Abu graib pales in comparison.

You're straining to defend something that is indefensible, madanthonywayne.

Well, we could have bombed iraq untill sadam husein steped down and stoped the regime or w.e, or we could have killed him and stoped the regime.

after that... usa wins go home, let them rebuild themselves.


Now-a-days we have to fix what we destroy...

mypoint is... usa will never win a war again. were too soft and politicaly correct

It's not just political correctness, but the left-wing news media and Hollywood. The leftists in America and Europe hate the U.S. with a passion.
They deliberately overlook good things that come from knocking down a dictator and replacing the dictator with democracy, and instead focus on anything bad they can find.
Just look at Iraq, over 100,000 civilians killed by terrorists & insurgents, and who does the left wing news media blame for it, not the terrorists, but GWB and the U.S. !!! talk about propoganda. The terrorists and insurgents have sabotaged Iraq's infrastructure over and over; who does the left-wing news media blame for it ? not the terrorists...... nooooo, the "evil" U.S. !
And look at Hollywood; during WW2 they pumped out anti-Nazi films by the hundreds. Today we have terrorists who are even more evil than the Nazis; yet Hollywood puts out films making the U.S. and U.S. soldiers look like the bad guys.
It's sickening to say the least.

Cazzo: "[Leftists] deliberately overlook good things that come from knocking down a dictator and replacing the dictator with democracy"

Specifically what good things do you think are being overlooked?

Do you seriously consider Iraq a functional and unitary democracy today? Do you believe that Iraqi minorities have been protected under this "democracy"?

"over 100,000 civilians killed by terrorists & insurgents"

From where do you get this figure, and what is your basis for asserting which killers are terrorists and insurgents? I don't know of a more accurate source of such information than Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/), and I see no basis for your assertion there.

"The terrorists and insurgents have sabotaged Iraq's infrastructure over and over"

Did you not notice that "Shock and Awe" produced far greater, and decisive damage back in 2003, compounding the decline of the years of sanctions?

"Today we have terrorists who are even more evil than the Nazis"

Can you please describe your standard of evil?

U.S. will never win a war again?

Don't count on that happening.

"YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF..."

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare left hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you HAVEN'T declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You've often uttered the phrase, " I love what you've done with your cave."

10. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least one.

11. You bathe at least monthly whether necessary or not.

12. You've ever had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

Those were pretty funny. Especially:

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

I would add one more: You wear your wife's or your mothers burka to avoid meeting American Armed forces.

I'll add two:

You live in a cave and can't afford shoes and the best militaries in the world are trying to defeat you since seven years, without success.

You can't understand why people who keep droning on about freedom of expression are bombing you in your own country so that you become more like them.

I'll add two:

You live in a cave and can't afford shoes and the best militaries in the world are trying to defeat you since seven years, without success.

You can't understand why people who keep droning on about freedom of expression are bombing you in your own country because you are not like them.
Sam, you need to work on your mocking. You have to admit, the bit about the heroin and the beer was pretty funny. Your's just weren't. You have the seeds for something there, but you need to work on your writing.

Some were funny, but the one about the $3000 machine gun and no shoes was kind of grim.

If only machine guns were more expensive and harder to find than good boots in that part of the world, we'd all be a lot better off.

Since the Soviets pulled out, the Taliban did a better job than any other group at suppressing the Afghan opium trade. Both the Taliban and the warlords allied with the USA seem to be cashing in on opium now but at the Taliban's peak prior to 9-11 they were really trying to stop the drug trade.

\
If only machine guns were more expensive and harder to find than good boots in that part of the world, we'd all be a lot better off.
Now that's another good one!

Some were funny, but the one about the $3000 machine gun and no shoes was kind of grim.

If only machine guns were more expensive and harder to find than good boots in that part of the world, we'd all be a lot better off.

They have shoes. Sometimes thats the only way to identify a dead family member

http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/images3/2004_war_photos_5/woman_identifies_shoes_long.jpe

Yeah. especially if it's a mosque bombing.

$3000.00 for an AK? someone made about 1000% profit on that deal.

Ak 47's for EVERYONE!!!.

Ak 47's for EVERYONE!!!.
Ha, AKs and shoes both cost $1000 (after you build the Black Market) too.

You could probabily just contract out the providing of shoes and ak's to a us contracting company ..then 3 shoes would only cost tax payers a mere 165,000 dollars.

It's not just political correctness, but the left-wing news media and Hollywood. The leftists in America and Europe hate the U.S. with a passion.
They deliberately overlook good things that come from knocking down a dictator and replacing the dictator with democracy, and instead focus on anything bad they can find.
Just look at Iraq, over 100,000 civilians killed by terrorists & insurgents, and who does the left wing news media blame for it, not the terrorists, but GWB and the U.S. !!! talk about propoganda. The terrorists and insurgents have sabotaged Iraq's infrastructure over and over; who does the left-wing news media blame for it ? not the terrorists...... nooooo, the "evil" U.S. !
And look at Hollywood; during WW2 they pumped out anti-Nazi films by the hundreds. Today we have terrorists who are even more evil than the Nazis; yet Hollywood puts out films making the U.S. and U.S. soldiers look like the bad guys.
It's sickening to say the least.

