[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

Um.

You are ASSUMING that he was speaking about the takeover. Now.

Tell me analog. Do you think Rumsey thought rebuilding would take weeks?

Really?

I'm assuming that the soldiers might have thought that he was talking about ACTUAL MILITARY ACTION. And that this is what he was actually talking about at the time. Because, you know, in the CONTEXT, that's what actually would interest a soldier before the invasion - when he's going to get to go home.

Now you are projecting thoughts and ideals onto the soldiers that may or may not have been there to attempt to further your point.

I'm sorry that managed to confuse you.

No confusion.

You seem to think that "Takeover" means ousting the government.

That is what it was referred to as. Once we took over the capital we had Iraq. This is what is known as stealing the flag.

That's a rather arbitrary point to split it up - pure political opportunism to distract from your government's bald-faced lies and complete bungling of the operation.

Feel free to believe that all you want to.
[quote]
If you don't mind, I'll stick with GEORGE W. BUSH's own definition:

More than 90% of your casualties occurred AFTER that moment.

Something doesn't jive.

If Bush had said "Military deaths in Iraq have ended" You'd have a point.

You are assuming tons more than I ever did.

[analogika]

No, I just take those criminals by their words.

Originally Posted by USA Today in the article article linked above

Changing rhetoric of war

* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

* March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

* March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

The war begins

* March 20, President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict."

* March 21, Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news briefing: "The confusion of Iraqi officials is growing. Their ability to see what is happening on the battlefield, to communicate with their forces and to control their country is slipping away. . . . The regime is starting to lose control of their country."

* March 27, Bush, at a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when asked how long the war would take: "However long it takes. That's the answer to your question and that's what you've got to know. It isn't a matter of timetable, it's a matter of victory."

* March 30, Myers, on Meet the Press: "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started."

* March 30, Rumsfeld, on Fox News Sunday, when asked whether Iraqis would "celebrate in the streets" when victory is won: "We'll see."

Source: USA TODAY research

And that was even BEFORE "major combat operations" were declared "ended"

As you said, CONTEXT is important.

I'm just not sure you actually know what "context" means.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Tell me analog. Do you think Rumsey thought rebuilding would take weeks?

The British defeated a stubborn Malaysian insurgency from 1948 - 1960...twelve years, by doing what we are now doing in Iraq.

[abe]

Anyone wanting to discuss old news and situations from the first two or even three phases of the war might as well be discussing ancient history as far as it goes to representing the realities we face today and tomorrow in Iraq.

There's nothing wrong with ancient history, it's just that it deals with what WAS. I want to spend more time on what IS and what WILL BE. I'll look at what was to learn what it has to teach, but not to beat myself up.

And certainly not to figure out how to keep making the same old mistakes when there are new, proven techniques and strategies that DO and WILL work that should be my focus.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika

No, I just take those criminals by their words.

And that was even BEFORE "major combat operations" were declared "ended"

AGAIN, they were referring to the capturing of the flag. The taking over of the Iraqi capitol. Once this happened, Saddam was no longer in power.

As you said, CONTEXT is important.

I'm just not sure you actually know what "context" means.

Stop being silly

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by abe

The British defeated a stubborn Malaysian insurgency from 1948 - 1960...twelve years, by doing what we are now doing in Iraq.

Well Abe, atleast you didn't avoid answering that question. Even if it wasn't meant for you.

I atleast appreciate that.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well Abe, atleast you didn't avoid answering that question. Even if it wasn't meant for you.

I atleast appreciate that.

No prob!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

AGAIN, they were referring to the capturing of the flag. The taking over of the Iraqi capitol. Once this happened, Saddam was no longer in power.

But...man Kevin, I don't understand your dogmatic views here. The quote clearly says "major combat operations." That has nothing to do with "taking a flag." Why are you so singlemindedly focusing on that one point?! It's almost as if you have some sort of selective blinder on.

You're the one doing the majority of the assuming here, buddy. I find it amazing that any criticism of the reasons behind the Iraqi war is met with complete denial by you - at least abe tries to narrow his focus on the present and ignore some of the murky stuff that happened earlier.

