Notices
Results 1 to 77 of 77

Thread: War on terror. Are we winning?

  1. #1 War on terror. Are we winning? 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    The British troops recently got back in great numbers from Iraq, but are still in Afghanistan. The US are there in both still. But like Vietnam the West are not absolutley good at winning a guerilla tactical enemy. We are not keeping the situation together in Iraq, in fact perhaps have worsened it, so the question is 'are we winning?' That is of course is if there is anything to win :?.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    Um. Sorry to bust your bubble. We already lost. What we're doing now is wasting resources. We lost. Game over. Leave the imbeciles to their civil war.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    You can't win if your goals aren't clear. There was no "imminently dangerous" Saddam regime with WMD's, so it's not clear to me what the purpose of occupying the country was / is.

    The invasion itself has caused the Iraqi civil war and the infection of the country with terrorists (there were hardly any islamofascist terrorists in Iraq before 2003), so the only purpose of the Iraq war is to solve the problems it has itself caused.

    Should the US and it's so called coalition stay in Iraq? Yes, they made a mess of the country and now it's their job to clean it up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    Pendragon, no. That's bullshit. That country was fucked up before the USA even got there. don't allow yourself to be brainwashed by mainstream view. The USA had dick all to do with most of what's going on in that country. All they did was overthrow a dictator. What happened afterwards is largely Iraq's fault.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Pendragon, no. That's bullshit. That country was fucked up before the USA even got there. don't allow yourself to be brainwashed by mainstream view. The USA had dick all to do with most of what's going on in that country. All they did was overthrow a dictator. What happened afterwards is largely Iraq's fault.
    What is a catalyst?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The function of terrorism is to induce a state of confusion in the enemy's mind; distraction in the enemy's goals; disruption in the enemy's economy; and uncertainty in the enemy's confidence. On that basis the acts of terrorism in the US, Europe and elswhere have been outstandingly successful. By generating a misguided, ill conceived, poorly planned, abyssmally implemented, reaction , the terrorists have won a remarkable victory. By converting an ephermeral dichotomy of outlook between east and west, 'Christian' and 'Muslim', the terrorists have set the game plan for the next three or four decades of geopolitics.
    Historians in the future may see the 911 attacks as pivotal in the 21st century, but what gave those attacks their potency was US (and British) reaction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Pendragon, no. That's bullshit. That country was fucked up before the USA even got there. don't allow yourself to be brainwashed by mainstream view. The USA had dick all to do with most of what's going on in that country. All they did was overthrow a dictator. What happened afterwards is largely Iraq's fault.
    Iraq was fucked up in many ways, but it was not ravaged by islamofascist terrorist groups before 2003. They were attracted by the US soldiers, and partly created by disbanding the Iraqi national army. Iraqi separatism is not something new, but it could've been a managed process rather than a civil war. The US just took the whip from the sunni's and gave it to the shiites, not a very well designed plan if you ask me..

    My point is that the US started the invasion with a plan designed to solve a problem that didnt exist (scary Saddam with his WMD's), and in the process set in motion a chainreaction of real problems for which the US had no plan whatsoever. If the US had not invaded Iraq the civil war might still have occured at some point, and it wouldn't have been the responsability of the US (apart from supporting Saddam for decades; and the UK is responsable for creating the incoherent monstrosity called Iraq in the first place). But the US and UK (and others) did take over Iraq, and whatever problems already existed they made worse through bad management. So they turned Iraq's problems into their own, and now they have to solve them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    My point is that the US started the invasion with a plan designed to solve a problem that didnt exist (scary Saddam with his WMD's),
    Now that's a new one Buck Fush had a PLAN????????????
    How did you get that idea, I'd like to know? For all I know, he's a delusional ex-junky willing to show his belief in a non-existant deiity is stronger than the fundamentalists'. While doing so he does not give a damn about how many people have to be killed (women, children.....all the same, for him just collateral damage. And Irakis at that, they do not deserve better) or sent to die a horrible death or be mangled by IEDs and MPGs. Hey, I do not buy in this Michael Moore BS either (allthough he has some valid points) but it's a fact that the risk of death for your average Iraki nowadays is around 10 to 50 times higher than before the invasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    and in the process set in motion a chainreaction of real problems for which the US had no plan whatsoever. If the US had not invaded Iraq the civil war might still have occured at some point, and it wouldn't have been the responsability of the US (apart from supporting Saddam for decades; and the UK is responsable for creating the incoherent monstrosity called Iraq in the first place). But the US and UK (and others) did take over Iraq, and whatever problems already existed they made worse through bad management. So they turned Iraq's problems into their own, and now they have to solve them.
    Agreed.


    Oh, BTT: does the term "asymetrical warfare" mean anything to you?

    Money needed to pull off 9/11: Around 100.000$
    Money spent in operation "Fucked up freedom" Around 1.000.000.000$ per month.
    Terrorists killed during 9/11: 20
    People killed in the Irak war: more than 30.000
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    But the US and UK (and others) did take over Iraq, and whatever problems already existed they made worse through bad management.
    This is what I cannot forgive - incompetence on a disgusting scale - made possible only through a combination of over reaching arrogance and unbelievable ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by twaaaanngg
    People killed in the Irak war: more than 30.000
    You should probably add a zero.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Would some one please explain to me, just which war was fought w/o error. Aside from that, Gulf II, was completed rather rapidly. Any misjudgment may have come after wards, as revenge fighting between the previous rulers and the previously oppressed, outside influences and the War of the media, was misjudged......IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    some history:

    during the 1980s, iran and iraq was fighting heavily. called the iran-iraq wars.
    the americans supported iraq, and got saddam into power, while supplying him with money.
    the russians supported iran.
    there was a saying back then in the US.
    "saddam is a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch".
    i think some of you might remember a desktop game from the mid-90s where you shoot saddam moving shopping trolleys full of rockets.
    well, after the fall of the soviet union, saddam overstepped, and invaded kuwait, which was a catalyst for the first gulf war in 1991.
    the united states went in, fought all their way into baghdad, leaving the whole iraqi army a smoldering pile of junk, and then went home with minimal losses.

    theres a similar story with taliban.
    back in the 80s, the mujahideen terrorized the soviet union, and as a response, soviet invaded afghanistan, and did what they could to flush out the mullahs out.
    united states, being in a cold war with the USSR, decided to put pins in their wheels, by training the mullahs in guerilla warfare.
    back then, one of the most effective anti-mullah weaponry was the mi-24 hind gunship, which the soddy RPG-7 simply wasn't capable of reaching out and touching.
    well, that changed when the US supplied taliban & co with stingers.
    suddenly the gunships were falling down left and right. the soviets were forced to police afghanistan with tanks and apcs.
    the situation detoriorated, like currently in iraq, and the soviets gave up.
    USA said "mission accomplished" and left afghanistan in ruins.
    this was around 1990.
    with afghanistan completely unable to take care of itself, taliban took over,
    and ruled until about 2003, when they attacked the twin towers.

    just FIY, afghanistan had been a peaceful, if undeveloped country for 50 years, prior to the afghanistan war.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    http://canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/cip-...rogress-en.asp

    heres a website listing current accomplishments in afghanistan.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    Add to "some History;

    The US supported *The Shaw of Iran* Pahlavi, who did everything possible to set up Democratic Society for his people. We did not support the extremist Cleric, which later took control. Pahlavi, exiled to the US where he later died. The hostage situation of the US diplomatic core did little to help relations and when War broke out between Iran/Iraq, the US had little choice in who to support....

