From a former U.S. Army Ranger, code named "Blackfive." I think we should get him to reenlist, then promote him to General, CENTCOM Commander.
Exit strategy for Iraq AND Afghanistan
- Thread starter Paco
- Start date
Paco, it is my understanding that many officers are being called back to service, ones who are years from having been in the service, much less in action.
It's good to see you back here. Why do you think the US is at war in Iraq?
It's good to see you back here. Why do you think the US is at war in Iraq?
So is this the promotion of invading Iran? I guess this plan assumes that Iraq will be ready to leave soon and that the "war on terror" in Afghanistan is no longer important (we've already got that impression).
Just curious.. what's the timeline of this invasion?
Just curious.. what's the timeline of this invasion?
RE: Exit strategy for Ira
Day after tomorrow unless the democratic movement in Iran starts to look like its moving forward again.
Day after tomorrow unless the democratic movement in Iran starts to look like its moving forward again.
Re: RE: Exit strategy for Iraq AND Afghanistan
Hi Haggis.
I’ve been very busy, but seem to have a lull for the moment. Thanks for the welcome back.
Why do I think the U.S. is at war with Iraq? I certainly cannot answer that with a few light comments. This will take some explanation.
Three words. Weapons of mass destruction. (four words)
Whoa! But… but… There are no WMD in Iraq. Yes, there are no WMD in Iraq. How do we know there are no WMD in Iraq? Because we had to go to war to find out. A little background to the war is in order here.
We know Saddam had WMD. He used them in his war with Iran. He used them against the Kurds. American AND foreign intelligence (Germany, France, Russia, etc.) believed Saddam maintained WMD all through the 90’s. There are literally hundreds of quotes from world leaders and statesmen who acknowledged the existence of WMD in Iraq and painted dire consequences because a madman like Saddam had demonstrated he would use them.
That Saddam had WMD prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom was accepted as fact by the world.
Of course, we now know Saddam fooled us all. We now know from the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam got rid of his WMD to keep the UN off his back. We also know that he let the world believe he still had them. He wanted to maintain a façade of capability in order to keep enemies at bay. We know he maintained the facilities and equipment to rebuild WMD once the world turned its eyes elsewhere.
The concern of American leadership was that Saddam would sell or give WMD to terrorists and they would in turn use WMD to strike America. After years of inaction, America felt the need to protect itself from further attacks.
America went to war with Iraq to preempt any terrorist support from Saddam. The fact that Saddam did not have WMD has no bearing. We would have never known if we had not gone to war.
Haggis McBagpipe said:
Hi Haggis.
I’ve been very busy, but seem to have a lull for the moment. Thanks for the welcome back.
Why do I think the U.S. is at war with Iraq? I certainly cannot answer that with a few light comments. This will take some explanation.
Three words. Weapons of mass destruction. (four words)
Whoa! But… but… There are no WMD in Iraq. Yes, there are no WMD in Iraq. How do we know there are no WMD in Iraq? Because we had to go to war to find out. A little background to the war is in order here.
We know Saddam had WMD. He used them in his war with Iran. He used them against the Kurds. American AND foreign intelligence (Germany, France, Russia, etc.) believed Saddam maintained WMD all through the 90’s. There are literally hundreds of quotes from world leaders and statesmen who acknowledged the existence of WMD in Iraq and painted dire consequences because a madman like Saddam had demonstrated he would use them.
That Saddam had WMD prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom was accepted as fact by the world.
Of course, we now know Saddam fooled us all. We now know from the Iraq Survey Group that Saddam got rid of his WMD to keep the UN off his back. We also know that he let the world believe he still had them. He wanted to maintain a façade of capability in order to keep enemies at bay. We know he maintained the facilities and equipment to rebuild WMD once the world turned its eyes elsewhere.
The concern of American leadership was that Saddam would sell or give WMD to terrorists and they would in turn use WMD to strike America. After years of inaction, America felt the need to protect itself from further attacks.
America went to war with Iraq to preempt any terrorist support from Saddam. The fact that Saddam did not have WMD has no bearing. We would have never known if we had not gone to war.
Re: RE: Exit strategy for Iraq AND Afghanistan
The fact remains, though, that it was a preemptive strike... is this not a dangerous precedent for the US? A US despised by the rest of the world is, in the long run, a weakened US, military strength nothwithstanding.
