Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > How predictions for Iraq came true

How predictions for Iraq came true (Page 3)
Thread Tools
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2006, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by 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?
Hey, next maybe we could discuss what the President had for breakfast!
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2006, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat
You're clueless.
Ad Hominem

Originally Posted by Macrobat
When the CIC is coming, all kinds of crap gets done. I have 3 Presidential Unit Citations from my stint in the USAF
Braggadocio

Originally Posted by Macrobat
All you know is how to type drivel.
Ad Hominem

Originally Posted by Macrobat
...
Blank space, should you have some more BS statistics.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2006, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee
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?
IT TOOK THE BRITS 12 YEARS TO SUCCESSFULLY ELIMINATE THE MALAYSIAN INSURGENCY.

Figure on at least that long.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2006, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by abe
Hey, next maybe we could discuss what the President had for breakfast!
I can guess the two impossible things he believed beforehand.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2006, 10:58 PM
 
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.

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.
Hey, you're that guy telling people who are HIV positive that they have AIDS

(i.e. you reputation for shoddy information precedes you)

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2006, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo
Hey, you're that guy telling people who are HIV positive that they have AIDS

(i.e. you reputation for shoddy information precedes you)

V
Do you also kick puppies when you can't otherwise negate their natural appeal, voodoo?
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by abe
IT TOOK THE BRITS 12 YEARS TO SUCCESSFULLY ELIMINATE THE MALAYSIAN INSURGENCY.

Figure on at least that long.
i regreat i agree with you...so people from the age of 17 to 34 (actually from 7-34, 7 + 10 years) for the next 12 years should, at some point, expect to joint the army...

sad
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 12:39 AM
 
In before the lock. Reportinated.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 12:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee
i regreat i agree with you...so people from the age of 17 to 34 (actually from 7-34, 7 + 10 years) for the next 12 years should, at some point, expect to joint the army...

sad
The OTHER way of looking at the statistic is that is that we will have more time to attract and occupy the jihadist urges of terrorists who might otherwise find the only American targets of opportunity to be here IN AMERICA.

We will learn and perfect the technique of dealing with a terrorist insurgency.

There ARE some young people who GET IT and will offer their service to help keep US free and help liberate others. However, there are many others who aren't as bright.

One of these days it will be a badge of pride and honor (even more so than it already is) to be able to say you served in such a noble cause.

( Last edited by abe; Apr 14, 2006 at 12:50 AM. )
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 01:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee
i regreat i agree with you...so people from the age of 17 to 34 (actually from 7-34, 7 + 10 years) for the next 12 years should, at some point, expect to joint the army...

sad
At the end of the war in Vietnam we only needed 50,000 people in country to bring the issue to a successful conclusion. That was after we had reduced troop strength from a high in April 1969 of 543,400.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 01:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by abe
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?
Inability to comprehend? Failure to properly read my post? Failure to know what you're talking about? Don't be talking about my book learnin, abe...you clearly could use a bit of time back in the classroom.

Of course, you can not point out where I said, at any point, that the USA being bigger than Iraq means it will win. No. I said powerful. And not only that the USA is powerful, but the two most powerful countries in the world, I believe I said - including Britain in that equation, which is itself not an overly large country. Being powerful is associated with being bigger in this case, but of course that's not a rule throughout the world. Either way, I'm completely right and you're clearly misunderstanding the subject: the two most powerful countries in the world, invading a weakened Middle Eastern country, was an instant recipe for decimation. The cake turned out exactly right, didn't it.

What I don't understand about you and Kevin and a couple others, is how you've somehow built Saddam Hussein up into this monsterous figure who was such a danger to the Western world and perhaps even to the world itself. I had a most futile argument with Kevin over the same thing, pointing out that Hussein never could become a significant world power or threat, even had he possessed WMDs - he simply did not have the infrastructure or resources to compete even with countries in his own region (such as India, Pakistan, Israel, probably even Iran, etc. etc. etc), let alone world powers like the US and Britain or the others. Does the very fact that Iraq was a weak country somehow disrupt your delusions that Hussein was in fact planning some elaborate attacks on Western life, as you guys seem to think?? He was certainly a monster and a danger to his own people and the Middle East, but Iraq was a very weak country on the global scene - weak enough that Western forces could take its capitol in mere weeks, almost without any sort of fight whatsoever. (A couple hundred casualties, or whatever it was, constitutes a walk in the park as far as a full-scale invasion is concerned.)