    Saddam, was tolerated until he invaded Kuwait. At this point and the possibility he would take the invasion to Saudi Arabia, our National Interest (Worlds oil supply) allowed nothing short of Gulf War I. Short of UN limited support, I have no idea why we didn't complete the War, THEN...(mistake?)

    Afghanistan "a peaceful nation". The 1978 revolt and Russian invasion might be signs of peace, but as the Russians retreated (with-out rebuilding the government or infrastructure, which the US did or is trying to do in both Afghanistan and Iraq) anarchy and tribal rule/dominance was not peaceful nor was the strict version of Muslim rule, was anything but peaceful. In fact 20-30 million Afghans migrated to Pakistan or Iran to escape Taliban influence. (3-4 million or so have returned).

    Some of your comments, I do not understand, but the US has not left Afghanistan. As for use of superior air power, think thats what war is about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Thought I was logged in; above post is my resposibility...not guest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    ^^ Never seen that before .

    -------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    My point is that the US started the invasion with a plan designed to solve a problem that didnt exist (scary Saddam with his WMD's), and in the process set in motion a chainreaction of real problems for which the US had no plan whatsoever.
    I don't thing the US can take all the blame for the mess, many country's around the world supported them, including the Dutch.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Would some one please explain to me, just which war was fought w/o error. Aside from that, Gulf II, was completed rather rapidly. Any misjudgment may have come after wards, as revenge fighting between the previous rulers and the previously oppressed, outside influences and the War of the media, was misjudged......IMO.
    Every war is plagued by errors, even a 'good war' like the allied side of WW2 created a lot of collateral damage. So to start an unnecessary war is a very grave crime. And to start an unnecessary war without any plans to manage the post-war chaos is even worse, it's disregard for human suffering.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    ^^ Never seen that before .

    -------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    My point is that the US started the invasion with a plan designed to solve a problem that didnt exist (scary Saddam with his WMD's), and in the process set in motion a chainreaction of real problems for which the US had no plan whatsoever.
    I don't thing the US can take all the blame for the mess, many country's around the world supported them, including the Dutch.
    Yep, our government went completely against public opinion by saying that "we don't support the invasion militarily, but we support it morally".. There may soon be a parliamentary inquiry to uncover how the government could make such a blunder. Anyway, the invasion was not the initiative of any of the "coalition" countries, if the US hadn't decided to attack there wouldn't have been a Gulf War II. But the coalition countries, including the Netherlands, failed to do everything they could to stop the madness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    ^^ Never seen that before .

    -------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    My point is that the US started the invasion with a plan designed to solve a problem that didnt exist (scary Saddam with his WMD's), and in the process set in motion a chainreaction of real problems for which the US had no plan whatsoever.
    I don't thing the US can take all the blame for the mess, many country's around the world supported them, including the Dutch.
    Yep, our government went completely against public opinion by saying that "we don't support the invasion militarily, but we support it morally".. There may soon be a parliamentary inquiry to uncover how the government could make such a blunder. Anyway, the invasion was not the initiative of any of the "coalition" countries, if the US hadn't decided to attack there wouldn't have been a Gulf War II. But the coalition countries, including the Netherlands, failed to do everything they could to stop the madness.
    Considering that Saddam Hussein committed a genocide, his punishment was warranted by the genocide convention of 1948. A Dutch court, as well as an Iraqi, have ruled the 'Anfal campaign' a genocide.
    If an investigation were to arise into the role of the Dutch in the war, Balkenende &c will come out with clean hands.

    Everyone in the Hague knows this and the outcry for an investigation is an attempt to play the electorate into 'supporting an underdog'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Pendragon; First, nice to see you back....

    Rather than going back over the reasons the US, took out SH, freed its people and is in a process to stabilize the government, lets go to what constitutes an act of war. I'll go with two for now....The UN had mandated their inspectors to inspect for WMD in Iraq. SH, threw them out. The UN also mandated a *No fly zone* for Iraq's remaining aircraft and for the US and English A/C to patrol this space. I do not know the exact number of times, the Iraq Military took pot shots at these patrols, but each time and kicking out the special inspectors were alone justification for retaliation. Acts of war should not be limited to flying A/P into tall buildings.

    As for anticipating post war activity. The President is a politician, who relies on advice from the Military structure. What had been in War, the total and complete destruction of an enemy into submission, no doubt in reality, with no concern for innocent deaths, NO LONGER APPLIED. The Military Leaders, from all the countries involved, had nothing to go by for what could happen, though defeat of SH military was not in question. I would agree, although not a military strategist, that the citizens of Iraq would take revenge out on those that for 40 had been very brutal to them. But, I am not sure any one expected Iran, Insurgents or the Taliban to use the situation to promote their own agenda, or in fact how short a time it took.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    Yep, our government went completely against public opinion by saying that "we don't support the invasion militarily, but we support it morally".. There may soon be a parliamentary inquiry to uncover how the government could make such a blunder. Anyway, the invasion was not the initiative of any of the "coalition" countries, if the US hadn't decided to attack there wouldn't have been a Gulf War II. But the coalition countries, including the Netherlands, failed to do everything they could to stop the madness.


    Dutch special forces were involved in the invasion (See here), so not only did your government at the time go against the wishes of the general public but they also lied to you.

    If the coalition country's didn't support the US, the US wouldn't have been able to start the war. Yes there should be enquiry's in every country which was involved and supported the war, if people are found guilty of lying or manipulation the intelligence which was used to support the war then they should be punished, but thats a separate issue. At the end of the day, it's no good pointing the finger at other country's for what has happened. That is what the terrorists want. We need to pull together and make the very best of a very bad situation because the only people who are suffering are the Iraq's who are the only ones with no blame. And lets also not forget that many Iraq's who are in exile in Western country's supported the war.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    The US supported *The Shaw of Iran* Pahlavi, who did everything possible to set up Democratic Society for his people.
    I never new kidnapping and torturing people without benefit of law, as the Shah did via his feared secret ploice, was one of th eintegral steps in setting up a democracy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    The US supported *The Shaw of Iran* Pahlavi, who did everything possible to set up Democratic Society for his people.
    I never new kidnapping and torturing people without benefit of law, as the Shah did via his feared secret ploice, was one of th eintegral steps in setting up a democracy.
    Ophi; This forum is allowing unregistered viewers to post. If not logged in the system accepts a post from *guest*. I followed with the next post, taking responsibility....

