[Logic]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
Fine, so we are inconsistent in applying the Geneva convention. I'm still not sure how that causes terrorism, but we are inconsistent nonetheless.

No, a puppet regime is when a country's government is not controlled by its own people, but by another country. The US has indicated they will do everything they can to get a government comprised of Iraqi people as quickly as possible. Obviously, that won't happen by Monday, but the US has not given any indication they want to stay in Iraq any longer than necessary. And as you state, it hasn't happened yet, so we don't know how it will turn out.

It's not just the Geneva convention. But the inconsistancy is one of the major factors causing the anti-western stance in the middle-east. How is the middle-east to trust you when you ship money and weapons technology to one country and then invade the next, all depending on if they are pro-western or anti-western? This is what I-m afraid many americans don't realise.

Of course they wouldn't set up a few americans and brits to run the country. But when you choose the ones allowed to partake in the buildup you are indirectly controling in what way they will develop. That is one of the things the middle-east is afraid of.

I will believe that this is not a puppet regime if in 6 months or 12 a new government directly elected by the Iraqi people is elected. Not to mention that any deals the Chalabi/General regime made are canceled and the next one is free to deal with whomever they want.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey 

So we really won't know for a while about democracy. On the other hand, it should be fairly obvious in two or three years whether things are at least better than under Hussein.

Yep.

(Sorry about the ancient thread, but I feel a re-assessment of what was said then is appropriate.)

[marden]

I wasn't around back then but here's what Newt Gingrich says; we went in with a viable plan, small, quick and hard hitting but then switched to an occupation strategy which needs 500,000 minimum to implement but we didn't add the needed manpower to pull off that strategy.

That's it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by marden 

I wasn't around back then but here's what Newt Gingrich says; we went in with a viable plan, small, quick and hard hitting but then switched to an occupation strategy which needs 500,000 minimum to implement but we didn't add the needed manpower to pull off that strategy.

That's it.

And nobody saw fit to impose martial law for a while (I expect to keep the libs back home happy). The whole thing would have been done and dusted by now if they had.

[marden]

...

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

I wasn't around back then but here's what Newt Gingrich says; we went in with a viable plan, small, quick and hard hitting but then switched to an occupation strategy which needs 500,000 minimum to implement but we didn't add the needed manpower to pull off that strategy.

If that's all Newt Gingrich said then he's an idiot. How can you invade Iraq without an occupation strategy? Once you've toppled the government (even if you don't fire the civil servants) how can you not plan to fill its boots? Everyone knew that 500,000 troops were needed to stabilise Iraq. Everyone except the neocons!

The plan was never viable. Even some of the neocons now admit that.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by marden 

I wasn't around back then but here's what Newt Gingrich says; we went in with a viable plan, small, quick and hard hitting but then switched to an occupation strategy which needs 500,000 minimum to implement but we didn't add the needed manpower to pull off that strategy.

That's it.

Why won't you tell an Iraqi that face to face?

[Sky Captain]

Neocons.
haha
Why don't we all just whip them out right now.


Why was European occupation a "success"?(I personaly think it was a disaster but that's another topic)
Why was Asian occupation a "success"?
"We're" still there.(which I don't think had anything to do with the Cold War)

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Why was European occupation a "success"?(I personaly think it was a disaster but that's another topic)

Because they had the right number of soldiers in place to keep the peace. The UN has a ratio of peacekeepers to civilians that they have developed through various peace-keeping operations. That ratio suggested somewhere north of 500,000 soldiers were needed to stabilise Iraq. That's what most of the generals told Rumsfeld.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Why won't you tell an Iraqi that face to face?

What's to tell? It was two plans, each one could have worked but not together. It's like they put a mini-van body on a sports car chassis.

It could have succeeded as a sports car or it could have worked as a mini-van. But no one in command made that distinction.

According to Gingrich.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Because they had the right number of soldiers in place to keep the peace. The UN has a ratio of peacekeepers to civilians that they have developed through various peace-keeping operations. That ratio suggested somewhere north of 500,000 soldiers were needed to stabilise Iraq. That's what most of the generals told Rumsfeld.

Look at the strategy in Afghanistan. Far fewer troops. We kept things going pretty well there until recently. There was certainly a less chaotic outcome in Afghanistan than in Iraq, despite your pronouncements.

What were the generals telling him about Afghanistan?

And the President (or was it Rummy?) is on record as saying he has never vetoed any requests for increased troop strength from the Generals on the ground.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

Look at the strategy in Afghanistan. Far fewer troops. We kept things going pretty well there until recently. There was certainly a less chaotic outcome in Afghanistan than in Iraq, despite your pronouncements.

I don't think you understood my point. History teaches us that successful occupations/peace-keeping operations require a minimum troop to civilian ratio of 20 troops per 1,000 civilians. Before going into Iraq, Bush was told that this was the ratio that they needed to use.

There are 25 million people in Iraq which means you need 500,000 soldiers to secure it. In 2003, the US ratio was 6 per 1,000; nearly 4 times too few troops.