You are the one that's sickening. This Iraq occupation has lasted longer than WWII, and it's more expensive, and we're supposed to be happy about that? What has it accomplished? Has it made us safer? Has it even brought Democracy to Iraq? NO. Why are there "insurgents"? Because we invaded? Why did we invade? Did we find WMD's? Did anyone really care, or was this all just a fucked up Neo-con pipe dream? Now Iran is more powerful than ever, we are poorer than ever, and more than 4,000 of our soldiers are dead for nothing, why are we still there? The media hardly bats an eye about it anymore, and they are supposed to be leftist? Get a freaking clue.

Without a doubt, our soldiers today operate under much greater restrictions than they did in WW2. My grandfather, for instance, was told by General Patton to shoot German prisoners because it was cheaper than keeping them as POW's. Abu graib pales in comparison.

Good, because they are coming home with mental illness and PTSD in increasing numbers. I hate to think what would happen if we let them become the monsters you would want them to be.

You're straining to defend something that is indefensible, madanthonywayne.

That's how it appears, though perhaps he really doesn't support such barbarism.

You are the one that's sickening. This Iraq occupation has lasted longer than WWIIDid you ever notice the huge military bases in Germany and Japan? We're still occupying them over 50 years later.
, and it's more expensive, and we're supposed to be happy about that?More expensive than WW2? Really? By 1945 defense was consuming 89% of the US federal budget, or 37% of US GDP. The Iraq war has come nowhere near approaching that level of spending.
What has it accomplished? Has it made us safer? Has it even brought Democracy to Iraq? NO. Why are there "insurgents"? Because we invaded? Why did we invade? Did we find WMD's? Did anyone really care, or was this all just a fucked up Neo-con pipe dream?Well, what's accomplished depends on what we do from here. At best, we may have removed an anti-US dictator and replaced him with a US ally. At worst, well, that's very hard to say. If we pull out precipitously, we may just find out.
Now Iran is more powerful than ever, we are poorer than ever, and more than 4,000 of our soldiers are dead for nothing, why are we still there? We're still there because we've created a mess and need to see it through.

Hello all

Definition of WAR : To kill people and break things until one side gives up. The US can win a war.
Definition of a police action: To maintain order within a society by the use of force. The US can't win this on its own. It requires the help of a local inherent society. No society equals a no win situation.

:)

At best, we may have removed an anti-US dictator and replaced him with a US ally.

Saddam was USA's on and off ally. Saddam was on the US payroll in 1963 when he tried to assassinate Kassem. Kassem may have been Iraq's best leader but the USA preferred fascists like Saddam and the Baath party.

Maliki is just wants power is is no more a US ally than Saddam was. Hakim/Badr put Maliki in power and Hakim/Badr and take Maliki out of power if they choose to although Maliki may be trying to build his own power base. Badr was Iran's ally before it was a US ally and Badr is still more Iran's ally than it is the USA's ally.

The USA is still pushing to make Iraq a US controlled puppet but Iran is pushing to make Iraq a Iranian controlled puppet and all the Iraqi factions have goals of their own.

Iraq is a mess.

Ha, AKs and shoes both cost $1000 (after you build the Black Market) too.

That and Radar Vans become useful too. Maybe we should get those.

The thing is America had to make a choice. Be a saint and act a saint or be a villain and act a villain. America wanted best of two worlds so they would act like a saint while doing dirty deeds behind closed doors such as helping saddam, helping Osama and etc.

Hypocrisy. Tends to piss off people. Really.
Thats why people hate the US, and the West in general.

I'll add two:

You live in a cave and can't afford shoes and the best militaries in the world are trying to defeat you since seven years, without success.

You can't understand why people who keep droning on about freedom of expression are bombing you in your own country so that you become more like them.

That is because they were hiding behind the burkas. If you are unwilling to disrobe all those wearing burkas, it is kind of hard to find all these guys.

Hypocrisy. Tends to piss off people. Really.
Thats why people hate the US, and the West in general.

As if "the only" hypocrites in the world are in the U.S. :rolleyes:

As if "the only" hypocrites in the world are in the U.S. :rolleyes:

You really didn't expect you to have a monopoly on that too did you :p

More expensive than WW2? Really? By 1945 defense was consuming 89% of the US federal budget, or 37% of US GDP. The Iraq war has come nowhere near approaching that level of spending. Hmmmm. Although sort of accurate, that description overlooks some factors. For one, if you put the Iraq War and all its borrowed monies with interest on budget, count all the military stuff that's buried in other categories (and the prorated interest, etc) as "defense", and take Social Security and Medicare off budget, as would be normal and honest accounting practice, 89% is not really too far away for comparison.

Well, what's accomplished depends on what we do from here. Not really. The US is not in control of this mess - and the damage that has been the greatest accomplishment so far is not necessarily reparable by anything the US does from here on. This, for example At best, we may have removed an anti-US dictator and replaced him with a US ally. is not really in US hands. At worst, well, that's very hard to say. If we pull out precipitously, we may just find out. The worst that can happen if we pull out is not as bad as the worst that can happen if we try to stay.