Major combat operations. Major combat operations. Major combat operations. If you can sit there, and with a straight face and a clean conscience under God write that major combat operations meant nothing more than "taking control of Baghdad" - when, after all, as has been indicated, this was only the first baby step in major combat operations - then I fear that you have some very serious problems.

Democracy: it's okay to question your government, even where they're the same religion as you.

greg

[analogika]

[ShortcutToMoncton]

And thus, I guess to sum up my own personal feelings on the subject: I feel that American forces should stay in iRaq for as long as it takes in order to establish a successful, long-term, democratic government. Now that they are there over the long-term, that should be their moral responsibility. However, I feel both the invasion itself (as has been coming out in the past few days) and the first couple years of its execution were marred by horrendously poor planning, a denial of reality, and piss-poor execution.

The question now, is whether Iraq can produce a strong-willed and ballsy leader that is able to unite the distrustful and warring factions under a single leadership. To be honest, I doubt this will happen under a fully democratic process - I think that more than likely, at least some democratic freedoms will have to be sacrificed in order for this transition to take place.

greg

[Macrobat]

"Major combat operations" are defined as set-piece battles, one army against another. None of you have studied much military history, I take it?

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I know what Donald Rumsfeld said: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

He also said: "The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."

Cheney said it would be "weeks rather than months."

I also know that Bush had a big "Mission Accomplished" photo-op banner. Three years ago.

A rather small wake-up call for you. That banner was made and hoisted on the aircraft carrier by its captain and crew - not Bush.

[BRussell]

If you folks want to say they were only referring to the taking of the and not to any post-invasion nation-building or insurgency, that's fine. The problem is that that's all we heard about. How short the war was going to be, how cheap it was going to be, etc. For example, that statement by Rummy that I quoted above came from a speech to the troops, about when they would be going home. If they were seriously thinking about the post-invasion period being long and difficult, he wouldn't have told them they were going home in a matter of a few weeks.

So I'd like to see some honest projections from the Bush administration, from before the war, stating that it would take years. All I heard was how easy everything was going to be.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

A rather small wake-up call for you. That banner was made and hoisted on the aircraft carrier by its captain and crew - not Bush.

Haha. Yeah right. Some military people rather than the White House political operation set up a presidential photo op.

You claim the banner was made by the Navy - are you sure about that? If I searched this, I wouldn't find that it was actually made by the White House political operation, would I?

[Macrobat]

Obviously, youv'e never served in the military. A flag-rank officer dictated that the banner would be made for the presidential visit, and it was - "White House operation" my left buttcheek. Feel free to search all you want.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

But...man Kevin, I don't understand your dogmatic views here. The quote clearly says "major combat operations." That has nothing to do with "taking a flag." Why are you so singlemindedly focusing on that one point?! It's almost as if you have some sort of selective blinder on.

You're the one doing the majority of the assuming here, buddy. I find it amazing that any criticism of the reasons behind the Iraqi war is met with complete denial by you - at least abe tries to narrow his focus on the present and ignore some of the murky stuff that happened earlier.

Major combat operations. Major combat operations. Major combat operations. If you can sit there, and with a straight face and a clean conscience under God write that major combat operations meant nothing more than "taking control of Baghdad" - when, after all, as has been indicated, this was only the first baby step in major combat operations - then I fear that you have some very serious problems.

Democracy: it's okay to question your government, even where they're the same religion as you.

greg

This post was basically a ad-hominem attack.

It proved nothing.

Thanks for wasting my time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Obviously, youv'e never served in the military. A flag-rank officer dictated that the banner would be made for the presidential visit, and it was - "White House operation" my left buttcheek. Feel free to search all you want.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/....accomplished/

FWIW, Navy idea, White House manufactured.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

"Major combat operations" are defined as set-piece battles, one army against another. None of you have studied much military history, I take it?

In the past 3 years, I've taken full-semester 4-month university courses on:
the history of World War I
the history of World War II
a history of Modern Warfare beginning with the Prussian-Franco/American Civil War and ending with the Afghan War
the Military History of Canada.
As well, I've done other history courses that of course touch on the subject of warfare.

