We Have Not Lost This War… Yet

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:18 am

But Bill, at least their country wasn't occupied by the evil crusading infidels. It was a paradise led by the man named the DNC's Nice Guy of the Year.

Iraq in the good old days

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:05 pm

I was being a smart ass about the electricity in Iraq but I came across this.

"It's going to take them about three months to form a government and I'm sure the negotiations will be tough," said Salaam Ali, a 35-year-old Shi'ite shopkeeper on the unusually calm streets of central Baghdad.

"We hope the elections will bring all Iraqis together -- Shi'ites, Sunnis and others," he said, citing a good electricity supply as his most pressing need.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:03 pm

Indeed the Sunni insurgents have been creating their own hell. The north and the south thrive while all the major Sunni cities don't have the most basic services when the insurgents constanly attack them. It reminds me of the race riots in Detroit in the 1960s, where the disenfranchised burned down their own neighborhoods.

The Sunnis are pissed. They have gone to the polls to throw the bums out. They want the most basic services, just like any person in a civilized country should have. Eleven million votors showed up yesterday to bring in a new government. That's a seventy (70) percent turnout. Down with the present government! Up with ours! Out with the evil occupiers!

Sounds like a well-oiled democracy to me!

But of course we all know that those Middle Eastern towelheads are too unsophisticated to have such a government, and we're wasting our time with such distractions. We're just there for the oil, you know...

- Bill

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:11 pm

Don't tell the hand wringers Bill, but Conde has been personally delivering gallons of gas to me for the last year. Came in handy when Bush orchestrated that entire Katrina deal to help the oil companies increase their profits. It pays to vote Republican.

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:15 pm

Wow.

I guess maybee we should invade every country in the world that is corrupt huh? Why stop at Iraq? Korea and Iraq are both a bit pesky with there potential to proliferate WMD's right? That's the reason why so many of us wanted to stop Saddam. The thought of a vial of anthrax getting into the US and infecting us was pretty scarry. Ohh wait, we're already in way over our heads .
.

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:22 pm

Bush orchestrated that entire Katrina deal to help the oil companies increase their profits. It pays to vote Republican

Actually, the shareholders of the oil companies should toss the senior management out for producing such as small % of net income as related to total revenues. GE's board would have fired the whole crew for such poor performance and either sold or closed down most of the refineries. Anything less than 10% net income is unacceptable!

Rich, the predatory capitalist.

-Metablade- · Post by **-Metablade-** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:38 pm

The new Iraqi elections:

Now with 30% less bloodshed!

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 4:51 pm

Ben wrote:
I guess maybee we should invade every country in the world that is corrupt huh? Why stop at Iraq?

1) Saddam invaded and took over Kuwait to pay for the Iran/Iraq war debt. The Kuwaitis asked the world for help. The world responded in kind. Saddam's army blew up every oil well they could on the way out.

2) As part of the surrender agreement he signed, Saddam said he would do certain things. He did not. He violated thirteen UN resolutions.

3) It was Saddam's intent to show the Arab world that the UN was irrelevant. He did a pretty damn good job. Arabs in the Middle East respect power. Many secretly wouldn't mind a bit of expansion of "Middle Eastern influence."

4) As part of the agreement Saddam made with the UN, the US and British were forced to enforce "no fly" zones over the north and the south. This was to keep Uncle Saddam from his normal course of ethnic cleansing. Saddam REPEATEDLY fired on our planes. Each and every one of these acts were acts of war.

5) Saddam funded the families of homicide bombers, and openly flaunted it. He used UN oil-for-food money to do this. It was no big deal, you know. All he was doing was killing the dirty jews.

6) Saddam left everything in place to re-start his WMD program once the sanctions were lifted. For example it is a matter of fact that he was sitting on literally tons of yellocake. He didn't need any of the stuff in Africa that caused the whole Vallery Plume scandal. He had everything he needed to refine for a few nuclear weapons. And we all know that he had no problem using WMDs. Better yet, just pass it on to someone else, and feign ignorance. That's the REALLY scary scenario.

7) Long before we invaded, al Zarqawi had set up camp in Iraq. Al Zarqawi is an OBL-trained WMD specialist. We all knew this. We can only guess what the relationship was between Zarqawi and Saddam. Regardless, al Zarqawi is THE al qaeda representative in Iraq. We all know he would have no problem acquiring "whatever" and sending it over to our country - if he could. If we don't get him and his cronies, it's only a matter of time before we have another 9/11.

