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.

 

Iraq is winning.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Captain Caveman
Here you go Grady..
www.whatreallyhappened.com...


Well, I hardly call that a green light to an invasion. I can certainly understand that Saddam took it as that, but on the other hand, I don't think he was looking for an approval for his actions. He did what he did only because he could.

So whatever diplomatic failure there may have been, if in fact there was one, given that a non-interventionist position might have been the order of the day at the time of the Saddam/Glaspie exchange, it was hardly an approval of the invasion.





[edit on 04/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]




posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by taibunsuu
thesaint:

What kills me is even before Iraq invaded Kuwait - they asked permission from the US and we said ok!


Can you point us to something to confirm this. It's the first I've heard of the US giving permission to the Iraq to invade Kuwait.


April Glaspie, US Ambassador.
Transcript of her meeting through the CSM, hardly a conspiracy paper:

csmonitor.com.../durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm

www.fact-index.com...

There's tons of transcripts of the interview, but CS Monitor and fact-index are some of the sites that archive it that are considered more mainstream.



My patriotic resume includes:

Eagle Scout
Sergeant, USMC 5 years service MOS:4341 / E-5, NHANG 2 years service MOS: 11B
Tax-paying US citizen


I'm very grateful for your service, especially as a Marine. I'm not very familiar with current MOS codes. Is 4341 a Public Information billet?



4341 - Combat Correspondent. Sometime before I joined in 1991 the Marine Corps combined their public affairs, combat correspondent, and broadcast correspondent billets into one billet, 4341. I was so lucky to get a job that was probably one of the most fun enlisted jobs in the Marine Corps, and I only got it because I had done high school newspaper stuff. Uncle Sam paid me to 'hitch' onto Marine Corps units all over the Pacific, from Force Recon companies to KC-130 refueling ops, take photos, and write stories for the base and hometown newspapers. Also, when journalists showed up I was the guy who helped facilitate their access to the Marines. Quite an amazing job, if you could call it that.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu4341 - Combat Correspondent. Sometime before I joined in 1991 the Marine Corps combined their public affairs, combat correspondent, and broadcast correspondent billets into one billet, 4341. I was so lucky to get a job that was probably one of the most fun enlisted jobs in the Marine Corps, and I only got it because I had done high school newspaper stuff. Uncle Sam paid me to 'hitch' onto Marine Corps units all over the Pacific, from Force Recon companies to KC-130 refueling ops, take photos, and write stories for the base and hometown newspapers. Also, when journalists showed up I was the guy who helped facilitate their access to the Marines. Quite an amazing job, if you could call it that.


An amazing job, indeed, Private Joker. I presume you have Gustav Hasford's book, The Short-Timers in your library and that "Full Metal Jacket" is your favorite movie of all time. It's certainly one of mine. Even with all it's satire, irony, and hyperbole, the portrayal of the Boot Camp of my era is so authentic as to bring tears to my eyes. What a touching tribute to a bygone era.

[edit on 04/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Stanley Kubrick was never known for his lack of attention to detail.

No doubt R. Lee Ermey helped make that movie, being a former DI. DIs are of course natural actors.

Apparently when Ermey auditioned they handed him a script, and he said "I don't need one." lol.

"Short Timers" I read in a base library. I first read about April Glaspie and the events around the start of Gulf War 1 in the text accompanying "Intelligence Brief: Southeast Asia," which is a Marine Corps Correspondence Course. Many of the books on the Marine Corps reading list can be considered anti-war, but I merely find them objective.

It's pretty amazing that the Marine Corps is so objective in educating its Marines, far moreso than the US government is with its citizens. Maybe that's because professional warriors, which the Corps has no lack of, realize that combat improvements can only come through objective analysis, whereas politicians fear objectivity because it could hurt their agenda.

Also, in the book "A Bright Shining Lie," it's shown that the Marines' way of pacifying and protecting the population, by integrating Marines into the population and civil defense forces, and winning the hearts and minds of the populace by example, was far, far more succesful than the DoD's method of pacification, performed by relocation and free fire zones.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:25 AM
link   
The Marine Corps knows that the most egregious error is to underestimate the enemy. You must know your enemy as well as you know yourself. The Marine Corps wants informed warriors. That's why the reading list is so varied.

