It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Strategy In The Middle East - Insurmountable Failure

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Does anyone play chess? What is the goal? To catch the king. You play until you have the king in a position where he is caught. Achieve the 'check mate' status where the king is captured, and the game is over.

Now while I don't agree with the war in Iraq, I do support the troops. That being said. The King, Saddam Hussein, was defeated quite early on. He was captured and executed. War won, correct? Do you remember the Iraqui people cheering as the statue of Saddam Hussein was pulled down? I sure do.

Now we have troops acting as nothing more than hall monitors. This could last 1,000 years and nothing will change. We are talking about warring factions based on religous beliefs. Those beliefs will never change. Innocent people on both sides of the war are dying. Men, women, and children are being killed on a way too common basis. How can this be changed?
Good question.
I don't think it can be quite frankly. Do allied troops in the battle zone make a difference? I for one don't think so. I believe that if anything they add to the unrest of the people who call the area home. The warring factions hatred which is based on religous beliefs will NEVER be changed. EVER. These people are willing to die for their cause. GI Joe walking around with his uniform and armament will do nothing to change this. Sorry, but it just won't.
I feel sorry for the Iraqui people. They seemed happy when Saddam's regime fell. Now they are caught in a bitter battle between factions of whom no one seemingly has control. The new Iraqui government has had several years to take this situation amongst themselves. Have they? Not that I've seen.
We've trained their forces, we've expended countless amounts of money. What have we achieved since we won the war?
Nothing. What will achieve, aside from bankrupting our country? Nothing.

Bring our troops home.




posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
I see some of your points in this, I really do; but what would you have us do? Leave these people to continue to be slaughtered? Are you saying it won't bother you anymore that these innocent people are being killed if we aren't involved? I can't believe that. Not of you.

Regardless of why this war began or what has transpired since, the fact remains that we are there now, and we must finish the job. I don't think we can just leave these people to fend for themselves, after we have helped get them to this point.

It is true that we can never put an end to this religous battle that is raging there, but we can stick around to keep innocent people safe. The US has troops permanently stationed all over the world for peace keeping endeavors, why should this be any different?

I'm not saying we should keep these large amounts in continuous battle forever, but I think we have an obligation to do what we can to preserve innocent life in this world.

It's a very tough situation, both intellectually and morally.

Good post.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
I see some of your points in this, I really do; but what would you have us do? Leave these people to continue to be slaughtered? Are you saying it won't bother you anymore that these innocent people are being killed if we aren't involved?.


Excellent question. I have a hard time answering this without sounding callous. I've always answered the tough questions honestly, and I will again today.

My point of view is the only point of view I can give, I speak for no one else and apologize in advance if I offend anyone.

The 'war' - yes I put war in quotation marks because it is not a war as it stands right now - is not helping ANYBODY. I feel terrible about EVERYONE who dies due to this conflict. Nationality, race, religous beliefs mean nothing. They are all human beings.

Now let me answer the question you posed. I say again, that yes the senseless slaughter bothers me. That being said I truly believe that the allied presence does nothing more than aggravate the situation. Do you believe that IED's would continue without our presence? They might, but I believe for not long. Would the slaughter of innocents cease? Perhaps not, however our presence is not helping. It's not. Let's look at this shall we? Saddam Hussein. He held this slaughter in check. Stupid Statement? Let me expand on what I just said. He murdered his own people. He was a madman. He was a tyrant. He was a ghoul. However he held the country in check. People were terrified not to toe the line. They did whatever he said. The same people see the allies as paper tigers. Saddam did such horrendous acts that they defy words. The documented torture is horrific at best. The allies get trashed for taking pictures of prisoners in compromising positions. I for one would rather have a picture taken of me next to a GI than be boiled alive.

You asked a lucid intelligent question nyk537. Now might I do the same of you?

Do you believe that the allied presence is, and or will make a difference in a positive manner? I ask this for a reason. I stated in the opening post, so sorry for my redundancy, that hatred due to religous beliefs can never be overcome. Add to that a cup of fanaticism, and a tablespoon of suicidal tendencies and you have a completely unchangeable, unwinnable conflict. Do you believe that our presence is stopping slaughter, or adding to it? I personally believe the latter.

I look forward to your reply.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I appreciate your sincere and respectful attitude towards what some around here may consider to be my "pro-war" stance on this issue. With the exception of a small minority, I think most people would be hard pressed to find someone who was actually for war rather than the objective of the war.

Moving on, I'd like to take a minute to examine the question(s) posed in your last post.