Saddam worked really, really hard to get his butt whipped. It was his goal to show that the UN, the US, and the Brits were all paper tigers, and all these violations were part of his modus operendum. He was right only on one out of three. Even a rock star will tell you that you need to be right on two out of three.

We do have serious situations in other parts of the world, such as the mass ethnic cleansing going on in Ethiopia. But the UN doesn't give a damn. Wrong color. Wrong religion. No payola.

Iran and North Korea have not yet crossed the line of international law so brazenly. But you'd better believe they're watching what goes on in Iraq. There's an old Chinese saying; "To scare a hundred monkeys, kill one." The best use of force is not to have to use it. But paradoxically that can only happen if the world knows you might.

Bill

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:11 pm

Before criticizing what has gone on in the building of the Iraqi democracy, I think it might be a good idea for those in the peanut gallery to define success. But be careful with your definitions. You may find that the Iraqis already are outperforming what we had (or in some cases have) in our very own republic.

Seventy percent voter turnout? That sets a record, by the way, in the Arab world. And it sure makes us look pretty bad.

Bill

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:42 pm

Indeed the Sunni insurgents have been creating their own hell. The north and the south thrive while all the major Sunni cities don't have the most basic services when the insurgents constanly attack them.

You're right. The Kurds have been doing pretty well for awhile and are now trying to move their people from working for the military to the private sector. The Sunni leaders and insurgents screwed up big with forcing folks to boycott the last election and I think lost a lot of face. I really believe that a large portion of the Sunni just want to get on with their lives and this election will marginalize the apologist for old Iraq.

cxt · Post by **cxt** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:51 pm

Bill

Excellent point!

What defines "success" in the region?

They have been blowing each other up and murdering each other leaders loooonnngggg before we ever showed up.

(NOT mocking them for this--just noting a ugly fact)

If people define "success" as no attacks--ever---then the whole region is and always has been, and always will be a failure.

Heck, it took how long for the IRA amd like groups to renounce violence--100 pus years???

Its like when folks accuse the USA of supporting despots--up until recently what other kind of rulers has the region had to support?

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:03 pm

Iran and North Korea have not yet crossed the line of international law so brazenly.

Even if they did could we honestly be able to occupy them? I am willing to bet we could beat them, we have the best military in the world. But do we want to go into such a situation? Of course not. We can't, because our military is already spread to thin.

Army reservists and NAtional gaurdsmen are being used for extended times, and folks who thought they could let there time in the service expire are being told tough, and that they need to stay on. Less and less people are enlisting.

What can we do? Hopefully we do not need to resurect the draft.

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:18 pm

Less and less people are enlisting.

Recruitment is down in the Army but 'less and less' is not an accurate statement. Some of the decline is a result of our vibrant economy.

Offsetting this is the fact the reenlistment/retention is going 'upand up'.

The Marines are doing fine with recruiting and continue to meet their annual requirements.

I cannot speak for the other services, but Marine reservists are as capable as the 170,000 plus regulars. We could put the USMC 4th Division (reserve) in any situation and not miss a beat.

As for the draft, I do not know anyone in the military that sees that as a necessity.

Rich

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:51 pm

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=646656

PENTAGON- The Pentagon says that all four service branches exceeded their recruitment goals last month, with more than 13,000 men and women signing up.

The retention of active-duty service members has been more problematic.

Only the Army appears to be on track to meet their yearly retention goal, with 10,677 soldiers who have "re-upped." The Army is hoping more than 11,500 soldiers will do so. The recruitment and retention of members of the reserves and the National Guard has been an even tougher sell.

My Bad. Looks like enlistment is meeting expectations as of late.

Funny though Rich..seems like re-upping isn't what they want.

As far as the draft goes, it's not necessary now, but my point is that it may be if we take on many more police actions.

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:39 pm

What defines "success" in the region?

They have been blowing each other up and murdering each other leaders loooonnngggg before we ever showed up.

(NOT mocking them for this--just noting a ugly fact)

If people define "success" as no attacks--ever---then the whole region is and always has been, and always will be a failure.

Exactly! That's what we need is a realistic goal. I am not advocating an imediate w/d of our troops. Like Bill pointed out, the world is watching.

But if we say we're there as long as insurgents are commiting suicide bombings, well we may never get out.

My defenition of success there is a strong National Iraqi police force, and an adequate Iraqi military to fend of the neighboring countrys. Maybee some discount oil would be nice too....