If Westmoreland had not been such an arrogant ignoramus and had let the Marine Corps use the tactics learned in the Caribbean and Latin America during the 1920s and the 1930sby such men as Chesty Puller, Smedley Butler, John Quick, Dan Daly, and Wendell C. Neville, there would have never been a Khe Sanh and the war in I Corps would have gone much better.

The war at home would have been the same because the communists knew they could not win on the battlefield and with the likes of Jane Fonda and John Kerry, they didn't have to. It is amazing that thanks to America's enemies at home and in the media, a overwhelming defeat of the communists at Tet '68 was the turning point of the war in the public opinon. The communist launched an attack at Tet '69 that was equal in magnatude to '68 which was an equally devasting defeat for the communists and no one at home even noticed. It is hardly even mentioned in the history books.

Lies and liars are dangerous, but the truth always prevails. When all the liars are laid to their final rest, the lies will be buried with them and the truth will be known. Those who died in the cause of freedom will not have died in vain.

If you have not done so already, read First to Fight by Lt. Gen. Victor Krulak. You will come to know the Corps as you never have and you will appreciate more accutely what it really means to be a Marine.

[edit on 04/8/25 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Just look at the way the administration used, then spit out retired general Anthony Zinni.

Look at the way they ripped apart Scott Ritter.

In 2002, Paul Van Riper played the commander of the red forces in wargames with the Joint Forces Command. Van Riper utterly destroyed the blue forces, and the game had to be restarted so that the blue forces were guaranteed to win. Van Riper quit.

The first two former Marines said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Zinni said that Saddam Hussein does not pose the risks the US administration claimed. Scott Ritter claimed Iraq did not have WMDs. Paul Van Riper essentially played the role of Saddam Hussein and applied 41 years of Marine Corps leadership to destroying the US Joint Forces warplanes.

As you said, look how Westmoreland completely destroyed the progress of I Corps.

Don't even get me going about Smedley Butler.

Former Marines, unbound by political ambitions, are often the biggest enemies of politicians.

Even at the national level, stupid pogues and REMFs screw it up for the grunts. This was a theme in "Short-Timers." "If grunts ran the world it would be a beautiful place."

When I say that the Iraq invasion was a mistake, I'm doing it because to me, trusting George Bush is laughable compared to trusting someone like Gen. Zinni. My officers in the Marines were all capable of saying the word "nuclear."

Read this speech by Zinni. I'll post the first two paragraphs:

"Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. I think the debate right now that's going on is very healthy. If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarzkopf, Gen. Zinni, maybe all see this the same way.

It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history. (Crowd laughter.)"

www.npr.org...

Also, read Smedley Butler's book in which he say America should never involve itself in a foreign war:

lexrex.com...


War is too important to be left to the generals.
Georges Clemenceau

History is rife with generals who are too aggressive, politicians who are too aggressive, and generals and politicians who are too pacifist. Of course, when given an order, a general salutes and conducts business. Criticism of war is conducted by retired officers like Zinni.

Zinni opposses the Iraqi war, but you wouldn't call him anti-American by any means. If he was, and he thought the war was a mistake, he'd be sitting back watching it with a bag of popcorn.

So, against the advice of many in the military, who are commanded by civilians who largely dodged combat, we are again in a foreign war. Whether or not the war and our tactics are a mistake will be judged by history. However, voicing your opinion one way or another does not make you anti-American. America will always be far, far greater than the people we hire to run its government and nothing can ever shake that.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

So, against the advice of many in the military, who are commanded by civilians who largely dodged combat, we are again in a foreign war. Whether or not the war and our tactics are a mistake will be judged by history. However, voicing your opinion one way or another does not make you anti-American. America will always be far, far greater than the people we hire to run its government and nothing can ever shake that.


First, let me say that timing is everything. It is not always un-American to voice opposition, but there comes a time when you have to fish or cut bait. There is a time for debate and a time for action. It's too late to second guess the President. Sometimes Generals don't have all the information. Sometimes a President has to go against his advice and go with his convictions. Sometimes he has to trust one man's view over another's. There is a reason why the Founding Fathers put a civilian in charge of the military.

One of the problems in Vietnam was Johson's insistance on controlling tactics and strategy when he should have limited himself to policy. He was said that the military couldn't bomb an outhouse without his permission. Bush does limit himself to policy and leaves the strategy to the generals and the tactics to the field commanders. The Generals should do the same. Historically, Generals have not always made good Presidents. I respect Zinni, but he needs to shut up and get with the program.

