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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

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]


So basically, your accusing Ritter of taking a bribe to say Iraq has no WMDs by him recieving money for a movie he's making in 2004, when all the inspections he did were back before 2002.

The only thing you're saying about Butler, winner of two MOHs and served in five wars from private to commandant, is the things he's not saying, that he's anti-capitalism.

And Zinni didn't see Iraq as a threat because it's literally not a threat. Invasion of Iraq was done for economic reasons that may be valid in their own right. What I'm arguing is that Iraq in no way was a threat to the US whatsoever, but by 2004 it had become a manufactured enemy.

Anyway, we're each entitled to an opinion and I think I'll let this dog have rest.




posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LukeNYC

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.


Yes, that I can agree with. There really is no such thing as winning or losing at this point. The main battle was won by the US, Sadam's government is gone. Now we have a job to do. The opening topic was just a dumb statement - that's why I responded as I did.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

You're just an inveterate anti-American.
[edit on 04/8/23 by GradyPhilpott]




Lame.

U.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I suppose my point is that this is not like 'Alien' the movie. In my opinion we must stop looking at this in terms of a "job" or in terms of something finite that can be put into a beginning, middle and end structure. Instead, we need to recognize that this is far more complex than we lead it on to be and begin some serious consideration into who should call the shots in a land that we are not welcome in. I feel like our government is now creating a demand for a supply that it has much of, stubborness and unwillingness to admit that a "change of course" is neccessary. Something must change, and dramatically, if we are to see anything that resembles stability in the region, including the small topic (joke) of Israel/Palestine. History has NEVER been kind to a western presence in the middle east.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LukeNYC
I suppose my point is that this is not like 'Alien' the movie. In my opinion we must stop looking at this in terms of a "job" or in terms of something finite that can be put into a beginning, middle and end structure. Instead, we need to recognize that this is far more complex than we lead it on to be and begin some serious consideration into who should call the shots in a land that we are not welcome in. I feel like our government is now creating a demand for a supply that it has much of, stubborness and unwillingness to admit that a "change of course" is neccessary. Something must change, and dramatically, if we are to see anything that resembles stability in the region, including the small topic (joke) of Israel/Palestine. History has NEVER been kind to a western presence in the middle east.


The weird thing is we know how to 'convert' any country. Go in with overwhelming force and the assistance of the International community, then use overwhelming force to build the country back up. No third world country in the world is going to turn that down, and this strategy has helped us construct modern Germany, Japan, and South Korea. This time we tried to do it on the cheap, and the results we're getting are cheap.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Another fundamental course of logic to explore is that with Germany, Japan and even South Korea we had clear reasons to go into and ultimately reconstuct the governments. I do not know that we can say the same with Iraq. It is also not wise to merely assume that just becuase it worked in the past it is guaranteed to work in the present, especially given the existing unstable socio/political instability of the region.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Also, is 250 Billion and counting cheap?

Nowadays, to most 3rd world countries, we are analagous to Wal-Mart. It seems like a good idea, but when you dig a little deeper you find that what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. If you note Darfur, even it it's hideous condition, is requesting that we stay out of it.

Another point to consider is that our image immediately following WW2 is significantly different that it is now. I would go as far as to say polar opposites.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 11:13 PM
link   
While $250 Billion isn't exactly cheap, it's about half of what it costs the US to run the military for one year.

In Iraq...

Limitations on which countries would partake in the reconstruction has limited reconstruction efforts. For example, many powerplants were built by the Soviets, and the parts are available, but if you remember only countries part of the Coalition are able to sell to the new Iraq, so those powerplants are sitting.

Why do we hire so many people from the Philippines and other countries to work in Iraq? Employment on state projects is a way to prime a country's economic pump. Unemployment and no prospects for it is literally an invitation for people to join rebellions.

The no-bid contracts have given rise to massive corruption and waste. This has to be stopped.