When it comes to Afghanistan, you said "until recently". That is precisely the point. Afghanistan is not an example of a successful mission. The ratio there is lower than in Iraq and even lower than Somalia. In the South (Cdn-UK-NL-Aus-Den-Rom), it's about 3.5 per 1,000, in the East (US), it's 1.5 per 1000, in the North (Ger-Swe-Nor), it's 0.4 per 1,000, West (Ita-Spn-US) it's 0.6 per 1000 and in Kabul (UK-Fra), it's 2.2 per 1000. There are lots of other reasons why Afghanistan is different to Iraq; not the least being the composition of the force in Afghanistan, but you cannot point to Afghanistan as an example of a successful mission using less than the accepted ratio.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I don't think you understood my point. History teaches us that successful occupations/peace-keeping operations require a minimum troop to civilian ratio of 20 troops per 1,000 civilians. Before going into Iraq, Bush was told that this was the ratio that they needed to use.

There are 25 million people in Iraq which means you need 500,000 soldiers to secure it. In 2003, the US ratio was 6 per 1,000; nearly 4 times too few troops.

When it comes to Afghanistan, you said "until recently". That is precisely the point. Afghanistan is not an example of a successful mission. The ratio there is lower than in Iraq and even lower than Somalia. In the South (Cdn-UK-NL-Aus-Den-Rom), it's about 3.5 per 1,000, in the East (US), it's 1.5 per 1000, in the North (Ger-Swe-Nor), it's 0.4 per 1,000, West (Ita-Spn-US) it's 0.6 per 1000 and in Kabul (UK-Fra), it's 2.2 per 1000. There are lots of other reasons why Afghanistan is different to Iraq; not the least being the composition of the force in Afghanistan, but you cannot point to Afghanistan as an example of a successful mission using less than the accepted ratio.

Maybe that ratio is correct, maybe not.

But no one said you have to use troops of any particular nation.

In other words, if the majority of the Iraqi military had been retained those numbers could have sufficed to make up the necessary difference.

Try this formula for success in Iraq.

Army Captain's Simple Demonstration: How to Win in Iraq
Officer Killed in Battle, but His Ideas Live On
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2729584

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

But no one said you have to use troops of any particular nation.

In other words, if the majority of the Iraqi military had been retained those numbers could have sufficed to make up the necessary difference.

No, the ratio is based on past experience. It looks at succesful mission and works out how many occupying troops were required. It specifically excludes the local soldiers. 500,000 foreign troops were required in Iraq. That is what Rumsfeld was told.

Besides, there is no formula for success in Iraq. It's a stuff up and there is no fixing it. Honestly, anyone who still believes that you can turn Iraq around should be committed.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

No, the ratio is based on past experience. It looks at succesful mission and works out how many occupying troops were required. It specifically excludes the local soldiers. 500,000 foreign troops were required in Iraq. That is what Rumsfeld was told.

Besides, there is no formula for success in Iraq. It's a stuff up and there is no fixing it. Honestly, anyone who still believes that you can turn Iraq around should be committed.

Oh don't be silly. We all know that it WILL be settled eventually. It won't be a perpetual war zone til the end of time (unless that happens anytime soon).

That is why the Iranians are fighting so hard to create the chaos that will send us home with our tail between our legs. They know that they can use more violence than we could ever get away with and that as well as the fact that they all speak the same lingo will enable them to "FIX" Iraq in no time.

They see Iraq as a fixer upper and while we are in the front of the house trying to fix things, the Iranians are in the back pulling out wall studs and electrical conduit and introducing termites.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

Oh don't be silly. We all know that it WILL be settled eventually. It won't be a perpetual war zone til the end of time (unless that happens anytime soon).

I was only 60% silly though.

What I said is that success in Iraq is never going to happen. I never said Iraq will never settle. Success in Iraq meant the US achieving its strategic aims in invading. The only success they had was in removing Saddam Hussein. That was not a strategic success. They didn't achieve any of their strategic aims, no matter how you define those.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I was only 60% silly though.

Originally Posted by Troll 

What I said is that success in Iraq is never going to happen. I never said Iraq will never settle. Success in Iraq meant the US achieving its strategic aims in invading. The only success they had was in removing Saddam Hussein. That was not a strategic success. They didn't achieve any of their strategic aims, no matter how you define those.

As long as there are Iraqis fighting to make their country strong and free and democratic we must not give up.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden 

As long as there are Iraqis fighting to make their country strong and free and democratic we must not give up.

The problem is that they're fighting YOU.

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika 

The problem is that they're fighting YOU.

Don't say I didn't contribute to your higher education.

Army Captain's Simple Demonstration: How to Win in Iraq
Officer Killed in Battle, but His Ideas Live On
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2729584

[analogika]

Are you going to keep posting that little link there like it means something?

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Are you going to keep posting that little link there like it means something?

You have to CLIQUE on it and then REED it and then talk to me.

[analogika]

Not again, thanks.

And your mom says I don't "HAVE TO" do anything, let alone talk to you.

[marden]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Not again, thanks.

And your mom says I don't "HAVE TO" do anything, let alone talk to you.

Mother knows everything that Father doesn't and between the two of them is reposed the combined wisdom of the known world.

If she says it, believe it.

That's how I became so smart.

If you aspire to the same you might do well to avail yourself of her wise counsel.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by marden 

Mother knows everything that Father doesn't and between the two of them is reposed the combined wisdom of the known world.

If she says it, believe it.

That's how I became so smart.

If we see a sudden rise in kids not listening to their parents, I blame this post.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

If we see a sudden rise in kids not listening to their parents, I blame this post.

If we see a sudden rise in parents using corporal punishment, giving their kids up for adoption or disinheriting their children, I blame this post.

[Dakar²]

You flatter me.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You flatter me.

I was afraid of that.