Kevin's pretending he knows something everyone else doesn't and stopped responding a page ago, when it became apparent he was looking pretty stupid. Come on, abe - I agree with you about the current state of Iraq, but arguments like this are just gonna make you look ignorant.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 06:47 AM
 
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
Another example of that silliness.
Originally Posted by ironknee
^^ so macrobot
Oooho burn!
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by abe
Do you also kick puppies when you can't otherwise negate their natural appeal, voodoo?


Are you confusing me with someone else?

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 09:21 AM
 
medicineman speaks the truth.

well said.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 09:22 AM
 
Anything solved here yet?
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 09:24 AM
 
no, not really.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 09:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
medicineman speaks the truth.

well said.


No he's full of it, but thanks for confirming

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
medicineman
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo


No he's full of it, but thanks for confirming

V

I would reply to you, but the rules here prohibit such remarks. Perhaps you should read them.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 10:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by medicineman
I would reply to you, but the rules here prohibit such remarks.
That's ok. I probably wouldn't have read your reply anyway. Still going around telling HIV+ people they have AIDS? Still don't know the difference?

Seventy years eh? Hard to belive.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 11:51 AM
 
HIV, AIDS - close enough to the same thing.

I wouldn't say it's too far off base to lump the two together.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo
That's ok. I probably wouldn't have read your reply anyway. Still going around telling HIV+ people they have AIDS? Still don't know the difference?

Seventy years eh? Hard to belive.

V
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

HIV causes AIDS. HIV has no known cure, only treatment which attempts to inhibit the spread of HIV, for a resultant greater lifespan and quality of life. But the end result remains that an HIV+ patient will have AIDS.

If you want to tell us what you think the difference is, go ahead.

V
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
HIV, AIDS - close enough to the same thing.

I wouldn't say it's too far off base to lump the two together.
HIV is a virus.

AIDS is a syndrome caused by that virus.

HIV ≠ AIDS and HIV doesn't always result in AIDS.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
medicineman
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
HIV is a virus.

AIDS is a syndrome caused by that virus.

HIV ≠ AIDS and HIV doesn't always result in AIDS.

This is not the thread for this subject. But, in this country, we begin treating HIV positive patients for AIDS as soon as they are so diagnosed. We do not wait until they are symptomatic. If you don't like the terminology, I am sorry. If you choose to wait for the syndrome to appear, that is your right. As soon as treatment is begun, they are referred to as AIDS patients. They are not 'well' patients, 'could be' patients or whatever innocuous category you would like.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
If you want to tell us what you think the difference is, go ahead.

V
I don't think what I know.

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by abe
At the end of the war in Vietnam we only needed 50,000 people in country to bring the issue to a successful conclusion. That was after we had reduced troop strength from a high in April 1969 of 543,400.
woa...abe...successful conclusion? we lost that war...vietnamis all commies...what are you talking about?
     
von Wrangell  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 02:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by medicineman
This is not the thread for this subject. But, in this country, we begin treating HIV positive patients for AIDS as soon as they are so diagnosed. We do not wait until they are symptomatic. If you don't like the terminology, I am sorry. If you choose to wait for the syndrome to appear, that is your right. As soon as treatment is begun, they are referred to as AIDS patients. They are not 'well' patients, 'could be' patients or whatever innocuous category you would like.
They'd be receiving HIV-treatment. Not AIDS treatment.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Another example of that silliness.

Oooho burn!
macrobat...just a simple typo...gees
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by medicineman
As soon as treatment is begun, they are referred to as AIDS patients.
Perhaps for ease of communication.

I could refer to you as "pumpkin" but that wouldn't make you one.

This is the actual CDC definition:

"includes all HIV-infected adults and adolescents who have less than 200 CD4+ T-lymphocytes/microlitre or a CD4+ T-lymphocyte percent of total lymphocytes less than 14, or who have been diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis, invasive cervical cancer, or recurrent pneumonia'"

No reference to treatment there.
     
medicineman
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Perhaps for ease of communication.