Electricity still goes out in Baghdad, nevermind the rest of the country.

Self-policing is done largely by clans and families.

The Kurds in the north are living pretty quietly. The difference between Kurdisant area and the rest of Iraq is that Kurdistan has had limited autonomy since the end of the Gulf War and the political / economic situation is far more stable. The truth about Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq is that many people in those groups liked Saddam. Hearing this from the mouths of Iraqis themselves has swayed me a lot more than hearing it from US officials. So now that he's gone, his resistance forces are continuing to carry out the Iraqi battle. What we are witnessing now is not accurately resistance fighters, but the ongoing campaign of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Winning it, and stabilizing the populace is still a ways off.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
The truth about Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq is that many people in those groups liked Saddam. Hearing this from the mouths of Iraqis themselves has swayed me a lot more than hearing it from US officials. So now that he's gone, his resistance forces are continuing to carry out the Iraqi battle. What we are witnessing now is not accurately resistance fighters, but the ongoing campaign of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Winning it, and stabilizing the populace is still a ways off.


Faulty reasoning. Just because some Sunnis and Shiites liked Saddam does not bear any real influence on how we should consider their present fight against our troops. One can hardly argue that many of them are fighting mainly out of loyalty to their like of the man: Saddam is gone for good, and they know it.
No, their motivations for putting their lives on the line must be mainly sought in present and future considerations, not in the past.

They most certainly are resistance fighters. They are resisting the American agenda for their country and for the region.

To claim to be still under way with Operation Iraqi Freedom is bizarre: it denies the very different nature of this second phase of the invasion - it is now an occupation, and an increasingly unpopular one.

U.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LukeNYC
It seems like a good idea, but when you dig a little deeper you find that what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. If you note Darfur, even it it's hideous condition, is requesting that we stay out of it.

Another point to consider is that our image immediately following WW2 is significantly different that it is now. I would go as far as to say polar opposites.


Very good points.

U.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by upuaut

Originally posted by taibunsuu
The truth about Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq is that many people in those groups liked Saddam. Hearing this from the mouths of Iraqis themselves has swayed me a lot more than hearing it from US officials. So now that he's gone, his resistance forces are continuing to carry out the Iraqi battle. What we are witnessing now is not accurately resistance fighters, but the ongoing campaign of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Winning it, and stabilizing the populace is still a ways off.


Faulty reasoning. Just because some Sunnis and Shiites liked Saddam does not bear any real influence on how we should consider their present fight against our troops. One can hardly argue that many of them are fighting mainly out of loyalty to their like of the man: Saddam is gone for good, and they know it.
No, their motivations for putting their lives on the line must be mainly sought in present and future considerations, not in the past.

They most certainly are resistance fighters. They are resisting the American agenda for their country and for the region.

To claim to be still under way with Operation Iraqi Freedom is bizarre: it denies the very different nature of this second phase of the invasion - it is now an occupation, and an increasingly unpopular one.

U.


I'm not so sure.

Remember how as soon as the US entered Baghdad and things were cooling down, that the Iraqi leadership seemed to almost vanish?

The Iraqis were quoted as saying "This will be your second Vietnam," to which US reporters said "Well, there are no jungles here," to which the Iraqis retorted "We'll make the cities our jungles."

True, it's not a war with no-man's land and fronts, but it's a war nonetheless. Whether the occupation is screwing up so badly that what we are seeing is rebellion against it, or the remains of resistance to the initial invasion, is difficult for Americans who are not there to say. All we hear from our government is that A: Saddam Hussein and the old regime is long gone, and B: The Iraqis want us there, we're only fighting some terrorists.

Regardless whether we're fighting insurgents or remnants of the Iraqi military and government, it's obvious that the situation there is far worse than our leaders present.