Defining "major combat operations" as set-piece battles of one army against another is absolutely, 100% foolish in the 20th and 21st century. By that very definition, almost the entire Gulf War (which, of course, was not even a "war" in the first place...but I digress) would have no major combat operations! Neither would many aspects of the Afghan War that American troops were involved in, nor would a significant portion of the Iraqi War. You can go back even further than that, to Vietnam - a large portion of that war would involve not a single "major combat operation," by your definition.

You definition is archaic and incorrect in modern military terms. I suggest you stop the high-minded talk about what others have studied, and do a little updating on your own knowledge.



greg

[Macrobat]

Spin, spin, spin. In every single engagement in history, what's going on in Iraq right now has been known as "mopping up" until it serves those of you on your side of the debate to change the rules. lmao!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This post was basically a ad-hominem attack.

It proved nothing.

Thanks for wasting my time.

answer the man kev...

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Spin, spin, spin. In every single engagement in history, what's going on in Iraq right now has been known as "mopping up" until it serves those of you on your side of the debate to change the rules. lmao!

we are FAR from mopping up iraq...how many more of our troopsmust die?

[Macrobat]

LMAO! More troops have died stateside in training accidents than have in Iraq for the past two years.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah, I don't see any cause for pulling troops out at this time. They are soldiers, it is the job they live their lives to do, and now that conflict has been started history shows - as abe has pointed out - that the only sure way to lose is to pull out before the task has been completed.

greg

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

LMAO! More troops have died stateside in training accidents than have in Iraq for the past two years.

really? link?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

LMAO! More troops have died stateside in training accidents than have in Iraq for the past two years.

Hmmm...

U.S. ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY DEATHS

2004:

Hostile: 737
Accidents: 565

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf

[Macrobat]

There's also a greater risk driving on American roads in the average year that a soldier is at in Iraq, based on the deathtolls.

Subego's link gives one of the two years I mentioned. According to CNN, there were 281 American deaths in Iraq in the fiscal year 04-05 to 04-06.

"Hostile" includes alot more than Iraq,

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

There's also a greater risk driving on American roads in the average year that a soldier is at in Iraq, based on the deathtolls.

Subego's link gives one of the two years I mentioned. According to CNN, there were 281 American deaths in Iraq in the fiscal year 04-05 to 04-06.

"Hostile" includes alot more than Iraq,

According to CNN, there have been 2,574 coalition deaths (including 2,367 American deaths) in Iraq since March 20, 2003.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003...es/casualties/


Edit:

Sticking with CNN as a source:
Of those 2,367 dead Americans, only 137 were killed prior to Bush's declaration that major combat had "ended".


Also, I've just been looking through CNN's figures and adding up, and according to them April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 saw the deaths of 791 American soldiers.

Where you're getting that "281" figure from, I have no idea, but it ain't CNN.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

LMAO! More troops have died stateside in training accidents than have in Iraq for the past two years.

so dying soldiers is a laughing matter?...how long will this mop up continue? 10? 12? years?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

There's also a greater risk driving on American roads in the average year that a soldier is at in Iraq, based on the deathtolls.

Basing that statistic exclusively on death tolls would be a textbook example of bad methodology.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Subego's link gives one of the two years I mentioned. According to CNN, there were 281 American deaths in Iraq in the fiscal year 04-05 to 04-06.

Well either CNN is wrong or you misread.

OIF KIA/Died of Wounds

2005: 673
FY 2005: 663

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualt...l-by-month.pdf

Originally Posted by Macrobat

"Hostile" includes alot more than Iraq,

OIF KIA/Died of Wounds

2004: 714

In this particular case, a lot apparently means only 23.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by subego

In this particular case, a lot apparently means only 23.

afghanistan. i found similiar numbers for OIF.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Obviously, youv'e never served in the military. A flag-rank officer dictated that the banner would be made for the presidential visit, and it was - "White House operation" my left buttcheek. Feel free to search all you want.

Haha, yeah the military sets up presidential photo-ops without any input from the political people. What BS. Bush has signs just like that at every photo-op or speech he does. THey're always positioned right behind him when he gives a speech so the cameras get it in their shots. You're telling me that, on just this one occasion, the one time people pay attention to it, he didn't do it? Next you're going to tell me it was the crew's idea to have him fly in on that plane too, right?