I could refer to you as "pumpkin" but that wouldn't make you one.

This is the actual CDC definition:

"includes all HIV-infected adults and adolescents who have less than 200 CD4+ T-lymphocytes/microlitre or a CD4+ T-lymphocyte percent of total lymphocytes less than 14, or who have been diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis, invasive cervical cancer, or recurrent pneumonia'"

No reference to treatment there.
Perhaps you haven't been following the thread. I'll make this as simple as I can. You visit a doctor, for whatever reason. Your fasting blood sugar is 124. He prescribes a sulfonurea. He indicates that you are diabetic. He doesn't wait till it reaches 126. Your blood pressure is 130/89. He prescribes HCT. He indicates you are hypertensive. He doesn't wait till it reaches 130/90. A Rapid Strep test comes back positive. He prescribes a penicillin. He doesn't wait till you become sympyomatic. When your t4 cell count declines, he begins treatment. He doesn't wait for the first pustule to become evident. That there is no reference to treatment in diagosing disease states, does not preclude that disease state. The point is that, when something is diagnosed, treatment is begun. Should you not fill your prescriptions, or take the meds, doesn't change that state.

You can use whatever linguistic, feel good, terminology you like. If it makes you feel better to be called pre-diabetic, or pre-hypertensive, or pre-AIDS, then go for it.
     
medicineman
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
They'd be receiving HIV-treatment. Not AIDS treatment.
Perhaps this may help you: http://www.avert.org/introtrt.htm
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by medicineman
Perhaps this may help you: http://www.avert.org/introtrt.htm
Don't pay attention to this part though:

Originally Posted by avert.org
As time goes by, a person who has been infected with HIV is likely to become ill more and more often until, usually several years after infection, they become ill with one of a number of particularly severe illnesses. It is at this point that they are said to have AIDS - when they first become seriously ill, or when the number of immune system cells left in their body drops below a particular point.
It may lead you to some crazy "feel-good" hypothesis or something.
     
medicineman
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Don't pay attention to this part though:



It may lead you to some crazy "feel-good" hypothesis or something.
You obviously think there is a difference in treatment. Cool for you.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
Inability to comprehend? Failure to properly read my post? Failure to know what you're talking about? Don't be talking about my book learnin, abe...you clearly could use a bit of time back in the classroom.

Of course, you can not point out where I said, at any point, that the USA being bigger than Iraq means it will win. No. I said powerful. And not only that the USA is powerful, but the two most powerful countries in the world, I believe I said - including Britain in that equation, which is itself not an overly large country. Being powerful is associated with being bigger in this case, but of course that's not a rule throughout the world. Either way, I'm completely right and you're clearly misunderstanding the subject: the two most powerful countries in the world, invading a weakened Middle Eastern country, was an instant recipe for decimation. The cake turned out exactly right, didn't it.

What I don't understand about you and Kevin and a couple others, is how you've somehow built Saddam Hussein up into this monsterous figure who was such a danger to the Western world and perhaps even to the world itself. I had a most futile argument with Kevin over the same thing, pointing out that Hussein never could become a significant world power or threat, even had he possessed WMDs - he simply did not have the infrastructure or resources to compete even with countries in his own region (such as India, Pakistan, Israel, probably even Iran, etc. etc. etc), let alone world powers like the US and Britain or the others. Does the very fact that Iraq was a weak country somehow disrupt your delusions that Hussein was in fact planning some elaborate attacks on Western life, as you guys seem to think?? He was certainly a monster and a danger to his own people and the Middle East, but Iraq was a very weak country on the global scene - weak enough that Western forces could take its capitol in mere weeks, almost without any sort of fight whatsoever. (A couple hundred casualties, or whatever it was, constitutes a walk in the park as far as a full-scale invasion is concerned.)