    The Shaw's retaliation toward Khomeini and the Islamic cleric, was the beginning of the end for the Monarchy. However, Pahlavi did support, industrialization via Western industry, freedom for Islamic Women and the US toward his people. Many of his actions, changing to the Western Calender vs. the Islamic, allowing women to divorce w/o the husband consent and many freedoms, which the Islam Cleric opposed, brought on the conflict between the two. The Shaw, did use force trying to maintain power, upsetting the US government and we all paid the price.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Thought I was logged in; above post is my resposibility...not guest.
    USA left afghanistan in in th early 90s, when the soviets left.
    then 9/11 happened, and USA went back in. yeh?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    During the so called *Cold War*, I know the US opposed the USSR, involvement in anything it did. However, except for a few advisor's, am not aware of any involvement. The invader is responsible for restoring order but I do agree, as the Russians withdrew, chaos prevailed allowing the Taliban influence. Think I said that...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    During the so called *Cold War*, I know the US opposed the USSR, involvement in anything it did. However, except for a few advisor's, am not aware of any involvement. The invader is responsible for restoring order but I do agree, as the Russians withdrew, chaos prevailed allowing the Taliban influence. Think I said that...
    well, USA played the role back then, that iran and pakistan allegedly play today, arming and training the resistance movement.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    Lol, 6 topics under politics? We need more people on this forum.

    Even though Sadam Huisane (However you spell his name) was a bastard who killed allot of people, he still kept the different groups together, and prevented allot of the fighting thats going on today.

    I think we should have just let them destroy eachother. I mean, after all of them have killed eachother, we could just calmly move in and take their oil, right? Isn't that what Bush wants? Hese even a dumbass at accomplishing his own goals.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    CF; The category is less than a month old...But am surprised more haven't jumped into this one, under government.

    Do you think the methods Saddam used to keep that order, justified leaving him and his two *bully* sons, in power? The main reason, however, IMO for the Presidents actions were to stabilize the region and if you like for the purpose of an even oil flow to the worlds economy.

    I won't address the *Bush bashing*, but think if all continues to go well, Iraq and the people of Iraq will ALL enjoy a prosperous 21st century, with whats expected to be the second largest oil reserves on the planet.
    Also, it might encourage other Islamic Nations to move into the 21st Century, raising living standards, giving freedom and rights never known and especially to the women...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    The surge is working!

    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    War on terror. Are we winning?
    2-1 at half time.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    This get out of Iraq today, philosophy really boggles my mind. Why not get out of Korea, Japan, French or Germany or any of the many places we are with no current apparent purpose.

    The US, will be in Iraq, Kuwait or someplace in the area for years to come, regardless who wins the elections in 08-12-16 or in 2024. Rebuilding, assistance and formations of a police/guard and government are just beginning. Tens of thousands of US corporate interest, civilian contractors, religious groups and advisor's are there, to say nothing of a viable representation of various government diplomatic cores from around the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the circuitous haze of my mind
    Posts
    1,028
    I obviously think that him and his sons were evil in many ways with all of the things I heard about them doing; but they had some qualities that their people saw in them, which is what kept them together.

    Now that he is dead, all of these religious groups are killing each other more than ever.

    Sure, you could have just said that he could be replaced with someone else, who had his "good" traits but none of his bad, but I don't know if the Iraqi people would accept a replacement at this point with only good goals in mind.

    I think in large part, the reason why Saddam was successful in keeping relative peace, was that he struck fear in the hearts of his people. They say that through fear and poverty the government can control its people; this is the rule that he went by. While it has many consequences, I still believe that positives out weighed the negatives.

    I don't think we can just leave Iraq today. If we were to do that, it would be like how we left Germany (In the applicable ways) after world war one. Because of what we did to them, Hitler was able to gain leverage over the people of Germany due to their fear and poverty. For Iraq, jacking up their country and just leaving may have similar consequences. First of all, we shouldn't have gone their in the first place, but now that were there, we need to find a intelligent way of getting out-which unfortunately requires such things as rebuilding all of the "collateral damage" that we caused there. All of the money that its going to take will start to halt the American school system, prevent futures NASA missions, and will take away from government services that many of us need.

    As for the middle eastern countries future, I do not think that it will get better any time soon. Religion is a very powerful thing that is hard to tame; each groups leaders claim that their actions are in the name of their "god", and that they will receive eternal life if they do what they say. Like as can be seen in the past, corrupt/ confused/ insane leaders are using this to manipulate their people into doing whatever they want. Why do you think Bush has stated on multiple occasions that "God has spoken down to him and told him what needs to be done". Bush along with allot of these middle eastern leaders are out of their damn minds.
    Of all the wonders in the universe, none is likely more fascinating and complicated than human nature.

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"

    -Einstein

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

    Use your computing strength for science!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Guest
    IN terms of Afghanistan and Irag could somebody explain what the hell the word 'win' means?....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    IN terms of Afghanistan and Irag could somebody explain what the hell the word 'win' means?....
    In terms of any war. World War II:

    Most historians agree that the death toll was about 50 million (including wartime atrocities).
    I wouldn't say anyone won anything. Sounds too much like watching a game a cricket, or playing bingo.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    CF; Much of the seen and apparent control of the Iraq people, were from the Sunni sect, which Saddam Hussein, his Elite Guard and most of Baghdad are/were. Loyalty, probably was from salaries paid his military and that Elite Guard, which trickled down to near all the Sunnis. The Shiites lived in primarily slum areas of Baghdad and the Kurds in Northern Iraq. When Saddam fell, the Elite Guard and many Sunnis (along with that clergy) took revenge on the others. Later other influence came in, insurgents and the *Extremist* movements. Later the Sunnis and Shiites joined, fighting these insurgents. I could use several analogies of the same in the US, after the Civil War, Womans Suffrage, even after a couple Voters Reform Acts and the CW would be much worse than whats happened in Iraq, according to many...

    As for the war effort effecting social interest..I don't think so. ALL have increased over Bushes terms and a problems with Republicans. However you may be correct with respect to NASA, since in part they are financed through the Military budget, only a billion or so is direct to NASA...from the budget.

    If what you quote is true "Bush, God has spoken", it is very troubling. My major problem with him, is his insistence to bring religion into politics and the operation of the Executive Branch. However, when talking the Muslim Religion, their cleric and controlling entities, your talking all Male participants, in most cases. IMO this male oriented society, fears woman playing roles in what has been, more than any other single issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    IN terms of Afghanistan and Irag could somebody explain what the hell the word 'win' means?....
    In both cases those wars were won. OBL was removed from Afghanistan and SH was toppled. The War on Terror, stabilizing a governments and rebuilding of those Nations are ongoing projects.

    We are still in Korea, Germany and Japan, so its hard just what government calls final victory and bring home the troops. However there is our National Security to consider and a presence, may act as a deterrent on future wannabee Hitlers, or in this case renegade Militant Clergy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore Pikkhaud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    140
    In order to win somthing you need to gain somthing.

    That's my aproch anyway, but what has been gained during the last 4 years.

    SH is infact dead, but there will always be people like him out there. and a new ones will arise.

    And Iraq has not been stabilized.
    More hatred agains the US.
    And many of the UN countrys have lost faith in The US.
    Lots of human lives lost.
    oh, yeah and 9,000,000,000 dollars in debt.


    Now think for yourself has it been worth it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Pikkhaud
    That's my aproch anyway, but what has been gained during the last 4 years.
    Control of Middle Eastern oil fields. Lucrative contracts granted to companies whose shareholders happen to be in certain government positions. Or companies whose tenure in Iraq would happen to be in the best interests of government officials, personally.