We're still there because we've created a mess and need to see it through. A clearer way to put that: We're still there because we're creating a mess and we have to see it through.

So I was thinking about the war in Vietnam, and the war in Iraq, and how they were so closely related. Alot of people i'm sure can easily see the relation with the insurgents, and the viet-kong. So you might be able to say "they fight dishonerably and were not going to stoop to there level" or something along the lines of THERE fighting style.

What I was thinking, is what if it's not there strategy whos changed? What if it's our? From a moments glance you don't see much. I didn't either until I was talking about this with dad.

I'm not sure when the media started to get big, but we fight alot differently today, then we did in the old times.. "when we actually won wars." Today, we have morals, ethics, and politics behind everything.

In WW2 we never thought about taking the nazi party out of power, then rebuilding germany. All we did was destroy them until they surrenderd and then we divided up there land, or made them pay us or w.e. We never considered rebuilding them, or there residence. We won japan by bombing them. We bombed civilians.

Todays propaganda and media makes our style of war completely different. Soldiers can't even shoot unless shot at. They can't even search iraqi women unless a female does it.

The army even has a seperate civilian group caled back water I think dad said. They are basicly mercinarys. They make about 300k a year. Basicly since there civilians, they do not have to adhere to the geneva conventions regulations. This is what our army has come too. Having to hire civilians just to be able to killed someone without worrying about the media spreading it to the world, and ruining our image.

What do you think pls?




I think this post should end America's wars, faster than Mr. Bush can blink twice.. given that I sent it to all the majors ten minutes ago...



America just thinks it's "powerful"...
All it has power over is the evil parts of mankind's present form of "reality"...

America has the power to kill anyone on the planet...
America has the power to make nearly all earth's nations partially stop using planet-provided herbal relaxants and stimulants, like their Salem Inquisition way back, and their temporary booze prohibition project, in which they used their legal system to crush target crime-waves... It sounds as if America implemented prohibition just to target a specific bunch.. whilst killing thousands of innocents caught in the crossfires...

America is so powerful that it can regulate the world's drug industry, by threat of extreme violence, and imprisonments to those who dare not live the way the American government of the 13-colonies, deems how the human should live...

America believes it has found and developed the ultimate world governance system...

What is America's plan to govern Humanity..?

We the human race would like to hear America's plan to run our 6-billion lives...

So, just what is your plan, dear America..?
If we like it, then we'll let you be our god if you are good enough to fit the bill... Then you won't need to waste all your bombs and rockets on our flesh...

Tell us plain and straight forward simple, so even a monkey could understand it.. What is your plan for my life, dearest America?...
And for my kid's life..? and for my lady's life..? and for all 6-bil of us critters... What is it you feel you must do to our lives to make them into better Lives..? And do you suppose there might be another way, without using explosives, upon living flesh, to make your statements..?
Humans aren't supposed to kill humans...
Only in Hell do they kill humans...

I thought your posts in the antimatter power thread (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1805256#post1805256) were much more hilarious, but I'll take any chance to see into your universe I can get.

I am pleased that you are happy...

Got any ideas how I can make my posts any funnier for you..?

How deep do you want to see into the cosmos..?

You know, the girl actually had a point, or the beginnings of one, in the initial post - it's something I've touched on once or twice in earlier posts on this forum.

Since then, of course, it's been derailed into the usual "America is evil" Guano, this time led by Tiassa rather than the usual suspects. Completely missing the point and yet somehow managing to conceal ignorance of the topic behind a mountain of pseudo-intellectual fluff.

The initial post had nothing to do with America's capability to win a war, nor with any post-war occupation or political rights and wrongs. It was a simple statement of the mindset and ideological pragmatism of not only the USA, but of the west in general.
Largely, she's right. But I said it first.

You actually lose a war,unless you take the politics and background of the situation into account. Vietnam was one such example.

Quoting: "Having to hire civilians just to be able to kill someone without worrying about the media spreading it to the world, and ruining our image."


What can I say..?

If your going to have a war. You do not exchange blows. You strike with one swift blow that will guarantee the enemy never has a chance to harm you again.

I read that or heard that somewhere. I think dad quoted it from Sun Tzu.

I personally believe in peace. But, if we are going to have war. Win it swiftly, and make sure they can never strike back. This good-guy bad-guy stuff is beside the point.

Seeing as how we are not muslim radicals who are threatening us due to our culture, and religion, we can not say we are the good guy.

We are the good guys relative to us. Relative to other muslim radicas, they are doing as there god wills, and they will be rewarded for their faith in heaven.

Dear Barbie

You seem to have a slightly different, and refreshing point, of view than most Americans... I wish to know why you personally think America is at war, and why is America constantly pressuring the Arab world for a nuclear exchange..?

The initial post had nothing to do with America's capability to win a war, nor with any post-war occupation or political rights and wrongs. It was a simple statement of the mindset and ideological pragmatism of not only the USA, but of the west in general. How is that not related to America's capability to win a war ?