Kevin's pretending he knows something everyone else doesn't and stopped responding a page ago, when it became apparent he was looking pretty stupid. Come on, abe - I agree with you about the current state of Iraq, but arguments like this are just gonna make you look ignorant.

greg
If you were intellectually honest and academically inclined enough you would find, after very little investigation, that Saddam Hussein could NOT be discounted as an imminent threat and even if GWB wanted to take Saddam down ANYWAY, as the POTUS who had just watched his nation (and HIS Administration) BLINDSIDED by M.E. terrorists he DID NOT KNOW exactly what Saddam was up to, short term or long term.

Every single thing having to do with the WoT and the security of the USA and our hopes of keeping the Middle East from boiling over or even BLOWING UP COMPLETELY had to do with Saddam.

We all are in an uproar about Iran, now?

Well, Iran has never invaded it's neighbor. Iran hasn't ignored 12 years of UN resolutions. Iran hasn't killed it's own people with WMD's nor brutalized them as Saddam did his populace. Iran, to our knowledge, hasn't tried assassinating a former President of the United States. Though they are no angels and pose a threat that must be dealt with in SOME way, Iran hasn't actually done any number of things that Saddam had DONE.

You can't discount the possibility of imminent attacks from him
You can't discount the possibility of future attacks from him
You can't discount the possibility of existing relationships with other known terror sponsors.
You can't discount the possibility of his sponsoring and exporting terror.
You can't discount the possibility of his setting off a conflagration which would have raised violence levels and spread the violence throughout the M.E.
You can't discount the possibility that the ad-hoc measures that were taken to 'contain' him after the Gulf War were crumbling and weren't going to remain viable much longer IF THEY EVER HAD BEEN.

Why don't you Google "Blessed July" and then tell us how contained you think Saddam was?

Or read this:


The Reality of Saddam’s Threat
The U.S. could not have delayed dealing with Saddam Hussein.
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0407130904.asp

Or this:

10/8/2004

The Threat Of Saddam

Filed under:
General News
Interesting
— chadster @ 9:48 am
The Duelfer report confirms many of my deepest suspicions about Saddam’s threat. The idea first came to me in a less developed form earlier this year, but in the face of allegations that Saddam smuggled what weapons he had to Syria and Jordan (an idea which has not yet been discredited), I just gave it the “wait and see” treatment.

Now, I think it’s the most likely explaination of what happened to the WMD factor.

Here’s what happened. After the Gulf War, Saddam realized that economic sanctions would be too great to keep his WMDs and WMD programs running. Thus, he either destroyed them, dismantled them while keeping the pieces, quietly passed them off to his foreign friends, or all of the above.

Then, in 1996, with the advent of the Oil-For-Food program, Saddam saw an opportunity to exploit the one thing he knew the most about. Greed.

Realizing that he had the international community eating out of his hand, he started making friends and influencing people. The vast amounts of money he made off the deals went to lavish palaces, his personal Babylon reconstruction project, and a backup fund for his WMD program. This way, he could keep the people too poor and weak to resist, while keeping up his bankroll. Meanwhile, as long as he kept the suspicion of a WMD program going, the sanctions would still be in place, and he’d still get the money. Saddam held all the cards, and he could have ended the sanctions at will. This would have left him free to dig up his WMD program with the renewed vigor of billions of dollars in stolen moolah, and nobody would have dared to stop him. Especially with the Al-Qaeda and Hamas friends he had in tow.

So, was the threat of a restarted weapon program enough to go in? Yes.

For one thing, Saddam was influencing the dynamic of foreign policy through illegal and barbaric means of thievery and deception. The little paper tiger made the bears, weasels, and skunks bow in his presence in the interest of cheap oil. Saddam’s own Coalition of the Bribed were holding up international progress, and enabling one of the most brutal regimes known to man in its quest for an empire rivaled only by the first Babylonian empire.

For another, Saddam, even with a dismantled WMD program, was still lightyears ahead of his neighbors, even in Iran. He still had all the pieces, he just needed the x-factor of funding to restart it. And with his terroristic friends with their common enemies of Israel and the U.S., he would have had another method of striking at his targets without risking the re-imposition of economic sanctions. He would have played the role of Godfather in the gritty world of foreign affairs.