    In South Africa we have a lot of ex-military, my father included, who've been pretty pissed off for the last thirty years about Angola, which was nothing more than grabbing oil fields for CALTEX and US oil interests.

    What your friendly government official is concerned about, is making himself some money. Government is a business, just like any other.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Captain; In winning a war, or accomplishing the defeat of another the victor rarely wins anything. Under *International Law* it becomes the victors responsibility to maintain order in the defeated country. Treaties or agreements between Nations often require national sacrifice for the good of all. 20% of the US National debt, today, are cost from WWII.

    IMO, your assessment of current conditions are back wards. As for the National Debt, think you will find other causes for why its as high as it is. On the UN, the US people, lost faith in them long ago. Government, which I agree with, have not. Hopes for influence by them in world affairs is very important to the Bush Administration and was under Clinton.


    TvEye; Home of every private oil based industry in the world is in the US, England or Canada. The US are in total a privately owned industry. Neither the US Government or the industry, just goes into another Nation and reap their resources. When asked, which is almost always, they take the change and oblige. This is as true for most State owned oil interest, such as China, Mexico, Venezuela and all the OPEC producers. Haliburton now has its main office in Dubai and every US Oil Company has offices in many friendly or unfriendly places.

    No Government is not a business. Though one share of a stock gives you a right to speak to that company, it won't change anything. Your ownership in Government is equal to any OTHER one person, with your vote counting equal. You also, have the right to speak, write or demonstrate pro/con the government in control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    You're saying it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein refused to accept the dollar as the currency for Iraqi oil and instead switched to the Euro? He also switched all his U.N. reserves from the dollar to the Euro. Invade, maintain the dollar's monopoly on petro-currency.
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.

    "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
    a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
    from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
    the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]

    The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.
    http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    You're saying it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein refused to accept the dollar as the currency for Iraqi oil and instead switched to the Euro? He also switched all his U.N. reserves from the dollar to the Euro. Invade, maintain the dollar's monopoly on petro-currency.

    Yes; It had nothing to do with anything...

    What another government uses for exchange of goods or services, has no effect on any currency. The internal affairs of a country will determine its value. I might add, many investors in the US are buying foreign currency today and myself have bought many stocks, where the company is based outside the US. Tata Motors of India, Diana Shipping from Greece, just a couple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.

    "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
    a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets
    from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
    the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1]

    The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war.
    http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp
    Your source is the BBC. All I will say....

    As for the flow of oil, I would think the issue has been discussed by every US government since Carter. OPEC, cut off supplies in the late 70's, creating world recession and in the US we had mile long lines to buy gas/diesel, unemployment/interest rates in the double digits.

    Every government, not just in the US, have a department with in their system to digest current information and offer *Contingency Plans* for any possible outcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    Imo there is no War on Terror, its a scam

    Its not new either
    "I spent 33 years...being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism....

    "I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street....

    "In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested....I had...a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions....I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents..."
    -Major General Smedley Butler, 1931

    Imo, the "War on Terror" circus act was fabricated to replace the Cold War as a narrative to justify and disguise imperialist wars, obscene public expenses that profit the few, and the tightening of control over the flag waving populace.

    In the Old days, Rockefeller talks to Kinsinger about Chase Bank interests in Chile, and Kinsinger would turn around and say 'Ya ve need to replace Allende vit Pinochet because of' (opens his playbook template of the Bogeyman-du-jour) '...Communism, ya thats the ticket, ze Domino theory', before you know it Pinochet is in with electrodes on dissidents gonades while Chicago School groupies are running around Privatizing left and right as Chase Bank rides the plundering gravytrain sipping a Pina Colada.

    Now for Iraq, the details change but the steaming pile of lies (911,terror,WMDs,democracy) thats put forth on the theater stage for the masses is still unrelated to the web of sleezy motivations behind the scene. But War on Terror is far better than Cold War because theres no real enemies, you just nudge a radical group here through ISI or pull a false flag there and thats about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    "What another government uses for exchange of goods or services, has no effect on any currency"
    So if many governments no longer need to keep or get as much US$ to buy oil and start dumping $ for Euros instead the US$ value will stay steady and there wont be an effect on the Euro? that doesnt sound intuitive, to me anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    "What another government uses for exchange of goods or services, has no effect on any currency"
    So if many governments no longer need to keep or get as much US$ to buy oil and start dumping $ for Euros instead the US$ value will stay steady and there wont be an effect on the Euro? that doesnt sound intuitive, to me anyway.
    Each country pays in its own currency to begin with, via exchange rates the cost of oil is going to be the same to each country, regardless what currency is used for a base. In the UK, they are paying about 45p today, per barrel. If they were required to pay in US$ (are not) those 45p would buy $92.00, the current cost...If the base was the pound, it would still be the 45p or 92.00. This is true on any item traded on the worlds open market, such as all commodities.

    If one currency deflates, it does cause others to inflate. Canada for instance is pumping money into its system to deflate their dollar or keep it close to the US (now about the same). The EU, apparently satisfied with some inflation, the consumer paying a little more for products which is good for US business and those consumers, can and do buy cheaper from US internet retailers or actually visit the US for shopping. The NYC, real estate boom has not slowed a bit, as folks from Europe can buy property for about 85% of what would have cost 2 years ago, and many US firms are dropping foreign outsourcing as cost equalize.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Ice; I agree, WOT, may be misleading. However war on "Islamic Extremist" is very real. Much more so in Europe, than the US but their are groups of people in near all Countries that oppose the Western World social and economic systems. My guess, Separation of Church/State and equal female rights are much more a concern than any promiscuities of society, in their minds. That idea stems from the *Islamic Brotherhood* the for runner of OBL and other groups of radicals which formed in the early 20th Century...

    As for Iraq, or the mid-east in general, I am sticking with the "flow of oil" for a primary concern of the US. Even here, not so much of concern for the US, but what could happen to worldwide. International peace or just getting along with others, seems to be gaining as Capitalism spreads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    "war on "Islamic Extremist" is very real"
    Im not even too sure about that. The Talibans were ok when they were negociating with Unocal for the Centgas pipeline and had Opium flowing, no pipeline deal and reduction in Opium production and they are too Islamic while Uzbekistan's worst than Talibans but they're on the good side(US) even if the regime boils people alive(to death). Also 911 was funded and manned by Saudis who despite being more zealous that the comparatively secular Turkey are getting billions in military equipment while choping heads on Fridays.

    OBL was supported by the US, the US was arming Shia militias(who were pretending to join the Iraqui military) and are arming and supporting Sunni extremist(Quasi-Al Queda) to fight Hizbola in Lebanon.

    Its like pointing at someone thats pouring gasoline on a fire and say 'hes trying to put out the fire'.