I will never understand Smedley Butler's little book. There is truth to be found in it, but it really castigates America for its capitalism, a system that has contributed greatly to our greatness as both a nation and as a people. Butler was involved in the march on Washington by the Veterans of WWI and found himself in the middle of a marxist plot to turn the capitol into a war zone. He informe on the marxists and then MacArthur turned the capitol into a war zone. I think I wil leave that one alone.

And let's leave Scott Ritter out of all future discussions. Ritter was a rabid proponent of Saddams possession of WMDs and then he changed his tune after he was put on the payroll by some Iraqi. His actions have been un-American.

I will reserve judgement on Zinni, but a lifelong commitment to the military does not give carte blance to anyone to undermine national security after retirement.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Butler never once says capitalism is bad in that book. He says that war profiteering is the largest reason for foreign wars, and provides a lot of backup for his theory.

Scott Ritter was not on the payroll of an Iraqi. Besides that, where are all these weapons they administration specifically cited. You have to offer some proof about him being on a payroll. He said that Iraq didn't have WMDs after being the head of the UN inspection team and searching for them: and coming up empty-handed. Throw me some proof on that one.

Zinni has no idea what's going on? I'm sorry but Zinni was in charge of Centcom and Zinni was Bush's envoy to help negotiate between Israel and Palestine. The head of Centcom is going to have a lot of ideas about the threats of Iraq, and he was probably picked as the US envoy because he's knowledgeable about the Middle East.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Sorry for the shortness of the reply but I just wanted to comment.\

One of the better threads I have ever read here at ATS, keep up the good work, guys and gals.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Scott Ritter was not on the payroll of an Iraqi.



"Al-Khafaji first came to public notice after revelations that he gave former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter $400,000 to produce a film that criticized the United States for its role in the inspection process. Al-Khafaji, who is listed as a "senior executive producer" of the film, arranged meetings for Ritter with high-level officials in Saddam's government, a feat New York Times magazine writer Barry Bearak found "impressive." Ritter had previously been an outspoken critic of Saddam Hussein, and issued dire warnings about the status of the Iraqi dictator's weapons of mass destruction. His sudden flip--he is now a leading apologist for Saddam's regime--and revelations about Ritter's 2001 arrest for soliciting sex with minors have fueled speculation about the nature of his relationship with al-Khafaji."

I just re-read War is a Racket. It doesn't come right out and say it, but it is an indictment of capitalism, as capitalism is in his opinion the engine of foreign wars. I stand by my statement, but I concede your point.

I didn't say Zinni doesn't know what is going on. I said that Generals don't always have all the information available to the President and that Zinni should shut up and get with the program. We're at war and we need solidarity. Saddam is gone and a new sovereign democratic Iraq is emerging from the choas. That's good enough for me.

[edit on 04/8/25 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
i didnt read all these pages and im not going to. i read the title and the first post.

what is iraq winning exactly? iraq isnt getting a damn thing out of this. maybe the insurgents are. but iraq in general is losing. no matter which side in this win iraq is going to continue to lose until it DOES end.

the insurgents want to run the country the way THEY think it should be run, not how the real victims of this want it to be run. they want to decide for everyone just like saddam did how things should be rather than simply letting fellow iraqis choose for themselves. these extremists dont give a damn about the country or its people they only care about power and taking the fight to america's troops. thats about it. amazing how NOW they want to fight but didnt want to the past 30 plus years prior to us showing up and removing saddam. then again these are the same people who claim to be so proud of the work they're supposedly doing in the name of allah yet hide their faces like they're the klan. cowards.

iraq is losing the insurgents are losing and american forces are losing. everyone is a loser at this point. noone's gaining a damn thing but a higher body count.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
the insurgents want to run the country the way THEY think it should be run, not how the real victims of this want it to be run.


If you read about who these insurgents are, they are just ordinary folks with no aspirations of assuming power.



they want to decide for everyone just like saddam did how things should be rather than simply letting fellow iraqis choose for themselves.


You making things more complicated than they are. They simply want the US out.

The current US puppet in Iraq, that Allawi guy, is said to be similar to Saddam in his style.



amazing how NOW they want to fight but didnt want to the past 30 plus years prior to us showing up and removing saddam.