Originally posted by lombozo
Do you believe that the allied presence is, and or will make a difference in a positive manner?


I do. You have made the case that our troops stationed here could never truly win because of the insurmountable task of resolving a thousand year old religous conflict, and on that point alone, I could agree with you. I'd ask of you though if you really believe that to be our ultimate goal there.

I'd argue that our real objective is not to solve the religous differences between the waring factions, but simply to bring peace to the innocent civilians in the area. I'm sure you could make the case that these two are connected, and perhaps even inseparable, but I do not.

I think if we assert ourselves fully, and make it known that we will not tolerate any more innocent bloodshed, that we can stem the violence. I don't believe at this point, with the exception of the initial time period following the surge, that we have done so. The enemy in that area still believes that they can outlast us and defeat us. By pulling our troops out, we only stand to prove them right, which will in turn embolden our enemies elsewhere in the world.


Do you believe that our presence is stopping slaughter, or adding to it?


In a lot of cases I would almost agree with you, that perhaps our presence at this point is not helping at all. Again though, I would point back to my previous assertion that this is due to our lack of aggressiveness lately in rooting out the enemy.

I believe the general feeling amongst our enemies is that if they can simply hang on long enough, we will give up. Sadly our military seems to have been on a simple stand and hold approach for a while now. We have taken our foot off the gas so to speak and have allowed groups to reform and make new plans.

I truly believe we could end this war successfully with one big "we're sick of this" campaign.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


You make very good points. A "One sick of this campaign" would actually hurt the allies more in my opinion though.




I'd argue that our real objective is not to solve the religous differences between the waring factions, but simply to bring peace to the innocent civilians in the area. I'm sure you could make the case that these two are connected, and perhaps even inseparable, but I do not.


Unfortunately the two are connected, and are inseparable. I will point out the obvious. You have people who strap bombs upon themselves then go in a store filled with innocent civilians and blow themselves up. How might you fight this mentality? I will use a very tired analogy.
Pearl Harbor was military personnel vs miltary personnel.
9/11 was quasi trained military vs innocent people.
This is an enemy who has no morals.

This enemy is an enemy of any human being. Hiding behind god is weak. I am not speaking of simply muslim or islamic. I say the same thing about the 'devout Christians' who murder and blow up those in abortion clinics. Let's not confuse what I'm saying here.
An excuse to carry out a jealous hatred. I am a god fearing man, and do what I can to help others whenever I can. I do not include killing others in the name of my god justice. This unfortunately IS AN INGRAINED, UNCHANGEABLE belief. It will not change. I know little of that entire part of the world, but for centuries countries hated one another. It is still the same. India hates Pakistan who hates Israel, who hates Iran, who hates.....etc....... Why? Because of the God they choose to worship. Everyone hates the US these days because the US has her hands in where they don't belong.
I stand by my first stance. Bring our troops home.

By the way, you are a classy debater. I dig your style.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by lombozo]



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Again, I see your point in this argument, and yet I still stand by mine. I'm sure we could go back and forth as we have been all day and not gain much ground in either respect. Honestly, that's fine with me.

Unlike many these days, I really can see both sides of this issue. I believe strongly in the points I have made so far in this thread, yet at the same time, I understand where you are coming from and part of me really can relate.

I don't think there can be any argument between us though in regards to wanting to see our men and women home safely. We may disagree with how we need to go about doing this, but I think the ultimate goal in either case needs to be victory (or as close as we can get to it).



It's nice to have a respectful, civilized discussion on this topic for once.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I am of a military mentality myself, and I see your points as well. I really do. You make very good points, I just respectfully disagree with some of them.
You stay cool, and I'll catch you around the board.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by lombozo
 


Good post lombozo and happy b-day btw...


I totally agree with your chess analogy.

We all know the US has some of the best and brightest troops in the world. Still, we can't forgot our troops are armed with some of the best technology ever created. The thing about Iraq is we've had "boots on the ground" for years. While we have managed to suppress much of the violence, it's impossible to eliminate 100% of it. Can't we give Iraq a few modern military choppers, F-16's and other "80s generation military gadgets" and call it good? Obviously Iraq isn't going to turn into some western nation overnight. We got rid of Saddam. Now why can't we put someone in there who is not as radical (as Saddam), popular with the locals, and give him some toys to keep him in power? I guess easier said than done, and I suppose that's what we are trying to do...... but we can't stay there forever if the "peaceful Iraqis" aren't going to fight for themselves!




top topics



 
0

log in

join