    I realize that the Big Media's Islamic mass hysteria blitz is taking its toll on our perception of reality but the Islamists (if they werent proped up in the first place and then enflamed by occupation/coups/dictators) would be as dangerous to the mainland US as Salem's much feared Witches.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    When talking Islam, the various factions (3 basic) with in and the numbers of people (up to 2 billion) who prefer to practice the fundamental ideology (rule and law based on Koran), you cannot avoid seeing a potential problem. So you understand, I am not saying by any means, all Muslims or the faiths are inherently bad or that a great number of them, would prefer a tolerant attitude toward other religions, political structures, social practices, laws or even the Jewish. Factually, this is not happening and the dominant clergy of each sector has been increasingly moving to the opposite. It is also possible to understand, why and how this has happened. As mentioned the Islamic Brotherhood (Turkey), was founded early in the 1900's, stumbled along until WWII, taking sides with Hitler (lost), the establishment Israel (After WWII), when its influence became very strong. Then you have Capitalism/Free Trade, a western concept, which has been intrusive to there ways of existence which has brought on the dominance in their societies by the radical faction. OBL is simply a charactor...but if improperly handled could become a symbol for the a movement...

    One problem with an elected government with term limits is that government policy will likely be changed with the next election. Not only if from one party to another, but to persons with in the same party with different ideas. In the US, it stems to even an administration of a Father (Bush I) and son (Bush II). Inconsistency of policy allows for who gets assistance or doesn't in conflicts around the world and the reasons for that assistance. It also has to be judged on affairs and conditions at the moment in time. The USSR and now Russia, has played a role in many decisions, to say nothing of the *OIL* issue.

    I don't see an invasion of Islamic Ships hitting our mainland. There stated intent, is the US Economic Structure which is effect means the planets. I do see nit-picking little events to disrupt our social structure and major events of terror to disrupt the economic. IMO, this is the War and Oil flow from the middle east a very real objective of the IR...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Junior Zitterbewegung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Pikkhaud
    In order to win somthing you need to gain somthing.

    That's my aproch anyway, but what has been gained during the last 4 years.

    SH is infact dead, but there will always be people like him out there. and a new ones will arise.

    And Iraq has not been stabilized.
    More hatred agains the US.
    And many of the UN countrys have lost faith in The US.
    Lots of human lives lost.
    oh, yeah and 9,000,000,000 dollars in debt.


    Now think for yourself has it been worth it.
    I second Pikkhaud on this one. War IS primarily about economic gain. O.K., you need economic power to wage war and actually win it (whatever "winning" means here). Money buys you superior firepower and the US-spending on "defense" before the Afghanistan/Iraq desaster of the Bush government was that of the next 5 big spenders on this list combined. So let's take a quick look at some of the other Rogue States GWB is always talking about: North Korea is arguably the most dangerous of them all. They actually have acces to nuclear material which can actually used for Bushs beloved weapons of mass destruction. They screwed up their first testfiring of a nuclear bomb, but they were able to rig up a device equivalent to 5kilotonnes of TNT. And traces of a special Xenon isotope detected by a monitoring station in Canada prove that this was not a simple boogyman tactics by Kim Jung Ill setting up a convetional blast with the respective amount of TNT. So this means Communist North Korea IS the logical choice as primary target for the next "Operation Whatever Freedom". I follow the news here in Germany pretty closely (oh, and I use more than one source of different flavour to double check) So where's the headline announcing that GWB ordered AirRaids on Pjönyang or the Navy to power up a couple of aircraft carries to set course for the Chinese Sea?
    The reason is simple enough: no economic gain in North Korea, very little natural resources and certainly no oil, the people over there are starving to death. And if there's a poster boy for an evil dictator, then it's Kim Jung Ill. So why doesn't the US charge in there, guns blazing and brings democracy to North Korea. They could certainly use some of it over there. And the WMD are another reason to go in there. Do you have an explanation for that? I mean compared with Iraq where all the above stated reasons were cited to convince the world of the necessity of the second gulf war. Oh, and Kim Jung Ill also kicked Mohammed El Baradei and his men and women out of his country.

    What makes the Iraq such a prime target? Makes one wonder, especially when the companies that make the most monex from the war over there are closely tied to Bush, Chaney and their underlings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Z; It might be interesting if you could explain just what "economic gain" the US Government achieved in the Korean Conflict or WWI and II. We are still paying off WWII debt, today. The US has treaties with S. Korea and Japan, but our policy toward North Korea, favors United Nations and China's involvement. The fact *shorty* would rather use any source of financing his people, for personal pleasures or a military w/o purpose, other than protecting HIM from his people, is the people of North Korea's problem. The Bomb angle is simply an extortion effort, which was used before and again to improve his personal objectives.

    The Bush policy in the Middle East is plain and simple *stability* of the region. I don't care where you live, this stability is vital for your economy.
    You might attack the Oil producing nations (OPEC) for the success of Haliburton or the only NON GOVERNMENT RUN, oil companies on the planet. Haliburton, in fact has moved its head offices to Dubai and those oil Companies earn by percentage of investment, which has been increased steadily since 1999.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    You can't win something that is unwinnable or unobtainable. The war on terror is like saying that you declare war on god... You can't march your troops over to god, likewise, you can't march your troops over to terror... besides, we created MOST of the known terrorists in the middle east...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The Bush policy in the Middle East is plain and simple *stability* of the region.
    For this administration, stability in the Middle East is an idea, not a policy. A policy requires an intelligently thought out plan. Enough said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    You can't win something that is unwinnable or unobtainable. The war on terror is like saying that you declare war on god... You can't march your troops over to god, likewise, you can't march your troops over to terror... besides, we created MOST of the known terrorists in the middle east...
    Hard to see an analogy between a God and terrorist today, but remember during the three centuries after the resurgence of Religion (1500-1800), there were hundreds of wars fought over religious differences.

    No the terrorist probably stem from education, which in this case is determined by Clergy with a rather ancient and barbaric views of reality.
    Even the leaders, where your viewpoint is, had little to do with this factor....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The Bush policy in the Middle East is plain and simple *stability* of the region.
    For this administration, stability in the Middle East is an idea, not a policy. A policy requires an intelligently thought out plan. Enough said.
    Yes and the IDEA is panning out.

    The same people that planned Gulf I, planned Gulf II. Both won in about the same amount of time. This time however, we could not hit and run because of international obligation. Syria and Iran, along with Saddam's own Special Guard and a host from the Taliban, made thing difficult.

    Urban warfare, was known to be different. Killing of innocents from your own society caught a lot of people off guard. Am sorry Bush didn't contact you for your idea's, since you no doubt are a great military stratigest...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    If you really think this administration had a plan I recommend you go to the library and check out a very good book by Thomas E. Ricks called Fiasco. If you can’t be bothered to read it here’s a review.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/bo...ewanted=1&_r=1

    Not only had the war “stressed the U.S. Army to the breaking point,” a study published by the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute declared, but it had also turned out to be “an unnecessary preventive war of choice” that “created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland” against further attacks from Al Qaeda. The war “was not integral” to the global war on terrorism, the report concluded, but was a costly “detour from it.”

    If you don’t trust the NYT, check out Ricks’ own credentials.

