Oh come on

[toasty]

Pentagon study suggests that we might not win in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_breaking_point

what the hell? now that we're there, we have got to win this thing. that's all there is to it.

For all the props Bush gets for fighting the war on terror, he seems to be doing a pretty shitty job. Just "fighting" the war on terror isn't good enough, nor is the "progress" we always hear we're making. Osama bin Laden's still running free, Iraq is a fucking disaster, and our troops are beaten down and spread too thin at a time that a legitimate threat is emerging.

Enough with the loyalty to his buddies. Rumsfeld has got to be fired, for the good of the troops and the war effort. Some fresh blood would do us good, imo.

[anonin]

Re: Oh come on

what the hell? now that we're there, we have got to win this thing. that's all there is to it.

.

win? please explain what winning this particular war would contain...

as far as i can tell , there is no "winning" this war. Its just not happening.

[toasty]

Re: Oh come on

^perhaps I could have phrased that better. We cannot leave Iraq without stabilizing it. I've not really been an advocate of this war effort as it has unfolded, but we're there, and I don't think we can leave it in a worse situation than we found it.

We cannot have all those US soldiers, not to mention scores of Iraqi casualties result in nothing more than prpetual civil war and instability, or worse, another brutal dictator.

[thesightless]

Re: Oh come on

of course we cant in those terms. it will take a generation or two. when religion is involved throughout history and outside influences attempt to interfere, nothing posotive can happen on the big scale for awhile. while we can get better schooling, better roads, etc etcetc, it will take a long time for the ""hatred and resistance to change"" to die out. even the children whom are in their teens spent most of thier life in a society that ""WE"" may be deem harsh, oppressive, and evil, but to them, its all they know, and outside influence is deemed just that, just as we here in america and most euro countries think that only we should have a voice in how our country is run, shit we had those old fucks in congress actually call em freedom fries when france criticized us. imagine if france invaded and tried to take us to a more socialized system, where those people in religious garb cannot dress like they choose, where local businesses cannot advertise in different languages without permit, etc etc. even with a politcally and internationally backed government there, it doesnt mean that the citizens are suddenly going to be reaping millions, growing grass, and installing pools. they are accustomed to a society where the imam and military rule and they grew accutomed to that. to a lot of them saddam wasnt the evil oppressor, he was an iraqi first, and even with his flaws, he was thiers. like i said, it will be the next generation of iraqi peoples who know life without saddam to accept where they can go, and not where they are stuck. either way we are all fucked, because if we stay away from the problem, we are allowign it to occur, and if we act like we did, well, just look around.

[Yao]

Re: Oh come on

Gotta agree with most of what you said Sightless. Exactly what I've been trying to say for sometime....the Iraqi perspective. Apart from that, I think stabilizing Iraq means leaving it under control of a US/UK supported regime. They want a pro-western and moderate regime, otherwise it will all have been for nothing. I cannot imagine the troops leaving after a govt that is fundamentalist or anti-western has been installed.

And, if they want a jumping point in the Middle East, they definitely need a friendly (read: arselicking) regime . Not to mention that the oil supply will also be in safer hands that way.

We have a saying here for what the US is doing now: "combining the useful matters with the pleasant ones".

read: US secures it's own economic interest, while ridding the UN of a 10yr pest. Ain't that nice?

[thesightless]

Re: Oh come on

its so sad that while we have to hope for good and yearn to do good, that i have completely come to the thoughts where i want the US to go completely to nuclear power, and just pretend the middle east doesnt exist with the exception of helping isreal through the UN, b/c they in the end are the UN's responsibility for awhile.

[Yao]

Re: Oh come on

Yea, but the UN has made itself into a toothless tiger in the last decades....

Really, I'd love to see a 'thinner' UN, lose some excess baggage or shut the fuck up IMO. Even NATO is more capable of actually doing something about situations that have arisen than the bloody UN these days....Yugoslavia was NATO doing, not the UN. And when it comes to conflict matters, it's the UNSC that comes into play....

Now, the end line of the movie 'Lord of war' says it best: did you know that the 5 biggest arms traders in this world are also the 5 permanent members of the Security Council?

It's fucking true, now how are we supposed to trust such an organ to bring peace in this fucking mess huh? With my background I could into the UN and make a carreer there, but I've decided to only do that if I am absolutely sure I can keep my mouth shut fr 25/30 years while working my way up, to end up in a power position where I could finally turn the whole motherfucker upside down.

Only then would I join it.

[thesightless]

Re: Oh come on

thanks for finally admitting the UN doesnt work, never has, never will. all it does is point fingers and chastize, much like the american democratic party for the alst 7 years.

and the arms thingy isnt really true. no nation manufactures its own weapons, companies residing in those countries do because they are FREE to enterprise.

[Localizer]

Re: Oh come on

It's scary how most republicans or staunch supporters of this war are so nonchalant about the matter. I look and debate with them in anger while they reply with a mere "I guess it was a mistake" in a manner that's so stoic it's scary. I mean, do these people not realize that their choices have marred the face of America, it's people, and have allowed our government to be ridiculed? Both republicans and democrats should be tossed in a fire pit and only the moderates should be allowed to run this country.