Either way, if we can keep the peace long enough to present safety, freedoms, and employment, the country should be good from there on. Perhaps some war planners thought that occupying the country alone would be good enough to start pumping oil without realising that pumping oil through vast pipelines in an essentially unsettled country was not possible. I hope they're not that dumb, but then again look at Abu Ghraib, look how they dismissed the Powell Doctrine, look at the massive corruption, etc.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Remember how as soon as the US entered Baghdad and things were cooling down, that the Iraqi leadership seemed to almost vanish?

The Iraqis were quoted as saying "This will be your second Vietnam," to which US reporters said "Well, there are no jungles here," to which the Iraqis retorted "We'll make the cities our jungles."


No, I don't remember these quotes, but they could easily have passed me by... Which Iraqi said this?



True, it's not a war with no-man's land and fronts, but it's a war nonetheless.


I do not deny its a war: I simply do not feel comfortable calling it a continuation of Operation Iraqi Freedom, with all the propaganda insinuated within that name. It was propaganda to begin with, and now that we are occupying the country and many of our opponents on the battlefield simply want us out, its becoming more and more of a travesty of an appellation...



Whether the occupation is screwing up so badly that what we are seeing is rebellion against it, or the remains of resistance to the initial invasion, is difficult for Americans who are not there to say.


Its not an either or situation. There are certainly elements of both although I would reword the 'remains fo resistance to the initial invasion'. How can one resist an invasion once it is over. The invasion is over. Any resistance ofter the invasion is by definition resistance against an occupying force.

Saddam's regime truly is part of the past, and I find it limiting to try to equate the present players with the regime we decided to play God with and topple. No doubt there are Iraqis fighting right now who wish to rule Iraq with as much brutality as Saddam did... That still leaves them as different entities who we can only misunderstand if our only qualifier for them is to equate them with the ex-dictator.



Regardless whether we're fighting insurgents or remnants of the Iraqi military and government, it's obvious that the situation there is far worse than our leaders present.


Agreed!



Either way, if we can keep the peace long enough to present safety, freedoms, and employment, the country should be good from there on.

Perhaps some war planners thought that occupying the country alone would be good enough to start pumping oil without realising that pumping oil through vast pipelines in an essentially unsettled country was not possible. I hope they're not that dumb, but then again look at Abu Ghraib, look how they dismissed the Powell Doctrine, look at the massive corruption, etc.


Well I do not want to underestimate the power of stupidity, but I do tend to believe our leaders are smarter than they let on.
I personally refuse to believe that we did not foresee a drawn out conflict against an often invisible enemy, one that would cost the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis. I believe that the fact that we invaded represents an endorsement of those outcomes, and should be considered as, if anything at all, a desire to stir anti-American sentiment in the Middle East in view of creating more conflicts to fuel the so-called War on Terror.

Stay well,

U.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by upuaut

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Remember how as soon as the US entered Baghdad and things were cooling down, that the Iraqi leadership seemed to almost vanish?

The Iraqis were quoted as saying "This will be your second Vietnam," to which US reporters said "Well, there are no jungles here," to which the Iraqis retorted "We'll make the cities our jungles."


No, I don't remember these quotes, but they could easily have passed me by... Which Iraqi said this?




"People say to me, 'You are not the Vietnamese. You have no jungles and swamps," Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told a British researcher six months before the war began. "I reply, 'Let our cities be our swamps and our buildings be our jungles.'"




Well I do not want to underestimate the power of stupidity, but I do tend to believe our leaders are smarter than they let on.
I personally refuse to believe that we did not foresee a drawn out conflict against an often invisible enemy, one that would cost the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqis.


When Bush landed on the USS Lincoln on May, 2003 and called an end to 'major combat operations' in Iraq, this was done because:

A - The administration and neocons truly believed it.

B - They didn't believe it, didn't care, but used it as a propaganda moment to convince people that the war was quick, brief, and easy. Any future insurgencies were already prepared to be explained away as minor terrorist attacks.