Well it would appear that they have concluded ending the occupation finally warrants a fight, and is worth their lives.



then again these are the same people who claim to be so proud of the work they're supposedly doing in the name of allah yet hide their faces like they're the klan. cowards.


To quote Juan Cole, the renowned professor of Middle Eastern histrory,
"there people are not cowards. Cowards do not take on US marines".

You must know that the insurgent are suffering huge losses vs small US losses, and they know that going to fight probably means death. I would hardly call such a person a coward...

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the US are cowards for hiding their faces inside Bradley fighting vehicles, tanks and Apache helicopters. It would be preposterous, now wouldn't it?



iraq is losing the insurgents are losing and american forces are losing. everyone is a loser at this point. noone's gaining a damn thing but a higher body count.


I'm with you on this one. Everybody's a loser and there are very specific people in the current administration who should answer for that.



[edit on 25-8-2004 by Aelita]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
amazing how NOW they want to fight but didnt want to the past 30 plus years prior to us showing up and removing saddam. then again these are the same people who claim to be so proud of the work they're supposedly doing in the name of allah yet hide their faces like they're the klan. cowards.

iraq is losing the insurgents are losing and american forces are losing. everyone is a loser at this point. noone's gaining a damn thing but a higher body count.


i certainly agree that everyone is losing in iraq right now. literally everyone. but in response to your statement about how they chose their timing to fight, ever hear the statement "He's a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch?" While I doubt anyone made such a light-hearted comment about a dictator as evil as saddam, it does make a big difference when the oppression you see comes from without rather than within.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Grady


"Well, I hardly call that a green light to an invasion. I can certainly understand that Saddam took it as that, but on the other hand, I don't think he was looking for an approval for his actions. He did what he did only because he could.


A very weak response. Of course he was seeking to clear the way with the US. What other possible reason could he have had for signposting his intentions??



So whatever diplomatic failure there may have been, if in fact there was one, given that a non-interventionist position might have been the order of the day at the time of the Saddam/Glaspie exchange, it was hardly an approval of the invasion. "


Again that is not a logical interpretation of the facts on the ground..

Firstly this exchange took place only 8 days before the invasion so "the time of the Saddam/Glaspie exchange" was also "the time" of the invasion nigh on. Or are you trying to imply that US policy changed in those eight days yet someone forgot to tell Saddam?



Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)


That may not be an "approval" but it sure as hell is telling Saddam that the USA doesnt care if he invades which is pretty much the same thing.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Captain Caveman
A very weak response.

Again that is not a logical interpretation of the facts on the ground..


You can keep your opinions regarding the strength or weakness of my responses and my capacity for logical thought to yourself. You may interpret the facts as you wish.

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   

You can keep your opinions regarding the strength or weakness of my responses and my capacity for logical thought to yourself. You may interpret the facts as you wish.

Thanks.


Sorry Grady but I call it as I see it. Answer the points raised rather than attempt patronising condescension if you dont wish to have your 'logic 'and 'arguments' called into question.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Captain Caveman
Sorry Grady but I call it as I see it. Answer the points raised rather than attempt patronising condescension if you dont wish to have your 'logic 'and 'arguments' called into question.


Well, you know what, Caveman. You can call my logic and argument in to questions till doomsday. I made my statement you made yours and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the discussion. What makes you think I have to repond to you personally, because you come out of the woodwork?



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   

I made my statement you made yours and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of the discussion. What makes you think I have to repond to you personally, because you come out of the woodwork?


You've already responded twice so better to ask yourself that question Grady. Maybe a paucity of argument is making you feel that you need to fill in the gaps with such irrelevance?

If you DONT want to respond its fairly easy you know..



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Yeah Iraq is winning alright - just look at all the destroyed infrastructure all the blown up buildings & 10 times as many dead soldiers. Getting your butt kicked 10 times over must be the new liberal definition of winning.

So do you celebrate when your team has the lower score when the superbowl is over - afterall by your defination losing is winning.




[edit on 25-8-2004 by outsider]



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Outsider: Then I suppose, given your logic, that the US is winning? More importantly, what can we define as winning? Supported democracy? Not yet. Liberating the Iraqi people from torture and violence? hasn't happened. WMD's? Won't go there. Healthy oil production? Not quite.

The logic of winning in this circumstance is completely irrational and until we look at the situation in terms of regional stablization and international support for Iraqi policy, winning or losing should not even exist in our vocabulary.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join