How could a different mindset lead to a "win" in Iraq, for example ? A reasonable mindset allowing a "win" there would not have allowed the US to start that war in the first place. You have a Catch 22 situation, with the US and any likely modern war: it's too powerful to attack militarily, and aggression on its own requires corruption, delusion, and self-deception - unlikely features of winning execution. So winning a war would appear to be very unlikely for the US in the foreseeable future.

Whoever posted last, I didn't read your whole post because it put me to sleep, but for what I did read, here.

Currently America is winning the war.

Were just losing politically.

I know this personally because my father is a colonel in the Army, and he has been there.




We could have won vietnam too. But the reason we lost, is because we lost politically. That forced us to withdraw therefore we lost.











I do not support nukes at all. I do support sending in spies. The best way to win a war, is to end it before it begins. Sabotage them. Cause termoil from the inside. Even coups are justifiable.

Whoever posted last, I didn't read your whole post because it put me to sleep, but for what I did read, here.

Currently America is winning the war.
Were just losing politically.
I know this personally because my father is a colonel in the Army, and he has been there.
We could have won vietnam too. But the reason we lost, is because we lost politically. That forced us to withdraw therefore we lost.

I do not support nukes at all. I do support sending in spies. The best way to win a war, is to end it before it begins. Sabotage them. Cause termoil from the inside. Even coups are justifiable.

Sure, coups are justifiable, before the oil companies start lobbying for one.
Coups are often the cause of most anti US anger around the world.

what are politicians if not representing the people that elected them. People were sick of the tactics and the losses incurred in Vietnam, people are sick of the losses and tactics incurred in Iraq. Politicians represent their people.

Dear Barbie

Given that you are an insider.. please tell, "Why is America at war?..

While your at it, go read Supreme Command (http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Command-Soldiers-Statesmen-Leadership/dp/0743230493).
really useful book on the integration of civillian and military leadership.
Also why you failed at war twice, despite having a technological advantage.

Challenger I hope your not talking about America. Like honestly, that statement is upsetting if your talking about USA...




Were at war because Mr. Bush made an irreversible mistake. Thats my opinion.

Whoever posted last, I didn't read your whole post because it put me to sleep, but for what I did read, here.

Currently America is winning the war.

Were just losing politically.
Care to elaborate on how we are winning?

I know this personally because my father is a colonel in the Army, and he has been there.
We need to find Bin Laden, then we will be winning.

We could have won vietnam too. But the reason we lost, is because we lost politically. That forced us to withdraw therefore we lost.
No we could not have! My father was a vietnam war veteran, they knew the land much better and used guerilla tactics on the soldiers, wounded and killed soldiers came by thousands back to America or were buried in vietnam soil. We had fought almost twice as long as WW2 and the people wanted out, and the soldiers wanted out, because they too, were loosing.



I do not support nukes at all. I do support sending in spies. The best way to win a war, is to end it before it begins. Sabotage them. Cause termoil from the inside. Even coups are justifiable.

That's easier said than done. If it worked that way, America would be the great American SSR of the Soviet Union. :rolleyes:

Challenger I hope your not talking about America. Like honestly, that statement is upsetting if your talking about USA...




Were at war because Mr. Bush made an irreversible mistake. Thats my opinion.

My statement is "upsetting" ? The Civillian leadership did not take firm control of the military during the vietnam war, McNamra (whatever his name was) was too ineffective and allowed the military to conduct operations their own way, which defied the meaning of civillian leadership.

I agree But you failed at fully succeeding at that war because of miscommunication and because of too much political influence in the wrong direction. Your suggestion was that there should be no political influence, we would end up with Vietnam.

Currently America is winning the war.

Were just losing politically.

I know this personally because my father is a colonel in the Army, and he has been there.

We could have won vietnam too. But the reason we lost, is because we lost politically. We bombed Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, more heavily than any country had ever been bombed before. We fought there for 13 years, with the world's most powerful modern army and hundreds of thousands of soldiers, against an enemy in sandals with no air force and Russian charity weapons.

We used chemical weapons, napalm, and phosphorus, delivered from airplanes on civilian populations.

And from at least one point of view, we did win - we taught everyone what the price was for certain kinds of defiance of the US. Of course occupation would have been preferable, but the people who launched that war got most of what they wanted. And when it got too expensive for them, the marginal gain got too low, they didn't really mind leaving.

Because winning a war like Vietnam isn't the point - isn't really possible. As Ho Chi Minh (or one of his generals, memory) put it, in a war like Viet Nam soldiers are better off without rifles than without sound political footing.

If W hadn't passed the tax cuts, and the rich of America had to pay for the Iraq war out of pocket, it would have been over with the first special budget request. Because we can't win it - our soldiers do not have sound political footing, just rifles.

I'm 60.. I remember back when America first state up its DEA abomination, they approached every nation, informing them that they would permit America to install a DEA department in each federal government, or America would deem them America's enemy, and they would suffer serious boycotts and such...

Korea, Viet Nam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others, refused...

I recall when Leary was pushing his LSD thing... A group of highly skilled researchers discovered that LSD would open people's minds to the rest of reality.. but a few American Christian politicians feared that would undermine the American and world economy if people got too smart.. so they crushed it, starting with their "killer weed" program... Now most people fear the stuff, because they think just looking at it would kill them, or make them want to jump off a building to their deaths... American policy has made the whole human race be insane... American won their war.. they've killed humanity.. they've killed the planet.. they've killed themselves.. they killed us...
Right now America is in process of killing our quality of life, while it is doing what is extincting species daily... America is Hell personified...