I'm not sure which one it was. Probably the latter.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I am the author and i take great offence at people saying the opening topic was "Dumb". I have been a infantary soldier and military intelligence officer for 11 years and believe me what you see on TV is not what is happening i have been there dozens of times and seen it for myself infact i was even involved in the first gulf of gathering intell aginst the main target Saddam myself. I have 2 brothers out there at the moment 1 is special forces and the other like me an intelligence officer and there is a sh** load more going on over there then you read in the tabloids its absolute murder. We are even going so low as to negotiate ceasefires with terroists in Najaf cos we cant pull them out of there with all our firepower and manpower. We are losing a losing battle. there will never be peace with iraq the mindsets of the younger generations have been conditioned to believe what they are doing is right and it is all in the name of god. I say pull our guys out let them kill each other cos we never gonna be able to help them.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Saint,

Applogies on who ever wrote that's behalf. This is obviously a sensitive topic for EVERYONE.

It is good to have a soldiers perspective on the socio/political climate. Keep up the good work. Thank you for your service and don't let it get to you.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaint
We are losing a losing battle. there will never be peace with iraq the mindsets of the younger generations have been conditioned to believe what they are doing is right and it is all in the name of god. I say pull our guys out let them kill each other cos we never gonna be able to help them.


I appreciate your experience and the fact that you have relatives in Iraq, but this is an unacceptable attitude. Failure is not an option. Pulling out is the response that plays right into the hands of the enemy.

With this attitude, not one single island in the South Pacific would have been taken during WWII. Pessimism will benefit no one but the enemy.

[edit on 04/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally by GradyPhilpett
I appreciate your experience and the fact that you have relatives in Iraq, but this is an unacceptable attitude. Failure is not an option. Pulling out is the response that plays right into the hands of the enemy.

With this attitude, not one single island in the South Pacific would have been taken during WWII. Pessimism will benefit no one but the enemy


Japan was a different kind of war, yes they took the islands back one by one but at a GREAT human price.

I don't think he's being a pessimist he's probably being more of a realist. Too many civilians and soldiers are getting killed it has to stop. Remember Vietnam, the US did pull out and apparently it's starting to get itself back on it's feet.

So who knows?



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by thesaint
We are losing a losing battle. there will never be peace with iraq the mindsets of the younger generations have been conditioned to believe what they are doing is right and it is all in the name of god. I say pull our guys out let them kill each other cos we never gonna be able to help them.


I appreciate your experience and the fact that you have relatives in Iraq, but this is an unacceptable attitude. Failure is not an option. Pulling out is the response that plays right into the hands of the enemy.

With this attitude, not one single island in the South Pacific would have been taken during WWII. Pessimism will benefit no one but the enemy.



Dear Grady,

there is a lightyears difference between the War in the Pacific and the current occupation in Iraq. The Japanese did attack, they had a mighty fleet and the army and by their attack proved that they are clear and present danger.

Iraq was a switch-and-bait routine where we went from "where are those darn WMDs" to "let freedom ring in the Middle East, and cost is no object". That's fraud. I just still can't swallow that. The "enemy" in Iraq was in most part manufactured after the initial campaign against Saddam and Baat, by the mismanaged occupation.

Once you alienated the populace, (which you did) you can't really win this war, Grady. It's a large country which you'll have to patrol, and lose personnel in the process, for decades. That's just silly. Bring the US soldiers home, they'll sure appreciate it.

Then of course the US needs a base in the Middle East, so we can all count on this hell to continue. Just how much american blood is being shed for Israel, God knows.





[edit on 26-8-2004 by Aelita]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211
Remember Vietnam, the US did pull out and apparently it's starting to get itself back on it's feet.


I remember Vietnam. I was there. The communists began a genocide of almost unprecedented proportions and attitudes like yours made it happen.

[edit on 04/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   
This is a little offtopic but i'd like to offer my condolences for Aelita, i know your country is in mourning and it's horrible to have had an accident like that happen let's hope the Russians get to the bottom of the mystery aircrashes!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join