So, given that:

Saddam was robbing the international community blind while they were looking straight at him.
Saddam still had the pieces of his program ready to be called up at will, placing him in material breach of U.N. and U.S. demands.
Saddam harbored and funded terrorists, and would have very likely provided them with arms to further his cause.
Saddam constantly held the threat of WMDs over the region in order to solidify his power, thus creating an unstable hostile climate of malicious corruption and Islamist supremacy.
Saddam’s cease-fire with the U.S. from the Gulf War had been breached many times, giving the U.S. the right to wipe ‘em out at any point past the Gulf War.
“The threat of force” would have never ended Saddam’s crimes, since he was engaged in the exact same game.
The strategic location of Iraq makes for an ideal ally in the face of other developing threats in the region.
Saddam’s regime brought nothing but hardship, threats, and hurt to his own people and to the international community, and moral support for terrorists worldwide.
…it is therefore my opinion that the war in Iraq was strategically, morally, and politically justified.
chadster.capitalfocus.org/index.php?p=290 - 180k
( Last edited by abe; Apr 14, 2006 at 08:29 PM. )
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee
woa...abe...successful conclusion? we lost that war...vietnamis all commies...what are you talking about?
abe abe...please respond to this
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee
abe abe...please respond to this
The war was being won. The ARVN forces were doing a good job and things were on their way to being settled in our favor until the funding was cut off and we were forced to abandon the South Vietnamese.

They weren't ready to do it all without our minimal support, as minimal as a troop strength of 50,000 might be considered.

If you and a buddy are working on a project together and you're facing a deadline, how would you feel if your pal's wife called and said he had to come home before the project was complete?

Well, that's just how the Vietnam war ended.

For US.

For the South Vietnamese the war ended quite differently.

You don't want to know the details.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee
woa...abe...successful conclusion? we lost that war...vietnamis all commies...what are you talking about?
A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam. By Lewis Sorley. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999. 507 pages. $28.00. Reviewed by Colonel Stuart A. Herrington, USA Ret., author of Stalking the Vietcong: Inside Operation Phoenix, and Traitors Among Us: Inside the Spy Catcher's World.

Twenty-five years after the tragic loss of the Vietnam War, distinguished historian and former soldier Lewis Sorley has added his voice to the growing chorus of revisionist historians who are telling it like it really was. In A Better War, Sorley hammers home a thesis not unfamiliar to many of us who served in Vietnam during the post-Tet years: that America's first lost war need not have ended in the ignominious departure of our Ambassador from the roof of his Embassy.

The bulk of Sorley's contribution is a riveting, well-sourced, and highly readable account of General Creighton Abrams' tenure as Commander, US Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (COMUSMACV). This is the drama of how General Abrams, Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, John Paul Vann, and William Colby pursued a whole new, "catch-up ball" approach to the war in the wake of General William Westmoreland's discredited strategy of attrition, while in Washington, Pentacrats and congressmen alike were intent on extracting America from Vietnam rather than embracing a strategy or solution that would justify American and South Vietnamese sacrifices.

Sorley's work is in many ways a companion volume to the late William Colby's Lost Victory. Sorley supports Colby's contention that by 1969 the United States had finally "broken the code" to cope with Vietcong penetration of Vietnam's villages and hamlets. He also reminds us that Abrams' and Bunker's emphasis on pacification and its campaign to root out the Vietcong infrastructure was successful (so much so that Hanoi twice resorted to conventional warfare waged by its regular divisions in its relentless campaign to topple the South Vietnamese government).

Citing both South Vietnamese and Vietnamese communist sources, Sorley paints a picture quite familiar to those of us who served as advisors to the Vietnamese in the later years of the war. Instead of districts, villages, and hamlets--where, until 1969, bridges were out, roads were mined nightly, and the threat of ambush was ever-present--many of us served in bustling, prosperous rural areas where one could ride alone in a jeep on almost all roads (as I did in 1971-72 in Hau Nghia province). This was a countryside where farmers could grow multiple crops of miracle rice, often relieved of the burdensome taxation of the revolution. Vietcong shadow government cadre, deprived of support from Cambodian sanctuaries raided in 1970, rallied to the government in record numbers, while those who refused to give up were stalked by the territorial forces and the Phoenix program, often reduced to hiding in remote bunkers and swamps. This was the "better war," the way it should have been fought from the beginning.