Of course I already had searched it and I knew that after the White House claimed what you claimed, they eventually had to admit that they in fact did create the banner (subego gave the link above). Next time you correct someone, you might not want to rely on information coming from this White House.

[abe]

Originally Posted by BRussell

If you folks want to say they were only referring to the taking of the and not to any post-invasion nation-building or insurgency, that's fine. The problem is that that's all we heard about. How short the war was going to be, how cheap it was going to be, etc. For example, that statement by Rummy that I quoted above came from a speech to the troops, about when they would be going home. If they were seriously thinking about the post-invasion period being long and difficult, he wouldn't have told them they were going home in a matter of a few weeks.

So I'd like to see some honest projections from the Bush administration, from before the war, stating that it would take years. All I heard was how easy everything was going to be.

Face it, BRussell, the people you find yourself in bed with are people who can't always grasp complexity or (as Jack said in A Few Good Men), 'handle the truth.'

You, perhaps have your own difficulties with facts. Eh?

When there is the threat of imminent catastrophe how much time do you think God grants you to get everything just right?

Let's assume for a moment that TV shows where the hero has to choose the correct wire to cut as the timer on the bomb is ticking down to zero, is a representation of real life decision making.

Your 'side' would have us run out of time and blown up in every single instance.

The administration wanted Saddam gone. Yes. And why? Because they knew he was planning some devilish scheme or another and to wait on absolute proof would be like letting the timer on the bomb tick down to zero and the bomb could have blown up in ALL our faces.

You remind me of the 'officious' pencil pushing superiors who hounded Harry Callahan in Dirty Harry. While the danger exists you are so cautious that you'd allow the worst to happen rather than take action to prevent the catastrophe and then clean up the paperwork after the fact.

We did what we had to do to remove the threat of Saddam. Any imminent threats like, "Blessed July" were prevented and you are still screaming because the requisition for bullets wasn't filled out properly.

The administration had the BEST of intentions - saving our collective asses and economy.

The administration was given bogus information by our own intelligence community and from Ahmed Chalabi.

People within our government who opposed policy may have sabotaged the preparation and efforts after the fact.

The US public wasn't able to be told everything about the decision because informing OUR public also informs our enemy.

The American people who still were whining about the election results less than a year later were surprised by the attacks of 9/11. It seems someone in the White House had led them to believe everything was under control when, in fact we were being attacked repeatedly and nothing was being done to effectively stop it. Like the frog who will sit in a pot of room temperature water being heated to boiling without becoming aware of the fact he is being boiled to death, the American people were being terrorist attacked to death. And yet, after the wake-up call of 9/11 there were (and ARE) people who can't see the big picture.

See my thread, "Weed Control."

Anyway, once we toppled Saddam it was like pulling the wire from the ticking bomb.

And the Mission Accomplished banner was to say that Saddam was no longer a threat.

Begin Phase Two.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ironknee

so dying soldiers is a laughing matter?...how long will this mop up continue? 10? 12? years?

Maybe 15 years.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Haha, yeah the military sets up presidential photo-ops without any input from the political people. What BS. Bush has signs just like that at every photo-op or speech he does. THey're always positioned right behind him when he gives a speech so the cameras get it in their shots. You're telling me that, on just this one occasion, the one time people pay attention to it, he didn't do it? Next you're going to tell me it was the crew's idea to have him fly in on that plane too, right?

Of course I already had searched it and I knew that after the White House claimed what you claimed, they eventually had to admit that they in fact did create the banner (subego gave the link above). Next time you correct someone, you might not want to rely on information coming from this White House.

As I recall, they even had the aircraft carrier turn back and sail out to the open ocean so you wouldn't see the port in the background, making Dubya's "flight" seem less heroic than idiotic.

The White House guys also had the ship turn so that the setting sun would give perfect lighting to the banner and the potus.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

But...man Kevin, I don't understand your dogmatic views here. The quote clearly says "major combat operations." That has nothing to do with "taking a flag." Why are you so singlemindedly focusing on that one point?! It's almost as if you have some sort of selective blinder on.