America's diesel generators running in the ice caps, is what is melting the ice... Proof: Researchers discovered black rivers flowing under Arctic ice...
Sprinkle black dust on snow and ice in the winter at 10 below zero C.. and in a few hours you will see that the black dust particles have attracted the sun's heat, and have melted tiny dish shaped lenses into the ice and snow, which magnifies the sun's heat like a magnifying glass can burn a leaf...
When the ice caps have melted away, there is no more cold air to make the weather... The planet's weather will stall, and most of this planet will mutate into dessert... Humans Will become cannibals...
Have a nice extinction humanity.. You blew it...

Is why I need a lab to build these liquid electricity engines in, so we can escape this dying world... C'mon humes.. Wake Up!...

Who is the "axis of evil".. and who is the hub.. and who is the wheel of evil..?

Do you suppose America saying Iraq is the "axis of evil" is essentially the wheel of evil making grunty noises, and puffs of smoke, out its two ended butt..?

Whoever posted last, I didn't read your whole post because it put me to sleep, but for what I did read, here.

Currently America is winning the war.

Were just losing politically.

I know this personally because my father is a colonel in the Army, and he has been there.


We could have won vietnam too. But the reason we lost, is because we lost politically. That forced us to withdraw therefore we lost.

Your dad is sort of wrong. We could have won Vietnam if we were willing to kill several times more Vietnamese civilians than we killed. And we killed a lot of Vietnamese civilians. Killing enough Vietnamese to make the Vietnamese give up would have made the USA no better morally than Hitler.

The Vietnam war started as a by the Vietnamese for independence from France. The USA entered the war on the side of a group of Vietnamese who had previously been allied with France against Vietnamese independence. We would of had to acted very quickly and very generously to convince the Vietnamese that we were not trying to replace the French as rulers of Vietnam through sleazy puppet figurehead Vietnamese leaders. We failed to convince the Vietnamese that our intentions were good.

We defeated the American Indians when are intentions were clearly not good from an American Indian perspective. The way we got the American Indians to accept whatever we did to them was by making it clear that if they did not obey we would exterminate them. We chose not to do this to the Vietnamese even though after we botched the beginning of the war killing a few million Vietnamese was the only chance that we had to win that war.

I am sure your dad did not want us to kill a few million more Vietnamese. Your dads views are common among military men but that does not make them correct. Your dad must have been a very busy man for many years to become a colonel. Busy people don't have all that much time for studying history. Blaming liberals for the loss in Vietnam makes conservatives feel good and thats why they believe what they believe. Military men don't want to believe that the military did anything wrong. I don't blame the military men or the anti-war crowd for losing Vietnam; I blame the civilian geeks in the Kennedy, and Johnson administration for make bad decisions.

The military experts try to come up with the best ways to do what the president asks them to do. If the president asks them to do something stupid it is the fault of the civilian advisers to the President. Presidents were also busy people for decades before they become president. They also never had time to study on their own. They depend on their advisers to form their opinions. If they do a bad job at choosing their advisers then we Americans get stuck with a stupid government that does things like get us into wars that we can't win without resorting to genocide.

Seconding nirakar: In this thread, as in any discussions of any ignorant, brutal, dishonest, and disguised ideology of extermination the discussion becomes one-sided as soon as it gets down to reality. Vietnam and Iraq only persist for as long as we can ignore this dangling conversation, the distant butchery, and the delayed but pending blowback.

"blowback"..? as in War taking on enough momentum to evolve into its own Identity, turns on its master...

No, blowback is a phenomenon where a nation reaps what it sows, even if the public lives in ignorance of the provocations underway in their name.

The war in Iraq will not take on a mysterious life of its own. The global response to the travesty in Iraq will produce predictable blowback, because the USA is misguidedly behaving as an imperial power long after such policy has become internationally unacceptable. Simplistic illusions about what is happening there suggest a unitary enemy to fear and destroy, while our botched manipulations of Iraq are producing a spectrum of antipathy for the USA that will blow back on many strategic and economic levels, that military power will not be effective in interdicting. It's still undecided how much the USA will further elevate the stakes and blowback. Under a future McCain administration for example, there will be significant escalation, and proportional resultant blowback.

For me, an important aspect of the term "blowback" is the surprise it elicits among the ignorant. It's like playing with highly-unstable chemicals without knowing what you're doing.

I'm 60..

America's diesel generators running in the ice caps, is what is melting the ice... Proof: Researchers discovered black rivers flowing under Arctic ice...
Sprinkle black dust on snow and ice in the winter at 10 below zero C.. and in a few hours you will see that the black dust particles have attracted the sun's heat, and have melted tiny dish shaped lenses into the ice and snow, which magnifies the sun's heat like a magnifying glass can burn a leaf...
When the ice caps have melted away, there is no more cold air to make the weather... The planet's weather will stall, and most of this planet will mutate into dessert... Humans Will become cannibals...
Have a nice extinction humanity.. You blew it...