Sorley's depiction of how General Abrams dedicated himself to this task is compelling. This meticulously researched work benefits greatly from his personal energy in transcribing thousands of hours of audio tapes made during General Abrams' four-year tour as COMUSMACV from 1968 to 1972, and working the system to declassify them.

Extensive verbatim quotes of the crusty general's remarks to his staff during regular intelligence update briefings lend authenticity to the account. They give the reader the sense of being present in the MACV Command Center as Abrams vents his frustrations while waging a two-front war--against the communists in Vietnam and against the coalition of defeatist Pentacrats and lawmakers in Washington (arguably the more dangerous of the two foes).

But the real story in A Better War is how Abrams waged a classic "do more with less" struggle. Sorley reminds us that Abrams assumed command in 1968 when 500,000 American military were in Vietnam, yet the Vietnamese countryside remained dangerous--a testament to the bankruptcy of the strategy of attrition. Four years later, when Abrams departed MACV to become Army Chief of Staff, only 50,000 Americans remained in country, but well over 90 percent of the countryside was secure. Pacification had worked, and although South Vietnam's imperfect democracy and military forces had vulnerabilities, Hanoi's go-for-broke 1972 Easter Offensive had failed, North Vietnam's army was in disarray, and it was our war to lose from that point forward.

Sorley's narration of opportunity lost cannot help but evoke sadness and frustration among readers who served in Vietnam or anyone who has wondered over the years how the superpower that could send men to the moon failed to prevail over an adversary that Lyndon Johnson called a "two-bit, penny-ante country." That we actually came closer to victory than most thought is Sorley's message, delivered with a powerful broadside aimed at the anti-war movement's love affair with their romanticized image of the Vietnamese communists, and punctuated by a well-aimed volley directed at the anti-war movement's allies in the US Congress.

But while Sorley's persuasive thesis holds together and comports with what this reviewer experienced on the ground in Vietnam, it also reminds us of an important lesson-learned (or, more accurately, not so well-learned). Namely, that from 1964 to 1968, because of America's ignorance of Vietnamese geography, history, culture, and language, the US military consistently underestimated its adversary, underestimated (and later overestimated) its ally, and, in so doing, squandered the support for the war that had existed in the media, in the Congress, and among the American people. As a result, when Creighton Abrams took the helm and teamed up with Ambassador Bunker and the South Vietnamese to wage an integrated political, military, economic, and psychological campaign, it was too late.

This is a book best read in conjunction with other important works, among which this reviewer numbers William Colby's excellent Lost Victory and Robert McNamara's In Retrospect (however odious its admissions). Sorley's scholarship confirms what should have been self-evident for years: most of the 2.6 million American men and women who served in Vietnam can hold their heads high, while those senior managers (not leaders) in Washington who mandated a losing strategy and then gave up on the war at a time when victory was within reach richly deserve the increasing share of the blame that historians and scholars like Lewis Sorley are laying at their feet.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/p...mn/aut-rev.htm

And with the help of the anti-war movement, we lost it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...N+NAGL&pl=true

Segment 1: Guest Host James Fallows from The Atlantic Monthly talks about lessons learned in Vietnam and the U.S. Military strategy in Iraq with:

Lt. Col. John Nagl, U.S. Army Lt. Col. Lewis Sorley, U.S. Army (Retired) Lt. Col. Conrad Crane, U.S. Army (Retired)

Segment 3: A preview of the Final Four with sports author John Feinstein and CBS Sports journalist Billy Packer.

Segment 4: Television producer Abigail Pogrebin talks with Charlie Rose about her new book “Stars of David." «
Sorley said on Charlie Rose that the fighting wasn't over, but the war was WON. After Westmoreland's failed strategy of 'winning by attrition" and overwhelming force was abandoned he was replaced by Gen. Creighton Abrahms.

Then, quietly and with too little fanfare or notice by the media or the American public, he, Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker and CIA Chief William Colby began working together in a more coordinated fashion. Gen. Abrahms said, you have to operate on all the levels on which the enemy operates in order to be successful.