Because as far as the ongoing Saddam-ite nightmare for US for his neighbors and for his people, when Saddam was toppled that nightmare ended. But how long does it take you to recover from beatings, malnourishment and psychological torture? How long to make up for 30 years of infrastructure neglect? That would come AFTER the nightmare and assuming nothing stood in the way of rebuilding the Iraqi people would be much better off pretty quickly.

Major combat operations. Major combat operations. Major combat operations. If you can sit there, and with a straight face and a clean conscience under God write that major combat operations meant nothing more than "taking control of Baghdad" - when, after all, as has been indicated, this was only the first baby step in major combat operations - then I fear that you have some very serious problems.

greg

That's EXACTLY what was being celebrated.

The WMD's we feared and prepared for WEREN'T used on our troops. The oil wells were saved. The regular military and the Republican Guard forces had been defeated. The issue of the invasion was no longer in doubt. Loss of life to our forces was kept to a minimum. The nightmare of Saddam was over for the people of Iraq!

And what would you say it was, NOTHING???

The Four Phases to The Iraq War
By Lance Winslow

What are the phases to nation building that will guarantee success and insure we have not wasted our time or money in the process? It seems so many do not understand what we are doing in Iraq. The have not looked at a map to see where Iraq is or thought about the Middle East and the bigger picture. There are Four Phases to this Iraq endeavor.

(F) Finish the UN’s Job to Enforce the Resolutions. To insure that Iraq is behaving itself. We were trying to get this done thru inspections and monitoring. Iraq reneged on their obligations and threatened the world with Weapons of Mass Destruction. We therefore moved to finish the job.

(O) Oversee Coalition of Major Combat Operations. To remove the Saddam Regime and se up a new regime which would not be hostile to the world, the region or their own people. We did that and removed Saddam and have brought him to justice.

(U) Unite a Free Iraq. Help set up the provincial government, hold elections, set a plan for Democracy and try to work thru the issues of the divisions between Suni, Shiite and Kurd populations in the country.

(R) Rebuild Major Infrastructure to Reliable Operational Status. Make sure that water, sewer, power, schools, transportation, police and fire are in working and there are trained people in place to insure that they are on-going.

That is it folks F,O,U,R the four phases of involvement in Iraq. We are going into the last stage now of rebuilding the major infrastructure now that we have helped the Iraqis established their government and hold elections. Remember the “proud purple fingers” and the Saddam trials.

I would like to ask if anyone can name another country, which went from dictatorship and war to liberty and democracy is such short order. I am proud of our men and women in uniform and our nation’s generosity and gift to free an entire nation. As we go into this final phase and bring home our troops, we will watch Iraq grow and her people determine their own destiny. Although there is still more to do; we sure have come a long way and done something great; but as an American, I would have expected no less. Consider this in 2006.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

[abe]

Originally Posted by analogika

As I recall, they even had the aircraft carrier turn back and sail out to the open ocean so you wouldn't see the port in the background, making Dubya's "flight" seem less heroic than idiotic.

The White House guys also had the ship turn so that the setting sun would give perfect lighting to the banner and the potus.

If you're going to stage a photo op why would you not make it look as good as it could?

You are really operating under some silly assumptions, aren't you?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by abe

Face it, BRussell, the people you find yourself in bed with are people who can't always grasp complexity or (as Jack said in A Few Good Men), 'handle the truth.'

Interestingly the character who said that in a Few Good Men was a psychotic bastard. The irony of that statement is that his truth was 'special' and normal people just wouldn't understand it.

How about quoting some real persons aberdeenwriter? Like,

"History shows that there are no invincible armies." (always a classic),

"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." (one of my favorites),

"The writer is the engineer of the human soul." (absolute classic),

"I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country." (most patriotic),

"Strength lies not in defence but in attack." (right on!),

"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth." (true.. true..),

"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?" (good question),

"Passivity is fatal to us. Our goal is to make the enemy passive." (interesting)

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." (hehe)

V

[analogika]

Originally Posted by abe

If you're going to stage a photo op why would you not make it look as good as it could?