Is why I need a lab to build these liquid electricity engines in, so we can escape this dying world... C'mon humes.. Wake Up!...

Hi there Mr. Moderator. Are you seriously going to leave this tripe in the thread?

I doubt it's the lab post that you are all tangled up in.. which sent you sobbing to the mods...

I suspect it's this item that's got you itchy and scratching...

"Who is the "axis of evil".. and who is the hub.. and who is the wheel of evil..?
Do you suppose America saying Iraq is the "axis of evil" is essentially the wheel of evil making grunty noises, and puffs of smoke, out its two ended butt..?"

Sometimes the truth stings a little.. especially when you are on the dirty-end of the stick...
America is destroying people, the planet's life support systems, the quality of life, and itself... War isn't how humans share peace!.. Love & Peace is how humans share peace...

Seems Korea and Iran stood up to America's war attempts with them...
Maybe it's time the whole world stood up to America.. and just show them that we don't want anymore wars and destruction on our planet.. by devaluing the American dollar to nothing...
Without money, America can't afford to do wars...
Recall back about 50-years ago, when America approached all nations, informing them that they had no choice but to allow America to install a DEA operations in each federal government.. or become an enemy of the United States... Well now it's time to boot America out of your federal governments, and take back your lives and innocence... This is Planet Earth, not "Planet America"... Lets the whole world show America that war isn't what we want... We don't want anymore of America using explosives on living humans... I wish a huge sink-hole would open-up and swallow all of America, in one big bite.. then humanity could take back the world...

Challenger I hope your not talking about America. Like honestly, that statement is upsetting if your talking about USA...




Were at war because Mr. Bush made an irreversible mistake. Thats my opinion.

Yes, BUT the man is trying to protect your country

Yes, BUT the man is trying to protect your country

No Norsefire he is not trying to protect my country. He is playing out personal thing he has with his father at the expense of my country. His father was widely critised for not taking out Saddam in the first Gulf war. His son wanted to fix that, plus Saddam hatched and tried to execute a plan to kill his father.

And then Bush II botched every opportunity to win the war. He did not guard weapons depots. Which I find suprising, because they were supposed to contain weapons of mass destruction. Two he got rid of the Iraqi infrastructure. Three, when approached by the Iranians to help us, he rebuked them...part of his policy of not talking to people.

The guy's an oil-man... He's working on his petroleum concerns... If life gets in the way, it's dead...

"protecting America".. Give us a break!.. This war is just another 13-colonies prohibition experiment... America terrorized humanity for over 50-years with its DEA abomination.. bombing, murdering, raping, pillaging, plundering, and destroying little ancient cultures... America IS "hell on earth"...

Hell! America's booze prohibition was just to clear up a few mob families... American politicians didn't care if a few thousand American innocents got caught in the crossfires, nor if a hundred million Americans had to do without booze whilst America was doing house-cleaning... To America, innocents are merely "collateral damage".. They're expendable... The money-flows won't stop, nor even twitch, if a few thou slaves gets toppled... there's a lot more Americans where they came from.. and they're always makin' lot and lots of new babies"...

In this Science topic: Wasn't it Bush who passed a new law that stopped American schools from developing new power sources which would compete with gas usage..? Is that law still in place?..

Wake up American!.. Your Bush seems like a huge parasite to your lives... He seems to care only about your money.. your lives come secondary to American government...
If you were to caress his face with a four inch stack of thousand dollar bills, would he not drool a puddle upon his shoe..?
The very Spirit of Money is running your lives, just for money... You haven't a clue what it is to be human anymore... You were born into Slavery...

..."part of his policy of not talking to people."



That's just a tiny part of the picture... I recall seeing on TV, the CIA boss being interviewed, for just a couple minutes.. back when they could be interviewed... He was commenting on the Arabs... He said: "The Arabs are complaining that we won't listen to what they've got to say... Well we aren't gonna listen to a single word them crazy Arabs have to say!"..

I switched off the TV, and had to sit... thinking, "Dammm! that's the first shot fired in WW3"...
..and I went to the kitchen to get me a hot coffee...

Cosmicbrat...I feel sorry for you.

But who do you think funds the Bushes? The Arabs. When Bush II's business went under it was the Arabs who bought him out.

I wager that when this thread goes "Google-alert", coffee-consumption will increase by 2%...
Is there anyway to prove it?.. I.E.: commodity-markets and such..?

Can the coffee world know if consumption increased for a specific hour..?



Me thinks that to have peace on earth we need to take back the reigns of Money.. and treat and cure, those who run us caring only for money, from their Gold Fever disease...

Problem with implementing that, "God Fever" is attached to it in its parallel...

Someone traded off Life for Gold and God...
Problem with that, is they are pushing us into the meat-grinder, in squeezing every last penny from our bloods.. in their effort to seize the title of "The Richest Man in the World"...
Problem with that is that they forfeit the afterlife.. because when it comes time to do what must be done, they use up their 7 seconds holding onto their money... They crystallize ("pillar of salt").. Their spirit dies 8-seconds after their body did...
Heaven doesn't want money-droolers... They would only make a big mess of the afterlife... They can just go recycle with the rest...