Why was the situation in Iraq considered more dangerous than the nuclear situation in Korea?
The US is being bankrupted by this war, and if, by your reasoning, it feels the need to go to war wherever there is any question of possible future problems, then the US is destined to collapse economically, don't you think?
Do you feel that George Bush was the right choice for president? Or do you feel that Bush himself is a necessary evil in order to keep a conservative government in place?
Paco said:
The fact remains, though, that it was a preemptive strike... is this not a dangerous precedent for the US? A US despised by the rest of the world is, in the long run, a weakened US, military strength nothwithstanding.
Why was the situation in Iraq considered more dangerous than the nuclear situation in Korea?
The US is being bankrupted by this war, and if, by your reasoning, it feels the need to go to war wherever there is any question of possible future problems, then the US is destined to collapse economically, don't you think?
Do you feel that George Bush was the right choice for president? Or do you feel that Bush himself is a necessary evil in order to keep a conservative government in place?
Re: RE: Exit strategy for Iraq AND Afghanistan
During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy declared, "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to the nation's security to constitute maximum peril." Kennedy didn’t strike first, but it was strongly considered and argued for.
Do those two historical anecdotes support our preemptive strike? Who knows? Only time and history will tell.
From 1979 to 2001 (911) America suffered 20 terrorist attacks against its people from Middle Eastern extremists. It seems to me we considered the Middle East a more likely threat. I assume we don’t think North Korea is stupid enough to invite a rain of nuclear warheads, should they initiate an attack.
The U.S. has faced large deficits before. I’m not so sure this war will bankrupt us. I further think we will not rush headlong into war at each perceived threat in the world. It may be this action is sufficient to deter escalation of hostilities from terrorists. Especially if we put a big enough hurt on ‘em. Again, only time will tell.
<chuckle> George Bush is far too liberal for my tastes. I support him mainly for his decision to take the fight to the enemy.
In 1837 a U.S. ship, The Caroline was sunk by the British. The ship was sunk because the British thought our intent was to support Canadian forces in a rebellion against the British. A preemptive strike...Haggis McBagpipe said:
During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy declared, "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to the nation's security to constitute maximum peril." Kennedy didn’t strike first, but it was strongly considered and argued for.
Do those two historical anecdotes support our preemptive strike? Who knows? Only time and history will tell.
Haggis McBagpipe said:
From 1979 to 2001 (911) America suffered 20 terrorist attacks against its people from Middle Eastern extremists. It seems to me we considered the Middle East a more likely threat. I assume we don’t think North Korea is stupid enough to invite a rain of nuclear warheads, should they initiate an attack.
Haggis McBagpipe said:
The U.S. has faced large deficits before. I’m not so sure this war will bankrupt us. I further think we will not rush headlong into war at each perceived threat in the world. It may be this action is sufficient to deter escalation of hostilities from terrorists. Especially if we put a big enough hurt on ‘em. Again, only time will tell.
Haggis McBagpipe said:
<chuckle> George Bush is far too liberal for my tastes. I support him mainly for his decision to take the fight to the enemy.
LadyC said:
Good day, dear LadyC. Cute avatar.
No, it was not a fact finding mission. You may have just skimmed over my comments, so let me repeat something important, "That Saddam had WMD prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom was accepted as fact by the world."
It was a surprise to us to find no WMD. We fully expected to not only find WMD, but that Saddam would use them against us. General Tommy Franks developed a military strategy of speed. He departed from the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force used during the first war with Iraq. General Franks used half the troop strength, but stressed speed to stay ahead of the Iraqis and to prevent them from using WMD on our troops. As he said, “Speed kills… the enemy.”
Re: RE: Exit strategy for Iraq AND Afghanistan
This is important, though: although he was strongly advised to strike first, he went with his instincts that the US should not set a new precedent of preemptive strike. He did not rush into anything... and by not rushing, he proved, in the end, to be taking the right tact. Do you not feel that the US rushed into Iraq? There was no concrete events to suggest a need for the action that took place, not one indication that Iraq was preparing to attack the US or allies.
It has been established, though, that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. Iraq had never taken a single American life until the invasion of their land.
Does this argument ring true, though? Why wouldn't they be stupid enough? Few nations have the wisdom to avoid disasters, that is why there are so many disasters in the making. And Korea appears to have a madman (as mad or madder than Hussein) at the helm, one who does not have to answer to the people for his actions, and one who is probably quite content to have missiles headed his way if he can make a good hit on the US first.