They began to emphasize upgrading the South Vietnamese forces strength and capabilities. They emphasized pacifying the villagers in the hamlets (something Westmoreland had little interest in doing). They emphasized getting the covert insurgents (the Viet Cong or V.C. or Victor Charlie, or just Charlie) off the backs of the people.

They began addressing ALL of the aspects of warfare that might positively affect the outcome. And it worked.

Until the public demanded that we cut all funding for the war.

That's when we lost it.
( Last edited by abe; Apr 14, 2006 at 10:03 PM. )
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 09:34 PM
 
^^ where do you put the "successful conclusion" part into this?

who was successful? the us? i don't think so and i am old enough to know...please explain what brand of beer are you drinking as well as your point
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 10:24 PM
 
So... ahh... lemme get this straight. 4 freakin' years after Westmoreland "squandered the support for the war that had existed in the media, in the Congress, and among the American people", the public lets it go on for another 4 freakin' years, and somehow it's their fault we lost?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2006, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by medicineman
You obviously think there is a difference in treatment. Cool for you.
I haven't mentioned treatment at all except to point out it's irrelevance to the definition.

Which is cool for me too, BTW.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 04:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee
^^ where do you put the "successful conclusion" part into this?

who was successful? the us? i don't think so and i am old enough to know...please explain what brand of beer are you drinking as well as your point
GOOD GOLLY MISS MOLLY!

Why don't you read and use the links I gave you? Instead of iron knee I'm starting to wonder if it should be "iron head."

abe
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironknee
i regreat i agree with you...so people from the age of 17 to 34 (actually from 7-34, 7 + 10 years) for the next 12 years should, at some point, expect to joint the army...

sad

At the end of the war in Vietnam we only needed 50,000 people in country to bring the issue to a successful conclusion. That was after we had reduced troop strength from a high in April 1969 of 543,400.
I know how you are trying to INSIST this sentence be interpreted. You are quite aware of the other way it can be interpreted and how I meant it. There is no point to be made by insisting on the incorrect interpretation.

You know what it means.

I know what it means.

The reader knows what it means.

Why not cut your losses?

In honor of this special time of year I'll include this allusion.

Would you also INSIST on misinterpreting this line from the Bible?

(Mark 14:30) - "And Jesus *said to him, "Truly I say to you, that you yourself this very night, before a cock crows twice, shall three times deny Me..."
(cue George Carlin routine)
( Last edited by abe; Apr 15, 2006 at 05:02 AM. )
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2006, 06:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego
So... ahh... lemme get this straight. 4 freakin' years after Westmoreland "squandered the support for the war that had existed in the media, in the Congress, and among the American people", the public lets it go on for another 4 freakin' years, and somehow it's their fault we lost?
It's like the dynamics of a dysfunctional romantic relationship. The Government/Military is the man. The public is the woman.

At the beginning both are on the same page.

They both agree that he should help their neighbor, Arvy defend his home against the Ho's because if the Ho's take over Arvy's house they might take over several houses near Arvy and then, there goes the neighborhood!

So, to protect the community from the Ho's the woman tacitly agrees to allow the man to help defend against the Ho's, even though she knows it will take some time to finish.

After a while, things start getting difficult at Arvy's and the woman starts to fret. Nervous that she's losing patience and that he's gotta help Arvy if he hopes to prevent a Ho takeover of the community, he decides to increase his efforts and resources to hurry up and finish the job.

He spends more time at Arvy's and quadruples his efforts and throws more and more resources at the project. But the Ho's won't stop.

After several weeks she begins openly nagging him and the nagging and the arguments become worse and worse. But still he has the will and dedication to continue until he and Arvy
get a new book to figure out the best way to quell the Ho's.

But by that time he and she have stopped talking. He continues his dedicated work and he and Arvy begin to see results! Soon, he no longer needs the same amount of resources that he once had. And so, in a good faith attempt to repair their relationship he gives her sole control over the family finances. And she continues to give him the money he needs.

Until one day the Ho's are on the run and though they haven't disappeared they are beaten and the victory is virtually assured. But, she hasn't been informed of this progress and instead of giving him the small amount of $$ necessary to help Arvy completely vanquish the Ho's, she cuts him off completely and calls him home.