______

The big secret I've been keeping, saving for a movie script.. given that I write in movie scripts, and sometimes in gliffs.. and cartoons .. is probably why so few can understand me... I can speak in telepathed video, like the Bigfoot visitor taught me.. which makes it difficult to bring it down to your dictionary, and its many grunts and groans...
I seeing a lot more of the reality of Life than your culture taught me... I went searching for it on my own, and I found some... Lots!..

You must build your afterlife from here, or you won't have any-place to go when you die...

I found a tiny obscure "cosmic law", that gives each DNA particle the rights to an afterlife continuation... the thing is that you must drive it on your own...

_________


Any one out there ever do up a ten component coffee that makes you need to sit after a sip..?


I'd like to see a survey of how many readers initially saw "component" as "commandment"..? as a basic, but crude, indicator, to determine the levels of infection of gold-fever and god-fever in the six bil... to enable math to forecast-solve the date of our species impending extinction... to warn offenders to stop damaging the planet, whist we still have one...

Cosmicbrat...I feel sorry for you.

But who do you think funds the Bushes? The Arabs. When Bush II's business went under it was the Arabs who bought him out.

The Bush family's foreign friends, the Saudi royal family, are evil parasites who rob the Saudi people of what is rightfully theirs. I keep waiting for the Saudi people to rise up and throw the royal thieves out. This veneer of Wahabi fundamentalism that the Saudi Royal family has cloaked itself in seems to protect them from being held accountable for their thievery. Fear of the Saudi police state also protects the royal thieves.

Bush relies on bogus veneers of protestant fundamentalism, patiotism, bogus national security concerns, and the illusion that he defends free market capitalism to keep himself from being impeached. It helps Bush that the US media is cowardly, pathetically lazy, and allied with defense contractors (NBC), fascism (Fox), Israel (CBS/ Sumner Redstone) and advertisers including the US military (all of them).

"The war in Iraq will not take on a mysterious life of its own."..



It already has... It's now the staging area for Arabia to do its next major land shuffle... It's how Arabia evolved, and works... It's how Arabia is growing itself into a one good system of Life power...

If America and the world dare to try to enterfear, then Arabia will probably do it with nukes, if they are pressured till the "valve blows"...

Arabia is the tank.. America is the soldier trying to stop the Arab tank by placing his foot just ahead of the tank's left track... Arabia is doing something it has done for millenia... and now America is killing them to save them from killing themselves, and gettin' their oil at 1990 pricings...

Oil is for growing synthetic replacement organs.. not for burning!..

Liquid-electricity is for burning for power...

Quit wasting the planet... Turn off the wasting.. it's killing the planet...
In case you dint know, the planet is why we're alive...


Why is America killing so many humans..?

Will America's evils become humanity's Karmas..?

"Arabia will probably do it with nukes"

I'm so scared.

I took you off ignore to read that?

:ignores:

That's just a tiny part of the picture... I recall seeing on TV, the CIA boss being interviewed, for just a couple minutes.. back when they could be interviewed... He was commenting on the Arabs... He said: "The Arabs are complaining that we won't listen to what they've got to say... Well we aren't gonna listen to a single word them crazy Arabs have to say!"..

I switched off the TV, and had to sit... thinking, "Dammm! that's the first shot fired in WW3"...
..and I went to the kitchen to get me a hot coffee...

Which CIA director said this?

And, by and by, the current director (Michael Hayden) appears in interviews all the time.

Are you sure that's just coffee you're drinking?

Blow it out yer A!.. I'm outahere!

You are the one that's sickening. This Iraq occupation has lasted longer than WWII, and it's more expensive, and we're supposed to be happy about that? What has it accomplished? Has it made us safer? Has it even brought Democracy to Iraq? NO. Why are there "insurgents"? Because we invaded? Why did we invade? Did we find WMD's? Did anyone really care, or was this all just a fucked up Neo-con pipe dream? Now Iran is more powerful than ever, we are poorer than ever, and more than 4,000 of our soldiers are dead for nothing, why are we still there? The media hardly bats an eye about it anymore, and they are supposed to be leftist? Get a freaking clue.

But the Occupation of Germany still goes on, troops are still stationed in Germany.

There are currently 75603 U.S. troops still stationed in Germany, 63 years after WWII ended.

Blow it out yer A!.. I'm outahere!

thats too bad then isnt it.

The United States can easily win the war: drop a few nukes on Iraq: war over. We are just being humanitarian by trying to minimize casualties. Our goal is not to kill Iraqis, but to bring freedom to them.

But the Occupation of Germany still goes on, troops are still stationed in Germany.

There are currently 75603 U.S. troops still stationed in Germany, 63 years after WWII ended.

By mutual agreement. And there were no resistance movements.

S

What do you think pls?

I think your grasp of the language poor (Or at least grasp of spellcheck, maby?)

The United States can easily win the war: drop a few nukes on Iraq: war over. We are just being humanitarian by trying to minimize casualties. Our goal is not to kill Iraqis, but to bring freedom to them.