But you did rush headlong into war with Iraq... when the known enemy responsible for September 11th was not in Iraq. Do you truly believe that the war in Iraq is about deterring terrorists rather than obtaining access to Iraqi oil?
How is he too liberal? What additional conservative policies would you like to see in effect?
Paco said:
This is important, though: although he was strongly advised to strike first, he went with his instincts that the US should not set a new precedent of preemptive strike. He did not rush into anything... and by not rushing, he proved, in the end, to be taking the right tact. Do you not feel that the US rushed into Iraq? There was no concrete events to suggest a need for the action that took place, not one indication that Iraq was preparing to attack the US or allies.
It has been established, though, that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks. Iraq had never taken a single American life until the invasion of their land.
Does this argument ring true, though? Why wouldn't they be stupid enough? Few nations have the wisdom to avoid disasters, that is why there are so many disasters in the making. And Korea appears to have a madman (as mad or madder than Hussein) at the helm, one who does not have to answer to the people for his actions, and one who is probably quite content to have missiles headed his way if he can make a good hit on the US first.
But you did rush headlong into war with Iraq... when the known enemy responsible for September 11th was not in Iraq. Do you truly believe that the war in Iraq is about deterring terrorists rather than obtaining access to Iraqi oil?
How is he too liberal? What additional conservative policies would you like to see in effect?
Thank you, dear paco. I chose it as a tribute to James Barrie, who made up my name. :wink:paco said:
And I absolutely love yours, too.
Sounds like good strategy on Saddam's part - if everyone thinks you have the weapons, they might just keep their distance. Not that I'm a fan of his - I'm certainly not.
But funny how "the world's" opinion matters when "the world" agrees with the US, but when they don't, we get such silliness as "freedom fries".
The U.S. always pretends that they "thought" Saddam had WMD.
Scott Ritter told us the truth and he was ridiculed.
Hans Blix was said to be a retard.
Americans must be the smartest people in the universe. Even when they conjure up falsehoods in order to justify the invasion, they claim that any opposition is just sour grapes and bordering on stupidity.
Saddam gassed his own people. Well, the US and the CIA gassed their own soldiers with experiments during the 2nd world war. The CIA even fed our mental patients LSD.
And, Agent Orange was sprayed in Vietnam and then the US soldiers were allowed to enter the zones that was contaminated.
It's okay if you bomb the people of Iraq .... just don't gas them.
It's okay to use depleted uranium shells, just don't gas anyone.
But, I guess any feeble excuse is better than none!
Calm
Scott Ritter told us the truth and he was ridiculed.
Hans Blix was said to be a retard.
Americans must be the smartest people in the universe. Even when they conjure up falsehoods in order to justify the invasion, they claim that any opposition is just sour grapes and bordering on stupidity.
Saddam gassed his own people. Well, the US and the CIA gassed their own soldiers with experiments during the 2nd world war. The CIA even fed our mental patients LSD.
And, Agent Orange was sprayed in Vietnam and then the US soldiers were allowed to enter the zones that was contaminated.
It's okay if you bomb the people of Iraq .... just don't gas them.
It's okay to use depleted uranium shells, just don't gas anyone.
But, I guess any feeble excuse is better than none!
Calm
RE: Exit strategy for Ira
There was Ritter and Blix. There was Joseph Wilson who told the White House that the Yellowcake from Niger was a lie. There was the IAEA saying that the aluminum tubes that the Bush regime claimed were for enriching uranium were not suitable for that application.
There was in the end no substantive evidence that Iraq had WMD or was a credible threat to anybody. That's why the world giggled at Colin Powell's pictures of cartoon trucks at the UN and that's why the US had to cobble together a coalition by bullying and bribing smaller nations.
There was Ritter and Blix. There was Joseph Wilson who told the White House that the Yellowcake from Niger was a lie. There was the IAEA saying that the aluminum tubes that the Bush regime claimed were for enriching uranium were not suitable for that application.
There was in the end no substantive evidence that Iraq had WMD or was a credible threat to anybody. That's why the world giggled at Colin Powell's pictures of cartoon trucks at the UN and that's why the US had to cobble together a coalition by bullying and bribing smaller nations.