So, Iraq hasn't been getting much play.. but a lot has been going on.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

You're right, a stable government and Iraqi soliders/police taking over are the two primary goals. And when you put it into historic perspective we are reaching those goals at a pace NEVER before thought possible.

which goals? I really want to know what goals we have. I have not seen them. And by setting goals does this mean we are giving the enemy an idea of when we leave?

[thomez]

neither Germany or Japan continued to fight us as we spent billions on their reconstruction

neither had basically a civil war raging

neither had terrorists blowing up fellow countrymen by the thousands every month

while I agree that a Western friendly Iraq would be great for the world... I'm not sure it is worth the cost, or that it can sustain itself after we eventually leave

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

which goals? I really want to know what goals we have. I have not seen them. And by setting goals does this mean we are giving the enemy an idea of when we leave?

I have yet to hear a speech by a top Pentagon official or member of the White House who did NOT mention the government being stable or the Iraqi soldiers being trained as being primary goals.

In fact, I don't recall a single SotU address in the past 3 years that didn't mention training soldiers and making Iraq a western friendly democracy.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by thomez

neither Germany or Japan continued to fight us as we spent billions on their reconstruction

neither had basically a civil war raging

neither had terrorists blowing up fellow countrymen by the thousands every month

while I agree that a Western friendly Iraq would be great for the world... I'm not sure it is worth the cost, or that it can sustain itself after we eventually leave

There is a big misconception on the left as to the number of sides in Iraq. In their minds there are two:

US vs Iraqis

In reality it is the US & Iraqi Civlians & Iraqi Government vs Militants.

We have a responcibility to help Iraq stand on its feet against the onslaught of these third party militants whose goal is to dismantle Democracy by slaughtering Iraqi civlians by the thousands.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

There is a big misconception on the left as to the number of sides in Iraq. In their minds there are two:

US vs Iraqis

In reality it is the US & Iraqi Civlians & Iraqi Government vs Militants.

We have a responcibility to help Iraq stand on its feet against the onslaught of these third party militants whose goal is to dismantle Democracy by slaughtering Iraqi civlians by the thousands.

Thanks for letting us know what we think.


You are actually wrong though. The sides are the US, the Suniis and the Shiites.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Thanks for letting us know what we think.


You are actually wrong though. The sides are the US, the Suniis and the Shiites.

And the radical militants blowing up market squares killing dozens of Sunnis and Shiites in the process? Since THEY are the problem, where do they fit into your nice little "Us vs Them" assessment?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

And the radical militants blowing up market squares killing dozens of Sunnis and Shiites in the process? Since THEY are the problem, where do they fit into your nice little "Us vs Them" assessment?

My little US vs. Them? I didn't even put a vs. in there.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

My little US vs. Them? I didn't even put a vs. in there.

Answer the question please. If it's US, Sunni, & Shia - indicating our military and 2 civlilian groups as the only key players, then which side do you put the militants murdering the two civilian groups by the thousands?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Answer the question please. If it's US, Sunni, & Shia - indicating our military and 2 civlilian groups as the only key players, then which side do you put the militants murdering the two civilian groups by the thousands?

When it is a civil war it is people killing those of their own country. Sunni kills shia, shia kills sunni. They are battling for control. Its quite simple. Once in awhile a US strike has collateral damage, but 98% of those dying is because of the religious people blowing up other religious people.

When they are not aiming at each other, they aim at our soldiers.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Answer the question please. If it's US, Sunni, & Shia - indicating our military and 2 civlilian groups as the only key players, then which side do you put the militants murdering the two civilian groups by the thousands?

Mostly Sunii muslims.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Mostly Sunii muslims.

Killing other Sunni muslims. Gotcha.

You've got a flawless assesment of the situation there, ace.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Killing other Sunni muslims. Gotcha.

So you think the insurgents aren't muslim?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

You've got a flawless assesment of the situation there, ace.

YOu can't seem to from an argument without trying to take little jabs there, sport.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So you think the insurgents aren't muslim?

Aren't Sunni and Shia both muslims? You took the effort to dilleniate them, why not dilliniate further and seperate the fucking civilians from the murderous militants?

[Crazy]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Pulling the "I served, you didn't, therefore you're not allowed to talk about my entire political party" line isn't going to fly.

I never made a claim about my service giving me the right to talk about an entire political party, YOU DID. Good, now that we have clearly established the fact that you are putting words into my mouth, and not to mention Scrumtalecent's, could you care to explain this generalized statement? Maybe back it up with, oh, I don't know, proof? Statistics?

There is a big misconception on the left as to the number of sides in Iraq.

Left is so broad and generalized of a term it is pathetic. You profess to know the entire viewpoint of everyone in the left, or for that matter the entire "left"? Seriously, generalized statements without support only make you look ill in thought.


Second,

let's go back to the Tet Offensive for a second. You're claiming, through that article, that the "liberal war protests" were the cause of the loss? Maybe that was their driving force, behind the Tet Offensive, however the innate inability of our government and intelligence at the time to uncover obvious signs of an offensive and still do nothing to prepare is what lost "it" for us... eventually.

Hell I'll even quote YOUR source as one sign of our government holding "the man" back...

If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Not to mention the fact that technically the Tet Offensive was a failure even still. However, due to the signs that pointed through intelligence gathered many people lost hope in the leadership of the war, through not only the military, but the government as well.

To pin this solely on the anti war movement is ridiculous and shows your inability to do proper research, even as it is widely available to you.

If you want "GOOD RESEARCH" then read this article by Stephen Hayward, unlike you, he has the ability cite credible sources.

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/dia...yward-tet.html

[TekDragon]

I'm sorry you feel you have more knowledge than a North Vietnamese officer as to the opinion of the North Vietnamese on US anti war activists.

[Crazy]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

I'm sorry you feel you have more knowledge than a North Vietnamese officer as to the opinion of the North Vietnamese on US anti war activists.

Like I said in my post, if you cared to read any of it :roll: , I don't deny that it might have been a motivating force behind their Tet Offensive, but the overall inability of our government to let Wesmoreland to do his job AND our intelligence dismissing any signs of a major offensive (and there were many if you read the article) allowed the Tet Offensive to happen in the first place.

How you don't see this is beyond me. You blindly blame anti war protests at home... Yet, even your source that you so valiantly hide behind tells you otherwise.

Hell if Bush put the stomp on everything that General Casey was trying to do right now would you blame it on the anti war protestors back home? Nevermind, no you probably would :roll:

Read the article and be informed. There is about 4 paragraphs full of information that could have been analysed for intelligence that pointed to a major offensive, but it was dismissed.


EDIT: Even another quote from your "source" that totally furthers MY POINT

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by TekDragon

Aren't Sunni and Shia both muslims? You took the effort to dilleniate them, why not dilliniate further and seperate the fucking civilians from the murderous militants?

So it's a surprise to you that people kill others that belong to the same religion, or even the same sect, as they belong to?

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So it's a surprise to you that people kill others that belong to the same religion, or even the same sect, as they belong to?

No, it's not. But congratulations on completely missing the point.

[TekDragon]

Originally Posted by Crazy

EDIT: Even another quote from your "source" that totally furthers MY POINT

How does that further your point? What "Political Pressure" was it that prevented US forces from completely annihilating the North Vietnamese forces with combined strategic bombings?

News flash: it wasn't the pressure from the conservatives.