Get a fucking grip!! It's about oil and the neo-cons grabbing as much money they can. "Hey I've got a great idea! Let's take palletes of cash... Now let's see, Where is the cash? It was here a minute ago."

ok dale gribble

So I was thinking about the war in Vietnam, and the war in Iraq, and how they were so closely related. Alot of people i'm sure can easily see the relation with the insurgents, and the viet-kong. So you might be able to say "they fight dishonerably and were not going to stoop to there level" or somthing along the lines of THERE fighting style.



The only thing in common between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, is in both wars radical leftists were helping the enemy with propoganda against the "evil" U.S.
It's what they do best.

Get a fucking grip!! It's about oil and the neo-cons grabbing as much money they can. "Hey I've got a great idea! Let's take palletes of cash... Now let's see, Where is the cash? It was here a minute ago."

Yea, the U.S. has been taking oil "for free" from Iraq ever since it "conquered" Iraq. :rolleyes:
/end sarcasm

The only thing in common between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, is in both wars radical leftists were helping the enemy with propoganda against the "evil" U.S.
It's what they do best.
:bugeye:
Blah, blah, blah...

Yea, the U.S. has been taking oil "for free" from Iraq ever since it "conquered" Iraq. Not the US. The US has to pay retail for the gas refined from the oil from Iraq - more than retail, actually, in years past, since Halliburton was cut into the middle of military purchasing from Kuwait.

Exxon, Chevron, BP, Total, and one other IIRC. And the Hunt Oil Co, which worked a separate deal with the Kurds, who are flying their own flag and fielding their own army these days.

Hunt Oil, like the rest, has received large tax breaks and extras like depreciation allowances from the US government. And the tax status of its operations in Iraq is nebulous. So the cost of the military operations, bribes, and under the table payoffs involved in securing the northern pipelines etc ahve been borne by the Iraqi people and the US taxpayer. And there is no accurate metering, accounting, etc, of any of this.

The winners were very hard on Germany after WW1. That may have had something to do with why the Germans were willing to follow Hitler into WW2.

After WW2 we (USA) were generous and did help rebuild Germany (Marshall Plan). That might have helped the Germans to not want to fight WW3. I think we also helped rebuild Japan.

There was another difference; they attacked us so they did not feel so wronged when we attacked them back.

Yes, the Treaty of Versailles was completely lacking in foresight, and was practically the only reason the Germans followed Hitler.

We also helped rebuild Germany - West Germany, anyway - and you are correct, we did rebuild Japan. Try googling "MacArthur Constitution."

I'm not sure when the media started to get big, but we fight alot differently today, then we did in the old times.. "when we actually won wars." Today, we have morals, ethics, and politcs behind everything.

"When we actually won wars" ??? Um, have you forgotten about the Persian Gulf War in 1991? Because it ruins your theory that we can't win wars anymore.

I think your grasp of the language poor (Or at least grasp of spellcheck, maby?)

Ahh, the irony... try "I think your grasp of the language is poor. And how about "maybe"?

Some were funny, but the one about the $3000 machine gun and no shoes was kind of grim.

If only machine guns were more expensive and harder to find than good boots in that part of the world, we'd all be a lot better off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

"You are the one that's sickening. This Iraq occupation has lasted longer than WWII, and it's more expensive, and we're supposed to be happy about that? What has it accomplished? Has it made us safer? Has it even brought Democracy to Iraq? NO. Why are there "insurgents"? Because we invaded? Why did we invade? Did we find WMD's? Did anyone really care, or was this all just a fucked up Neo-con pipe dream? Now Iran is more powerful than ever, we are poorer than ever, and more than 4,000 of our soldiers are dead for nothing, why are we still there? The media hardly bats an eye about it anymore, and they are supposed to be leftist? Get a freaking clue." -spidergoat

It's easy to say, in hindsight, that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because they had no WMDs. But until we invaded, there was a very serious concern about Iraqi possession of nukes. Saddam continually refused UN attempts to investigate the situation, and so many people - not just Bush - thought they really did have WMDs.

They had no WMDs from the beginning, Many people thought that because of what TWO (then Respectable) journalists said, that they really did have WMDs.. never mind that the source was discredit.

Granted, It's easy to say such things in hindsight. But the evidence that Iraq didn't have WMD's was right there in front of you.

tim840: "there was a very serious concern about Iraqi possession of nukes."

There was never any such evidence, nor cause for serious concern- just deceptive fear-mongering from the Bush cabinet (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?), and "curve-ball" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/columnone/la-na-curveball18-2008jun18,0,7555253.story). Initiating an unnecessary war with sloppy disinformation and concealed objectives is a self-defeating strategy for any nation with any shred of public accountability.

Minimum 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead in this war. 1.8 million from pre-war sanctions since the Gulf War. That is reason enough to view this war as the greatest human tragedy in this decade.

Minimum 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead in this war. 1.8 million from pre-war sanctions since the Gulf War. That is reason enough to view this war as the greatest human tragedy in this decade.

At the very Least.

Minimum 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead in this war. 1.8 million from pre-war sanctions since the Gulf War. That is reason enough to view this war as the greatest human tragedy in this decade.

The civilian de