There's a difference between plushing up a photo op, and orchestrating a large-scale farce.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by abe

If you're going to stage a photo op why would you not make it look as good as it could?

You are really operating under some silly assumptions, aren't you?

We're referring to the claim that it wasn't a White House photo-op at all, but something set up by the captain and crew of the carrier. Who has the silly assumptions?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by BRussell

We're referring to the claim that it wasn't a White House photo-op at all, but something set up by the captain and crew of the carrier. Who has the silly assumptions?

i'll go one step further, let's say the navy put up the sign not bush....the question is WHEN will the mission be accomplished?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by abe

The WMD's we feared and prepared for WEREN'T used on our troops. The oil wells were saved. The regular military and the Republican Guard forces had been defeated. The issue of the invasion was no longer in doubt. Loss of life to our forces was kept to a minimum. The nightmare of Saddam was over for the people of Iraq!

And what would you say it was, NOTHING???

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Taking Baghdad was nothing.

Why should it be anything?!? Two of the most powerful countries in the world took on a country that's probably smaller than California, and that has been under economic sanctions (however strict) for over a decade. Furthermore, it was a country that for all intents and purposes did not seem to have any WMDs, or, if they did have them, had no intentions of ever trying to use them as a weapon of defence. Their military was laughable, the fighting spirit of their army was non-existent, and the inequality both in planning and military capability was vast enough to make any notion - any comprehension of resistence seem ludicrous.

We talk about the Gulf War? That's a mistaken assumption, right there; the first thing historians say about it was that it wasn't even really a war. The Iraq invasion was no different. To imagine Iraq putting up a resistence to US-led Western forces - in the sort of "set-piece" battleground that Macrobat was blathering about - is as ridiculous as Yugoslavia's heroically futile and stunningly stupid Merkovic coup against the Hitler-allied regent Paul in March 1941.

The outcome of the Iraqi invasion was pre-determined...that's why you see quotes talking about "days, weeks," etc. This, however, was not - and should not have been considered - the end of major combat operations in Iraq. This point seems almost self-explanatory, given a quick look at the death tally before and after "Mission Accomplished" - the mission is, quite clearly, still far from being accomplished.

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee

answer the man kev...

There was nothing to answer. It was a post full of silliness.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Spin, spin, spin. In every single engagement in history, what's going on in Iraq right now has been known as "mopping up" until it serves those of you on your side of the debate to change the rules. lmao!

Exactly

[medicineman]

In all of my close to seventy years, I've yet to see a hostile action go as forecast. What appeared to be easy, turned difficult. What appeard to be difficult, turned easy. See both actions in Iraq for examples of that.

Thank you, Abe, for your good analysis of Vietnam. What prompted Kennedy to send advisors there to bail out the French, is beyond me. What caused Johnson to fabricate the Gulf of Tonkin incident is another mystery.

After Germany's surrender in WWII, there were many years of painstaking work, and dollars, to rebuild a government, a country and a continent. And this was a country used to a central government, however inept. Iraq has no such history. Even under Saddam, it was very tribal.

Why we are there, can be debated on many fronts. I think it is in our national security interest to do so. The one thing the 911 Commission got right, was that Al-Qaeda was at war, and we were not. There are many hot spots around the world. It's probably best to deal with them one at a time. Taking on the 'easiest', or most likely successful, seems to be the right course. That we would benefit with a wedge of a democratic government in the center of the middle east, is more than a good idea. (Why we have not come out to say that Israel is our best ally there, is still confounding me).

And there are those who say, we have defeated Al-Qaeda in Afganistan, and we should have stopped there. One can argue that Al-Qaeda is still alive and well throughout the area, and the battle is not yet over.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There was nothing to answer. It was a post full of silliness.

Exactly

You can admit you're wrong, you know. It's okay. I for one wouldn't rub it in too much.

greg

[abe]

Originally Posted by medicineman

In all of my close to seventy years, I've yet to see a hostile action go as forecast. What appeared to be easy, turned difficult. What appeard to be difficult, turned easy. See both actions in Iraq for examples of that.