    Am sorry Bush didn't contact you for your idea's, since you no doubt are a great military stratigest...
    Ad hominems tend to be more effective when the spelling and grammar are correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    As a Capitalist, its hard for me to argue an individuals claim to fame in a chosen career. Ricks, as a journalist, or Woodward-Bernstein and others with the Washington Post have achieved such fame on the back of political figures. Earned a great deal of money and admired by those that have a set political viewpoint or agenda. The Post and NY Times along with the Liberal Democratic proponents and/or media have tried to make GW Bush, his administration equal to that of Nixon and Watergate and tried to show a similarity of the Vietnam War and that of Iraq....

    You might like to check out *Janet Cooke*, also a Pulitzer prize winner with the Post, that later was returned for fabrication and note that Woodwards books were primarily taken from testimony of a disgruntled FBI employee.

    I have acknowledged, what came after the winning or toppling of the Saddam Hussein government caught many off guard. However I certainly would question any stretch of the US military, under any scenario...

    In many arguments, I have mentioned the differences in history. An event from a time and what historians eventually judge the outcomes. Judging Iraq, the motives to stabilize a vital area of the planet with very little stability or to help a couple billion people, most no doubt wanting, into the 21st century society, cannot currently be done. Islamic fundamentalist want with out question a return of society to that which was in the 1500's, which could never happen. All other religions and/or societies have moved forward to various degrees of tolerance and human rights. Historians in time, IMO will judge GW Bush's actions as the first step to that end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I have acknowledged, what came after the winning or toppling of the Saddam Hussein government caught many off guard.
    What you seem incapable of assimilating is the clear fact that many people predicted what happened and were ignored.


    However I certainly would question any stretch of the US military, under any scenario...
    Fair enough. You must be right and The Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute doesn't have a clue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I have acknowledged, what came after the winning or toppling of the Saddam Hussein government caught many off guard.
    What you seem incapable of assimilating is the clear fact that many people predicted what happened and were ignored.


    However I certainly would question any stretch of the US military, under any scenario...
    Fair enough. You must be right and The Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute doesn't have a clue.
    People predict many things all the time. I deal in stocks, which each has predictions both ways as to movement. You can even invest, the movement up or down and can be profitable. As to the Gulf War, I suggest the advisor's Bush listened to or made a decision on, based on non-existed precedent were incomplete at worst. The coalition was welcomed, even up to the first election. Intimidation, toward the people from with in their own people was not thought to be a usable tool. It was not in Southern Iraq and the British clean that area up rather quickly.

    The US military, is not nor has it been stretched. This idea is a political tactic, used in the US and has little real tactical value. Planes, ships and the bombs, missiles or technology carried by them can achieve what any army could. One problem in Iraq, was IMO the over protection of innocents and the Special Forces of Saddam. Defeat in the past has been the defeat of the society which supported the enemy. The Iraq regular army, almost in total surrendered along with many of that Special Guard, knowing they would be set free after what was surely to be, the topple of Hussein.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    56
    The theory about the dollar makes a lot of sense. Check this out.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle17836.htm
    http://www.teamliberty.net/id199.html

    I've spoken to a lot of Iranians. They all said that the Shah was a US puppet that let the US steal its oil and got a commission for it. These articles are consistent with what Iranians have explained to me.
    http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ze...Boomerang.html

    They were also anti-Khomeini. They explained that if the US had never overthrown Mosaddeq, Khomeini would never had come to power.

    Here's some stuff I found that explains the US relationship with Saddam. These two links are to the same video. I don't remember the time mark.
    http://video.google.es/videoplay?doc...24357632360753
    http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/...onomic_hit_man

    Saddam is also discussed here. I don't remember the time mark here either--sorry.
    http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11635.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    [quote="jackson33"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    The US military, is not nor has it been stretched. This idea is a political tactic, used in the US and has little real tactical value. Planes, ships and the bombs, missiles or technology carried by them can achieve what any army could. One problem in Iraq, was IMO the over protection of innocents and the Special Forces of Saddam. Defeat in the past has been the defeat of the society which supported the enemy. The Iraq regular army, almost in total surrendered along with many of that Special Guard, knowing they would be set free after what was surely to be, the topple of Hussein.
    It is my understanding that by any metric, your army is stretched. Divorce rates among your soldiers are increasing. The army is not reaching its recruitment goals. They are reducing standards for admission (or whatever it is called). The tours are being extended and time home is being shortened. Officers are resigning over this policy, at record rates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Lower level recruitment has suffered some in recent years and yes I have seen the stories on suicide and divorce rates you relate to...Not only would I suggest the two issues are related, but that society itself has changed. Over 50% of households are now single parent. Long term separation from a spouse often leads to problems, even short term as American Truck Drivers will attest to...

    Military Schools, Army/Navy/Annapolis and the rest, are full however with people turned away each year.

    My point and remains my point, the US Military could handle any event if required to. The US is a strange country when its freedom or sovereignty is challenged. After 9/11 recruitment went off line, to many almost and the quality (educational level) went well into the college levels. Registration of 18 year olds, is also very high, think 95% of so eligible people do register and have since its inception. Personally I hope the draft is never needed, but the guys and gals seem to be there, if needed....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cosmored; When you get into Iran/Iraq/US relations, you really need to go back to WWII, Russian Influence and the Islamic Brotherhood. As for Khomeini's rise to power, as a cleric, think you will find the Shaw brought this on himself, by trying to grasp power from the clergy itself in order to democratize the country. The results took a few years, but anyplace religion is a factor in governing the religion has usually wins, at least when Islam is the religion...The irony, the Shaw and his family lived out their lives in the US under this system they wanted for all there people...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Zitterbewegung
    Quote Originally Posted by Pikkhaud
    In order to win somthing you need to gain somthing.

    That's my aproch anyway, but what has been gained during the last 4 years.

    SH is infact dead, but there will always be people like him out there. and a new ones will arise.

    And Iraq has not been stabilized.
    More hatred agains the US.
    And many of the UN countrys have lost faith in The US.
    Lots of human lives lost.
    oh, yeah and 9,000,000,000 dollars in debt.


    Now think for yourself has it been worth it.
    I second Pikkhaud on this one. War IS primarily about economic gain. O.K., you need economic power to wage war and actually win it (whatever "winning" means here). Money buys you superior firepower and the US-spending on "defense" before the Afghanistan/Iraq desaster of the Bush government was that of the next 5 big spenders on this list combined.
    And yet we're getting beat up by people with access to none of those things. You also need great tactical minds, which our country seems to lack greatly in.
    So let's take a quick look at some of the other Rogue States GWB is always talking about: North Korea is arguably the most dangerous of them all. They actually have acces to nuclear material which can actually used for Bushs beloved weapons of mass destruction. They screwed up their first testfiring of a nuclear bomb, but they were able to rig up a device equivalent to 5kilotonnes of TNT. And traces of a special Xenon isotope detected by a monitoring station in Canada prove that this was not a simple boogyman tactics by Kim Jung Ill setting up a convetional blast with the respective amount of TNT. So this means Communist North Korea IS the logical choice as primary target for the next "Operation Whatever Freedom".
    Yeah, plutonium is much easier to nuclearize than uranium. Kim Jong is not known for his sanity (even without the press slandering him, this is obvious), and his country is in continual economic ruin. It's a pretty bad combination.

    On the plus side, he's probably still got some sense of self preservation.