He tries to tell her that victory is assured if she'll just give him the small amount needed to fund the remaining effort and to allow him to spend just a little more time there.

Nope.

She had bitched and griped and nagged and complained and at a certain point nothing he said was going to make a difference to her.

She called him home and all he could say to Arvy was, sorry.

The Ho's took over Arvy's house and killed many of Arvy's family because they were friendly with the man. The man had PROMISED to stand by Arvy. The woman didn't care.

Over the next few years whenever she went to the market or anywhere in town and tried to pay with a check, no one would take it. They always insisted she pay with cash. Finally, she cried that she was a good and honest person, why should they treat her with such disrespect.

The merchants all said the same thing. We saw how you let Arvy down after giving him your word that you would support him to the end. You can not be trusted.

BACK TO REALITY.

The first few months of every war of this duration takes time to find the groove. When we found the groove in Vietnam the anti-war movement finally reached critical mass and was able to cut the purse strings.

An argument can be made that every military and terrorist hit we've suffered since then has been because of the loss in Vietnam.

OBL knew we were a paper tiger. All he had to do was hit us hard enough and we'd capitulate.

The anti-war movement now is telling him he's correct.

Zarqawi knows that all they have to do is outlast the short sighted Americans Attention Deficit Disorder and their love of pleasure and an abhorrence of difficulty or sacrifice.

With that kind of reputation it invited attack. And with every anti-war protest and every city that votes to end the war the Ho's, er, I mean al Qaeda is encouraged to fight on just one day longer until the women call home their men.

But this time it won't be trust and prestige and honor (and the lives of the Avry's or Iraqi's who were murdered after we reneged on our promise) that we would lose.

I've spent time talking about what happens if we were to lose our nerve, and Iraq would fall to al Qaeda. And the stakes are high. Look, I understand some don't view that we're in a war against the terrorists. I know that. And therefore, there's a sense that 9/11 might have been an isolated incident. I just don't agree. And here's what I -- here's the basis from which I made decisions. You heard one -- is that 9/11 affected the way I think. I know these are like totalitarian fascists; they have an ideology, they have a desire to spread that ideology, and they're willing to use tactics to achieve their strategy.

And one of the tactics I said early on in the speech -- the stated objectives of al Qaeda. This isn't my imagination of their strategy, this is what they have told us. And I presume you want the Commander-in-Chief to take the words of the enemy seriously. And they have told us they believe that we're soft and that with time we'll leave, and they'll fill the vacuum. And they want to plan and plot and hurt Americans. That's what they have said. And I think it's really important we take their words very seriously. GWB 3/20/06

THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE
If we and our Iraqi partners fail in Iraq, Iraq will become:

• A safe haven for terrorists as Afghanistan once was, only this time in some of the world’s
most strategic territory, with vast natural resources to exploit and to use to fund future attacks.

• A country where oppression – and the brutal imposition of inhumane practices, such as those
of the Taliban in Afghanistan – is pervasive.

• A failed state and source of instability for the entire Middle East, with all the attendant risks
and incalculable costs for American security and prosperity.

Furthermore, if we and our Iraqi partners fail in Iraq, the terrorists will have:

• Won a decisive victory over the United States, vindicating their tactics of beheadings, suicide
bombings, and ruthless intimidation of civilians, inviting more deadly attacks against
Americans and other free people across the globe.

• Placed the American people in greater danger by destabilizing a vital region, weakening our
friends, and clearing the way for terrorist attacks here at home. The terrorists will be
emboldened in their belief that America cannot stand and fight, but will cut and run in the
face of adversity.

• Called into question American credibility and commitment in the region and the world. Our
friends and foes alike would doubt our staying power, and this would damage our efforts to
counter other security threats and to advance other economic and political interests worldwide.

Since 1998, Al Qaida has repeatedly cited Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia, as examples to
encourage more attacks against America and our interests overseas.

• Weakened the growing democratic impulses in the region. Middle East reformers would
never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and pluralism in the
region – a historic opportunity, central to America’s long-term security, forever lost.
If we retreat from Iraq, the terrorists will pursue us and our allies, expanding
the fight to the rest of the region and to our own shores.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:07 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,