Thank you, Abe, for your good analysis of Vietnam. What prompted Kennedy to send advisors there to bail out the French, is beyond me. What caused Johnson to fabricate the Gulf of Tonkin incident is another mystery.

I'm pleased that you recognize the facts as presented. I believe Generals Wheeler and Westmoreland may have given LBJ bad advice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...abetterwar.htm

After Germany's surrender in WWII, there were many years of painstaking work, and dollars, to rebuild a government, a country and a continent. And this was a country used to a central government, however inept. Iraq has no such history. Even under Saddam, it was very tribal.

Why we are there, can be debated on many fronts. I think it is in our national security interest to do so. The one thing the 911 Commission got right, was that Al-Qaeda was at war, and we were not. There are many hot spots around the world. It's probably best to deal with them one at a time. Taking on the 'easiest', or most likely successful, seems to be the right course. That we would benefit with a wedge of a democratic government in the center of the middle east, is more than a good idea. (Why we have not come out to say that Israel is our best ally there, is still confounding me).

And there are those who say, we have defeated Al-Qaeda in Afganistan, and we should have stopped there. One can argue that Al-Qaeda is still alive and well throughout the area, and the battle is not yet over.

I'm pleased that you recognize the facts as presented. I believe Generals Wheeler and Westmoreland may have given LBJ bad advice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...abetterwar.htm

[abe]

Originally Posted by BRussell

We're referring to the claim that it wasn't a White House photo-op at all, but something set up by the captain and crew of the carrier. Who has the silly assumptions?

You have. For arguing such inconsequentalities.

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

You can admit you're wrong, you know. It's okay. I for one wouldn't rub it in too much.

greg

Oops, sounds like someone is getting that 'special' feeling again. Listen, shortstack, I hate to disappoint you but Kevin doesn't go for guys. You should take that 'rub it in' patter to the local hang outs or somethin. Just my advice.

[Macrobat]

You're clueless. When the CIC is coming, all kinds of crap gets done. I have 3 Presidential Unit Citations from my stint in the USAF, I know first-hand what stops commanders pull out when the President is about to arrive. All you know is how to type drivel.

[ironknee]

^^ so macrobot, do you think the navy put the sign up or the white house? and if the navy, did then need permission from the wh?

[abe]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Taking Baghdad was nothing.

Why should it be anything?!? Two of the most powerful countries in the world took on a country that's probably smaller than California, and that has been under economic sanctions (however strict) for over a decade. Furthermore, it was a country that for all intents and purposes did not seem to have any WMDs, or, if they did have them, had no intentions of ever trying to use them as a weapon of defence. Their military was laughable, the fighting spirit of their army was non-existent, and the inequality both in planning and military capability was vast enough to make any notion - any comprehension of resistence seem ludicrous.

We talk about the Gulf War? That's a mistaken assumption, right there; the first thing historians say about it was that it wasn't even really a war. The Iraq invasion was no different. To imagine Iraq putting up a resistence to US-led Western forces - in the sort of "set-piece" battleground that Macrobat was blathering about - is as ridiculous as Yugoslavia's heroically futile and stunningly stupid Merkovic coup against the Hitler-allied regent Paul in March 1941.

The outcome of the Iraqi invasion was pre-determined...that's why you see quotes talking about "days, weeks," etc. This, however, was not - and should not have been considered - the end of major combat operations in Iraq. This point seems almost self-explanatory, given a quick look at the death tally before and after "Mission Accomplished" - the mission is, quite clearly, still far from being accomplished.

greg

You are out on the end of your book learnin' limb.

Equating sizes of the respective countries with the difficulty one force might have in defeating another in battle isn't where you want to go with this post. Otherwise, we could shut down ANY anti-war debate right here and now. (Much as I'd love to!) Because the USA is bigger that means we will automatically win in Iraq?

Not necessarily.

And, think about it. We did what was needed to prevent what was feared to be an imminent catastrophe. WE DIDN'T KNOW what the challenges would be. But we militarily deposed a brutal dictator and eliminated his threat to everyone.

Blessed July never happened.

And any more attempts to minimize this phase of the war will make you look like a spoiled little pampered princess who minimizes whatever is done for her by her hard working and long suffering Daddy.