    I follow the news here in Germany pretty closely (oh, and I use more than one source of different flavour to double check) So where's the headline announcing that GWB ordered AirRaids on Pjönyang or the Navy to power up a couple of aircraft carries to set course for the Chinese Sea?
    The reason is simple enough: no economic gain in North Korea, very little natural resources and certainly no oil, the people over there are starving to death. And if there's a poster boy for an evil dictator, then it's Kim Jung Ill. So why doesn't the US charge in there, guns blazing and brings democracy to North Korea. They could certainly use some of it over there. And the WMD are another reason to go in there. Do you have an explanation for that? I mean compared with Iraq where all the above stated reasons were cited to convince the world of the necessity of the second gulf war.

    Good points all around. They'd be easier to rebuild too, because South Korea could simply absorb them.
    Oh, and Kim Jung Ill also kicked Mohammed El Baradei and his men and women out of his country.
    Who's that? With a name like Mohammed, it would be motivation *not* to attack if Kim J did this.

    What makes the Iraq such a prime target? Makes one wonder, especially when the companies that make the most monex from the war over there are closely tied to Bush, Chaney and their underlings.
    Oil is the one resource American cannot produce for herself. It's frustrating because we're so industrious. We'd gladly do the work to make more of it if we could.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    "What another government uses for exchange of goods or services, has no effect on any currency"
    So if many governments no longer need to keep or get as much US$ to buy oil and start dumping $ for Euros instead the US$ value will stay steady and there wont be an effect on the Euro? that doesnt sound intuitive, to me anyway.
    Each country pays in its own currency to begin with, via exchange rates the cost of oil is going to be the same to each country, regardless what currency is used for a base.
    Whichever currency is the one traded *for* becomes a stronger currency world wide. The others become weaker. In it's current state, the US dollar does *not* need to get any weaker than it's already getting.

    Exchange rates are based on a very simple sort of auction system. It's straight up supply and demand. If your currency is in demand, it will be more valuable, regardless of why it's in demand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Mohammed El Baradei is the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency which was BTW winner of the 2005 Nobel Price for peace as an organisation. It's run by the UN and controlls the respective nuclear programs of the international community. And throwing them out of your country is a serious offense of the UN and a really strong hint that you have something to hide.


    Money buys you superior firepower
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And yet we're getting beat up by people with access to none of those things. You also need great tactical minds, which our country seems to lack greatly in.
    The Americans do not really get it, do they? Set aside their personal experience in Vietnam (which is a black hole for the History Channel as far as I can tell. I wonder why this is? ) , they refuse to learn from others' people experiences. I mean, the Russians are not exactly known for following the Geneva Convention by the letter or to put it more precisely, they give a giant old rats ass about said convention (as do the Americans every day of the week by using torture etc.) and they could not "win" this war they started in Afghanistan. For those who have some real short term memory: Afghanistan was occupied by the Russians between 1979 and 1990 and they were trying REALLY hard to mop up those Mujahedin and they failed miserably.


    And the way the Americans behaved in the Middle East since 1945 does not instill trust in the American policy with the political leaders in this region. ARAMCO i.e. the "cooperation" between Saudis and Americans was founded to exploit the riches of Saudi Arabia in the 40ies and 50ies. So far so good, but the terms and conditions have been advantageous for the US only i.e. most of the EBIT landed in american pockets. Then when the arabs demanded a fair share and started the embargo in the beginning of the seventies the US was preparing to invade the Arabian Peninsula. Kissinger and Schlessinger admitted in an interview that those plans were already worked out. Just the fact that they would have cut off the oil supply from the other OPEC countries stopped them from doing it. Do we see a pattern here? The US thinks it has the godgiven right to invade sovereign states in the name of "National Security" just to secure their access to oil. 70 years ago the germans were called faschists for a similar behaviour.


    The other thingy is the STOOOOOOPID US policy that my enemies enemy is my friend. I really like the photo where Donald "We will bomb him back into stone-age" Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam in the early 80ies and smiles from one ear to the other because they struck such a fantastic deal for new weapons for Hussein. Mhmmmmmm..... I love this shot

    And sending M-16s, M-60s and Stinger Rockets to the Mujahedin wasn't also such a bright idea, wasn't it?

    I am really looking forward to the next screw-up in international relations by the US government. Especially when Mr. Huckabee becomes elected president. I mean, the americans are dumb enough not to have learned from the almost 8 years of Bush's so called "administration".
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
    I am really looking forward to the next screw-up in international relations by the US government. Especially when Mr. Huckabee becomes elected president.
    At least with a President Huckabee there would be ample opportunity for some excellent limerick rhymes.
    We leave these as an exercise for the student. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Twaaannnggg
    Mohammed El Baradei is the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency which was BTW winner of the 2005 Nobel Price for peace as an organisation. It's run by the UN and controlls the respective nuclear programs of the international community. And throwing them out of your country is a serious offense of the UN and a really strong hint that you have something to hide.
    Well, that's good to know. The UN doesn't have the best reputation with Americans I think. We tend to perceive it as corrupt in the sense of routinely allowing it's administrators to steal money. I know America can be perceived as corrupt as well, but usually not for that reason. Or, well, at least the stealing is usually done by government sub contractors instead of members of the government directly.

    Money buys you superior firepower
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    And yet we're getting beat up by people with access to none of those things. You also need great tactical minds, which our country seems to lack greatly in.
    The Americans do not really get it, do they? Set aside their personal experience in Vietnam (which is a black hole for the History Channel as far as I can tell. I wonder why this is? ) , they refuse to learn from others' people experiences. I mean, the Russians are not exactly known for following the Geneva Convention by the letter or to put it more precisely, they give a giant old rats ass about said convention (as do the Americans every day of the week by using torture etc.) and they could not "win" this war they started in Afghanistan. For those who have some real short term memory: Afghanistan was occupied by the Russians between 1979 and 1990 and they were trying REALLY hard to mop up those Mujahedin and they failed miserably.
    Yeah. People always seem to think that, if the current rules aren't working, then going straight to anarchy will somehow solve the problem.

    The rules of engagement we follow are really screwed up. That means we need better rules, not no rules. The Viet-Cong didn't win just because they were ruthless in the general sense. It was because they were ruthless in the right ways.

    They acknowledged the tribalism that existed within their own borders, and used it to their advantage. The whole village was punished as a village if the whole village didn't cooperate.


    We need to get the concept of nationalism out of our head when dealing with 3rd worlders. They don't think like countries. They think like small tribes. If one member of a tribe attacks us, we should consider the whole tribe to have declared war, and fight them the way we would fight a country that declared war on us. You'd find the tribes started to keep their warriors in check.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    15
    Well you see, America is very good at screwing itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    How many assasination plots have their government plotted? Dozens, and within their own government. The UK's last one was on Hitler in World War II.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Those masterminded the play always wins! According to me, the layman do not have politics, doesn’t matter who lead him, he has to follow. The leader knows the theory better than him and it works every where – in US, Vietnam - every where
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69 Who 'we'? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    ... We are not keeping the situation together in Iraq, in fact perhaps have worsened it, so the question is 'are we winning?' That is of course is if there is anything to win :?.
    Who 'we'?