[Localizer]

Re: Oh come on

thanks for finally admitting the UN doesnt work, never has, never will. all it does is point fingers and chastize, much like the american democratic party for the alst 7 years.

and the arms thingy isnt really true. no nation manufactures its own weapons, companies residing in those countries do because they are FREE to enterprise.

keynote mate: arms traders, not arms manufactureres

[superdave]

Re: Oh come on

It's scary how most republicans or staunch supporters of this war are so nonchalant about the matter. I look and debate with them in anger while they reply with a mere "I guess it was a mistake" in a manner that's so stoic it's scary. I mean, do these people not realize that their choices have marred the face of America, it's people, and have allowed our government to be ridiculed? Both republicans and democrats should be tossed in a fire pit and only the moderates should be allowed to run this country.

Let's try to think about the possiblities and overlook some of the negativity for just a moment.

Can you imagine a Middle East with little or no terrorism and stability with free people in Afghanistan,Iraq and Iran? A peaceful existence between Israel and Palestine.

Maybe, we'll look back on this time and say that was a tough time for the world, but it all worked out in the end.

[Yao]

Re: Oh come on

keynote mate: arms traders, not arms manufactureres

Yea, I used the wrong term. Sor-ree!

Apart from that: free enterprise my ass: you don't tell me that a country is stupid enough to let exactly that branch of industry sell weapons and undermine it's own political/military interests. That would be the dumbest govt ever.

Look at where the weapons are going...either to regiosn they don't give a shit about, or a region where they have an interest in. Those can turn into enemies later, but at the time of trading that usually is not the case.

Oh...and despite my anti-bush stance, you can read back in other topics about the UN that I've never been a big fan of theirs It's nothing new from my side.

[thesightless]

Re: Oh come on

Apart from that: free enterprise my ass: you don't tell me that a country is stupid enough to let exactly that branch of industry sell weapons and undermine it's own political/military interests. That would be the dumbest govt ever.

to the contrary. pretty much all of the administrations of the last 30 years have had different allies. also, that is what makes the american business worth operating. very few restrictions on whom you can sell to. there isnt a country in the world, including cuba and the korea, that an american business cannot deal with. free enterprise my friend. do as you please without actually directly hurting someone. shit, i have helped out people who my gov't would love to lock up for tax evasion, but alas, im allowed to. shit we let that fat lawyer lady help that imam who was feeding plans to the terrorists from jail. and she was the one making the phone calls.

cant you see why i just want the earth to blow up .. lol'

[Kobe]

Re: Oh come on

Let's try to think about the possiblities and overlook some of the negativity for just a moment.

Can you imagine a Middle East with little or no terrorism and stability with free people in Afghanistan,Iraq and Iran? A peaceful existence between Israel and Palestine.

Maybe, we'll look back on this time and say that was a tough time for the world, but it all worked out in the end.

Sounds great. Now back here in reality the issues in this region have been going on for centuries and run far deeper than any solution than we can provide. Do our "Nation builders" really have the answer for how to make the Sunnis and Sheites love eachother? Do we know how to make Hamas accept Isreal? This is why you stay out of holy wars, they are based on nonsense and therefore have no logical or sensible conclusion.

The grave irony here is that Saddam ran a secular government, one that we were very happy to deal with for quite some time... Then W comes along with a bug up his ass and first excuse he gets, we are invanding Iraq for choose-whatever-reason-suits-you (liberate/oil/WMD/foot hold in mid-east/revenge/???) Bottom line, will this be worth it: How many years? How much money? How many lives is it will cost to get the Iraqis sing Koombaya in a fucking strip mall? Then can we can pat oursleves on the back?

I don't think you can conquer a nation in the modern world. In the old world yes, you kill all the men, rape all the women and really thoroughly conquer the country. This half assed invade them and set up a puppet government shit does not work, especially when said country holds the keys to one of you most vital resources.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but apparetly the Pentagon is starting to. How long till the Administration dismisses them and/or pushed them under the bus the way they do with any dissenting opinion (including their own agencies... CIA)?

[Yao]

Re: Oh come on

to the contrary. pretty much all of the administrations of the last 30 years have had different allies. also, that is what makes the american business worth operating. very few restrictions on whom you can sell to. there isnt a country in the world, including cuba and the korea, that an american business cannot deal with. free enterprise my friend. do as you please without actually directly hurting someone. shit, i have helped out people who my gov't would love to lock up for tax evasion, but alas, im allowed to. shit we let that fat lawyer lady help that imam who was feeding plans to the terrorists from jail. and she was the one making the phone calls.

cant you see why i just want the earth to blow up .. lol'

I very definitely see your last point, can't agree more

But as for the previous part: Eh??

I though there was still a trade embargo in place against Cuba...and as for other countries: despite the fact that arms trade is something that takes place on the free market, there has always been a history of directing that trade towards the places a govt favours. Look at the cold war for example: the US had it's favoured states, so did the USSR. Don't think the US was supplying arms to USSR funded states, was it? Apart from that, the market is not as free as some tend to believe.

And what you said about different administrations having different allies: that is nothing new, but simply the reason how you can end up fighting an enemy to whom you've sold your own weapons in the first place. Saddam used to be an ally of some sorts back in the days