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    sak
    sak is offline
    Forum Junior sak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Presently at ME
    Posts
    210
    Those who understand/ respect others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71 Re: War on terror. Are we winning? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    The British troops recently got back in great numbers from Iraq, but are still in Afghanistan. The US are there in both still. But like Vietnam the West are not absolutley good at winning a guerilla tactical enemy. We are not keeping the situation together in Iraq, in fact perhaps have worsened it, so the question is 'are we winning?' That is of course is if there is anything to win :?.
    In Iraq, YES!
    The greatest terrorist in the Middle East was Saddam Husein.
    He hasa been caught and executed. So, IMO, our mission there should be terminated as soon as possible.

    Husein attacked Kuwait, Iran, the Kurds and the Shia's and was paying families $5000 that sacrificed a son for their cause.

    Before we vacate Iraq, we must get a commitment from the Shia's to respect the territory of the Kurds. Then leave.
    It would be to the benefit of the Shia's to promote their democracy since they have the numbers.
    The only thing they would have to do is prevent a coup D'etat by the Sunnis.
    They are the evil ones and more violent.
    Educate the people that it is to their advantage to have freedom with a representative government, rather than a restrictive genicidal religion.

    In Afghanistan, we should promote a union between Afghanistan and Pakistan against the terrorists. This should discourage the terrorists to abandon their war on these two countries.
    We should also wage a psychological war by dropping leaflets to the border areas of these two countries to encourage them to leave these areas so none would die of accidental bombings.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    i havn't read a single post in this thread. and i refuse to.

    a title like this makes me wan't to kick you all in the BAWLS!

    to the poster of the thread... go try and fight yourself and see who wins.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    One of the distinguishing features of a succesful civilisation is the ability to be compassionate without prejudice. One of the marks of a great human is to be passionate without being emotional.

    Do you think those remarks might have some relevance here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    91
    very true words ophiolite. cryptic, but true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75 Re: War on terror. Are we winning? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    The British troops recently got back in great numbers from Iraq, but are still in Afghanistan. The US are there in both still. But like Vietnam the West are not absolutley good at winning a guerilla tactical enemy. We are not keeping the situation together in Iraq, in fact perhaps have worsened it, so the question is 'are we winning?' That is of course is if there is anything to win :?.
    In Iraq, YES!
    The greatest terrorist in the Middle East was Saddam Husein.
    He hasa been caught and executed. So, IMO, our mission there should be terminated as soon as possible.

    Husein attacked Kuwait, Iran, the Kurds and the Shia's and was paying families $5000 that sacrificed a son for their cause.

    Before we vacate Iraq, we must get a commitment from the Shia's to respect the territory of the Kurds. Then leave.
    It would be to the benefit of the Shia's to promote their democracy since they have the numbers.
    The only thing they would have to do is prevent a coup D'etat by the Sunnis.
    They are the evil ones and more violent.
    Educate the people that it is to their advantage to have freedom with a representative government, rather than a restrictive genicidal religion.

    In Afghanistan, we should promote a union between Afghanistan and Pakistan against the terrorists. This should discourage the terrorists to abandon their war on these two countries.
    We should also wage a psychological war by dropping leaflets to the border areas of these two countries to encourage them to leave these areas so none would die of accidental bombings.

    Cosmo
    That agreement wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. The way of things in Iraq is that, whichever of the three factions gains control of the government will oppress the other two. Sadaam wasn't ruthless to the Sunnis.

    What we need is to get one of the three factions out of the way. As it stands, this three way tug-of-war can't ever end. If the Shia get control (which they will if there are any elections, being the most numerous), they'll immediately begin oppressing both the Kurds, and the Sunni. Then the Kurds and Sunni will band together against their common foe, and we have instability again..... and it goes on and on.


    I would consider figuring out a definition of what the Shia territory is on our own, then offering to let Iran take control of it (add it to their own territory).

    Once we're down to just Sunni and Kurds, one side or the other will win dominance, and there will be stability again. (albiet, not very favorable to whichever side loses)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76 Re: War on terror. Are we winning? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That agreement wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. The way of things in Iraq is that, whichever of the three factions gains control of the government will oppress the other two. Sadaam wasn't ruthless to the Sunnis.

    What we need is to get one of the three factions out of the way. As it stands, this three way tug-of-war can't ever end. If the Shia get control (which they will if there are any elections, being the most numerous), they'll immediately begin oppressing both the Kurds, and the Sunni. Then the Kurds and Sunni will band together against their common foe, and we have instability again..... and it goes on and on.


    I would consider figuring out a definition of what the Shia territory is on our own, then offering to let Iran take control of it (add it to their own territory).

    Once we're down to just Sunni and Kurds, one side or the other will win dominance, and there will be stability again. (albiet, not very favorable to whichever side loses)
    Through most of the 1900s Iraqi nationalism was alive and well - just as you have Black, White, Protestent, Catholic, Americans. The Ba'ath party did end in authoritarian nepotism, but it began in broad Iraqi populism. The nation had its golden age.

    Beginning in the 70's various countries started using Kurds as proxy fighters, as Kurds were a convenient minority sprawled across the porous & mountainous borders of Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. All these countries gave largess to "Kurdish independence" groups, pointed one way or another. Even the CIA did for several periods. Propaganda radio, guns, cash, training camps, the usual. It was like a bidding war over which state could own and direct Kurdish nationalism, against the other bidders. So Kurdish nationalism prospered, though Kurds were mainly killing other Kurds of course. It was especially bad around the time of Iran-Iraq war, effectively a house-to-house civil war in what would become Kurdistan. Finally Iraqi nationals lost the will to bomb separatist controlled villages.

    Iraqi Shia/Sunni discrimination remained unpolitical until the government and economy collapsed after failed occupation of Kuwait. Both religious groups shared a national identity. The Iran-Iraq war was waged largely by Shia soldiers, one nation against the other, patriots on both sides. And it wasn't Persian vs. Arab either. It was Iran vs. Iraq.

    Western efforts to sharpen the discrimination have been persistent. Actually explicit since occupation. Divide and conquer. The Authority would only negotiate with Iraqis representing particular groups. Resistance groups were played against each other. Now Iraq's a patchwork of "ethnically cleansed" neighbourhoods: Shia here, Sunni there, Kurds neatly consolidated. So the groups don't mix much anymore - communities are literally gated. And with segregation firmly established and institutionalized, violence of sectarian struggle has pretty much ended.

    Still, Iraqi Shia do not invite Iranian control, and Iranians don't get their hopes up either. "Iraqi" still has some meaning.

    Personally I find Iraqi sectarianism all very contrived and sad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77 Re: War on terror. Are we winning? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    ......
    Still, Iraqi Shia do not invite Iranian control, and Iranians don't get their hopes up either. "Iraqi" still has some meaning.

    Personally I find Iraqi sectarianism all very contrived and sad.
    Well, thanks for the illumination.

    If I'm understanding you correctly, what we're up against probably includes other nations like Russia, and others we've pissed off using those same tactics against us. So basically interracial/ethnic hatred in Iraq is here to stay, because it's easier to fan the fire than it is to put it out.

    If I were the rest of the world, I wouldn't want to touch Iraq with a ten foot pole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •