Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 101
  1. #76
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    The U.S.-led coalition has faced a guerilla campaign that has escalated since the formal end of hostilities in May. The nature and scope of the attacks have changed over time from initial “target-of-opportunity” type ambushes using small arms, rocket propelled grenades, and improvised explosive devices to also include high profile suicide bombings of en ies perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being complicit in the U.S.-led occupation. This steady escalation has lead to the U.S. commander using the term “guerilla war” in a recent statement. Although tempting to link this situation and the contributing factors to historical analogues, post-war Iraq remains a unique challenge to policy makers.
    It turns out Iraq isn’t that unique after all. It's pretty much your typical dirty war complete with incompetent cronies lining their pockets, no clear objective on the part of the military, and ambiguous allegiances among Iraqi's differing factions.

  2. #77
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Speculation by immediately following the fall of the Hussein government that elaborate contingency plans that included efforts to cleanse key ministries and facilities in preparation for the fall of the government to a U.S.-led assault appears to have been borne out. Given Saddam’s well do ented instinct for survival it is logical to assume that plans were also made for the ruling circle to go to ground after the war and continue the attempts at turning world opinion, especially Arab and Muslim opinion, against the occupation.
    It's very likely that Saddam had become just a figure-head to the Baathists regime in his waning days in Iraq. There are stories that he would spend his days as ruler of Iraq, gardening, reading and watching vidoes. Sure he still called the shots, but when it came time to actually getting the nasty things done, he had his sons and his loyal Baathists Generals do most of the dirty work. One of these Baathists Generals is said to be the real head of the organized insurgents, not Al-Zarqawi, who's likely dead.

  3. #78
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Let's see, the invasion began March 20th of 2003 and your "essay" was in October of 2003, your essay was a mere 8 months after the date of the invasion and you're calling that forethought?

    I am dumbfounded, shocked and appalled that this essay wasn't immediately forwarded to the Pentagon upon it's receipt by Strafor.com.

    It's a nice essay RG but no more insightful than hundreds of opinions that inundated op/ed papers across the country in the same time frame. Certainly nothing approaching profound.

    p.s. having a smiley hold up a owned sign on your behalf is amusing, did you include one with your job application along with the essay?

    p.s. #2 hope you got the job
    The timing, shortly after the war reflected my thinking at the time. I knew there was going to be some level of insurrection before the fighting started. It is not forethought from before the war, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I intended it as such. My apologies. It is simply the earliest example of my thinking that I could find on my present computer.

    As for "no more insightful", it was limited in space to 800 words. I had to leave out a LOT of detail. I would also point out that my subject knowledge is more extensive than those of a majority of "op-ed" writers whose sole qualification is a poli-sci degree.

    The thing you have to ask yourself, when looking at this is that I was out of the active duty army for years and still knew that there was going to be some level of guerilla war after the formal fighting was over. We should all hope that there are people in the government with even more up-to-date information and expertise on this than myself, and who would come to a very similar conclusion. Why were those people not listened to?

    I did not (thankfully) get the job (still don't know why). It forced me back into school Where I found my true calling: accountancy.

  4. #79
    Believe. gtownspur's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Post Count
    3,906
    That's a good point. What say you, gtownspur?
    It's a good point if it were true, but that is false. GErmany as reported by the NYT in those years had violence during reconstruction. Japan did not go away peacefuly as well. In fact the NYT like today was predicting failure.

  5. #80
    Multimedia Spurs
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    6,659
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...09parallel.htm

    "that is false"

    The overwhelming occupation forces in Germany and Japan, the unconditional surrender by the defeated leaders, etc, made the reconstruction of those two countries totally different from, easier and more rapid than Iraq, where the under-manned US occupation forces have not been able to establish basic security, a fundamental failure which delays and prevents reconstruction of services like water, electricity, sewage, and daily business.

    I have not been able to find any do ents that say post-war reconstruction in Germany and Japan was delayed and prevented by violence against the occupying forces. If there was any post-surrencer resistance, it was minuscule, insignifcant compared to what the Repubs are facing in Iraq.

  6. #81
    Multimedia Spurs
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    6,659
    http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1237/

    "Is Nation-building Successful?

    Far from being diversions from US foreign policy, recent military invasions and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq continue the United States' long history of forcibly replacing threatening regimes in other countries. US nation-building has yielded some luminous successes (Japan, Germany, Taiwan), some dismal failures (Haiti, Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia), and some bafflingly inconclusive results (Philippines, Kosovo). US interventions have prolonged indigenous conflicts by taking one side (Middle East) and by befriending both (Far East, Africa). Active interventions have left behind a dictatorship (Argentina), a democracy (Puerto Rico), an autocracy (Kuwait), and an ethnocracy (Israel).

    The public is often unaware of how infrequently post-conflict nation-building has succeeded. The World Bank found in its experience that countries emerging from war had a 50 percent chance of relapsing into conflict within five years. In a study for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Minxin Pei and Sara Kasper reviewed 16 major US-led nation-building efforts since 1900 and concluded that in only four countries—West Germany, Japan, Grenada, and Panama—did the types of democratic governance systems that the United States sought to build continue after 10 years. In only five cases were democratic regimes sustained for more than three years after the United States withdrew. In Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Cambodia, and Vietnam, dictatorships quickly emerged after US military forces left the country. US forces were driven out of Lebanon after regime change and nation-building efforts failed in the early 1980s and a decade later from Somalia under similar cir stances.

    International organizations' peacekeeping and nationbuilding policies have not fared much better. UN Trusteeships in Kosovo and East Timor during the 1990s have been criticized for failing to establish strong, autonomous, and sustainable states in the aftermath of wars in those territories; the dispatch of envoys to the Sudan and Colombia failed to settle long-raging internal conflicts, and after more than a decade the supervisory mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina still had not restored effective indigenous governance to that war-torn area. Even after prolonged UN supervision, the 2002 elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina merely returned to power ethnic nationalists that were involved in the original conflicts. After a decade under UN oversight, democracy in Cambodia is far from ins utionalized and elections are still riddled with corruption, violence, and fraud. UN peacekeeping and nation-building operations in Somalia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone failed to achieve either goal and in other countries they encountered complex constraints that made even humanitarian relief efforts difficult.

    The disappointing results of nation-building can be explained by the complexity of attempting to rebuild war-torn countries with "failed" or "collapsed" states. In many of these countries, external or indigenous efforts at regime replacement began due to the government's disintegrating capacity to govern because of political and administrative weaknesses, general lawlessness and corruption, ethnic tensions and conflict, economic depression, financial crises, or totalitarianism. Even if the equivalent of "denazification" has taken place, the challenge of administering reconstruction still requires new procedures beyond cleansed bureaucracies. New structures are needed, especially if part of the donor's role is delegated to a United Nations, a NATO, or an ad hoc coalition."

    ========================

    Nation-building has had a very mixed history. The successes of Germany and Japan were exceptions, not the rule. (still waiting for evidence that reconstruction in Germany and Japan was delayed, hindered by widespread, significant, long-term violence that the Repubs are encountering in Iraq).

    Even if the Repubs had nothing else to do except destroy/re-build Iraq, starting a bull war in Iraq in order to create a democracy and "infect" the ME with liberalism was a very low-percentage play. Add in the fact that Iraq is surrounded by unfriendly or outright enemies like Syria and Iran, the war in Iraq was simply wrong.

    But in the context of the war on terrror (which excludes non-terrorizing Iraq) and a still unstabilized Afghanistan , the bull Iraq war was incredibly stupid. It will be the destruction of the dubya/ head presidency.

    With the Cons ution referendum done and the Cons ution apparently approved but with mass protest voting by the effectively dis-enfranchized Sunnis, there is only the December parliamentary election remaining as the "last milestone to democracy". If the violence in 2006 continues at the same level of 2005, "democracy in Iraq" will have failed as a peace-engendering exercise.

    dubya doesn't have a clue what his "stay the course" means, nor does he have any idea how to get out of Iraq.

    How many think the insurgency will now stop?
    Last edited by boutons; 10-17-2005 at 11:00 AM.

  7. #82
    uups stups! Cant_Be_Faded's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    28,114
    It's a good point if it were true, but that is false. GErmany as reported by the NYT in those years had violence during reconstruction. Japan did not go away peacefuly as well. In fact the NYT like today was predicting failure.


    But in fact you completely ignore that while some violence is inevitable, the level of said violence in germany and japan was nowhere near what we are seeing in Iraq now.

  8. #83
    Believe. gtownspur's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Post Count
    3,906
    But in fact you completely ignore that while some violence is inevitable, the level of said violence in germany and japan was nowhere near what we are seeing in Iraq now.
    Everyone acknowledges that the cost of reconstruction is bloody. Iraq is violent and there is civil unrest. The problem with your insistence that our policy is fated is that it seems to be based on combative idealogical pretenses which desire the outcome of humiliation and defeat of america. The insurgents have only suceeded in murder and not in agenda with the iraqi people. This is fact! The iraqi elections and the cons utional ballots are testament to success. The reason being is for two; one the iraqi's like anybody else desire to rule and restore national pride, and the other is that Iraq is a third world spot not to be intimidated by bloodshed because of Sadaam's past policies and the fact that they have been unstable for a long time. Their society is advancing because they do want democracy and do not care for foreign terrorist who seek weakness. This should be greatly acknowledge by people like you and your companions who insist that we are losing the war on terror because they base victory on a totally sanitized victory of near zero fatalities. This Disneyesque version of winning that the american left expects is seen by many as a dishonest expectation to be met, intended traitoruously to mull any sign of victory acheived by our military.



    President Bush has said it again and again. The fate of iraq rest solely on the iraqi people. He has pointed it out many a times. Since we all acknowledge that, we should if we desire a bright future for everybody, rally not blindly but with open minds and open hearts behind America. Despite what you want everyone to think, we are at war as a nation CBF!! You, I, all the YOni's and Dans should in ourselves all desire what is ultimately good for america. You my freind are allowed to criticize our effors for any reason. But as an american those criticism should be constructive and not destructive. But i acknowledge the fact that this wont be easy to accomplish because some of us have very out of base views on the situation of the war on terror. If you want to see open and honest dialogue between conservatives and liberals on this war, conservatives need to acknowledge these principles.

    1. The fact that Iraq was started on strong premises on issues of political ones but weak on material. Ex. strong case that sadaam was harboring and allying with alqueda. Weak. that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

    2.THis is our war not Bush's or Rumsfeld. Do not be blind by partisanship. One must keep themselves informed and expect realistic expectations to be met. Do not be ashamed of voicing dissent towards our means of fighting the war.

    2.be open minded to suggestions politcal opposites offer for effectiveness on our war front. Remember this is our war and not Bush's.

    If liberals have any wanting to desire honest discourse they should then;

    1. Regardless of the pass, Realize that this is america's war and that alqueda is spending their capital on it. If it is lost it will backfire on us tremendously and we will pay the cost by the blood of our civilians. (note: Liberals are not exempt of terrorist attacks) Al queda is hoping that your side ignites division in our country so that they can show to terrorist hopefuls that we are easy target and we are paper tigers.

    2.Recognize that AlQueda does not speak for the middle east. Alqueda is radical and they have said it themselves that they desire world submission. THey do not need provocation to mastermind terror. THey want to terrorize the world and bring weak diplomats and kings as well as societies to their knees.

    3.Alqueda's needs should not be met. They will not stop at withdrawal from iraq. They dont give a about iraqi land and independence. They are invested in this war to undermine america only. If we are out of iraq. Then the focus will shift to the Gaza strip more fervently and to afghanistan. And once they start trying to screw with the israeli and palestinian conflict. WE are ED!!!! After that expect them to slaughter millions in the region and retake afghanistan and sumbit pakistan.

    4. Dont be full of yourselves. You are not invincible or exempt from radical muslim ire becuase you have a pacifist idealogy. WEakness is far worst than strength.

    Alqueda attacked the U.S. becuase of people like the cynical components of the far left who make this country weak who have portrayed the U.s. as weak for decades.

    We need a Left that is strong and mighty. Not one that is patheticaly impotent spiritualy and mentaly.

  9. #84
    Multimedia Spurs
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    6,659
    "strong case that sadaam was harboring and allying with alqueda."

    this is BS, along with Saddam involved in 9/11. Cheney repeated this lie frequently, something like 70% of US polled as believing it at one point. NOBODY has ever provided any evidence.

    Before the Saudis agreed to let the US attack Saddam in Kuwait, they refused bin Laden's offer to attack Saddam. bin Laden/al Qaida and Saddam are allies? GMAFB bin Laden is on a jihad, Saddam was a secular dictator totally detached from jihad and international terror.

    Iraq war was started by the Repub administration, and executed with Repub incompetence, exlcusively for Repub objectives, exploiting the good faith of the US after 9/11. The Repub popular vote mandate was NEGATIVE in the 2000 election. With less that half of the popular vote in 2000, with the extremely partisan, polarizing behavior of the Repubs, there's no way the Iraq war is a US war, it is a Repub war.

    "AlQueda does not speak for the middle east"

    But you insist that the Repubs speak for the USA? GMAFB


    "They will not stop at withdrawal from iraq."

    al Qaida is in Iraq EXCLUSVELY because the Americans there. The American occupation is causing the insurgency.

    "Alqueda attacked the U.S. becuase of people like the cynical components of the far left who make this country weak who have portrayed the U.s. as weak for decades."

    What total horse , typical ignorant, dishonest right-wing horseshti. al quaida attached the US because of US's dependence on ME oil, forcing the US to occupy ME "sacred" countries, and because of the US supporting Isreal agains the Palestinians.

    Don't you ing worry about the left (they aren't in power), but worry about the Repubs who are in power and ing up the USA and the world.

  10. #85
    Lottery Pick Dos's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    559
    Before the Saudis agreed to let the US attack Saddam in Kuwait, they refused bin Laden's offer to attack Saddam. bin Laden/al Qaida and Saddam are allies? GMAFB bin Laden is on a jihad, Saddam was a secular dictator totally detached from jihad and international terror.
    so saddam wasn't sponsering palestinian suicide bombers..

  11. #86
    uups stups! Cant_Be_Faded's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    28,114
    The problem with your insistence that our policy is fated is that it seems to be based on combative idealogical pretenses which desire the outcome of humiliation and defeat of america.

    I want america to be humiliated and defeated? I stopped reading here. You're just stupid, man.

    (Reality check Bush does not = America, current regimes do not = America, your conservative ass does not = America)

  12. #87
    Multimedia Spurs
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    6,659
    Saddam had a $25K compensation for families of Palistinian bombers, who existed before and after Saddam's compensation. BFD. For that, we start a war and waste 1000s of Americans??

    I never heard that Saddam was harboring, financing, training, exporting, equipping, exhorting international jihadi terrorists the way Iran, Syria, the Taliban/Afghanistan, al Quaida were/are.

    The bull Iraq war has distracted the US military away from the known, real sources of terrrorism. Nice ing job, Repubs.

  13. #88
    Lottery Pick Dos's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    559
    so tell me how do you deal with terrorist who are bent on killing as many of us as possible..?

  14. #89
    uups stups! Cant_Be_Faded's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    28,114
    The iraqi elections and the cons utional ballots are testament to success. The reason being is for two; one the iraqi's like anybody else desire to rule and restore national pride, and the other is that Iraq is a third world spot not to be intimidated by bloodshed because of Sadaam's past policies and the fact that they have been unstable for a long time.
    ROfl, dude do you even know what you are typing?




    President Bush has said it again and again. The fate of iraq rest solely on the iraqi people. He has pointed it out many a times.
    Then it must be true!

    Since we all acknowledge that,
    narrowminded
    we should if we desire a bright future for everybody, rally not blindly but with open minds and open hearts behind America.
    Again, a re like you who acts like a political genius assumes just because one does not agree and desires to debate that he is unamerican or antiamerican. Your desire to make me shut up and flat out accept you not only infringes upon my own personal cons ution-given freedom, but in fact makes you seem antiamerican! Try that one on for size, .

    Despite what you want everyone to think, we are at war as a nation CBF!!
    Really? With who?

  15. #90
    Multimedia Spurs
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    6,659
    "how do you deal with terrorist"

    It's a very tough job, that's why the Tough-Talking/Small- Repubs and conservatives chose to go into a sitting-duck, weakened, "slam dunk", push-over country like Iraq rather than go after the much difficult al-Quaida.

    I really don't think terrorism can be stopped, esp when Repubs and USA in general absolutely refuse to reduce/eliminate US dependence on (ME) oil. And of course, the Isaeli-Palestinian problem won't go away with or without US involvement.

    I'm all for attacking the causes of terrorism and terrorists, I was all for Gulf War and invading Afghanistan.

    But Iraq was not a terrorist country or an threat to USA, but Iraq is full of terrorists now. Nice work, dubya.

  16. #91
    Believe. gtownspur's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Post Count
    3,906
    ROfl, dude do you even know what you are typing?






    Then it must be true!


    narrowminded

    Again, a re like you who acts like a political genius assumes just because one does not agree and desires to debate that he is unamerican or antiamerican. Your desire to make me shut up and flat out accept you not only infringes upon my own personal cons ution-given freedom, but in fact makes you seem antiamerican! Try that one on for size, .


    Really? With who?

    ( Boutons)the ing 911 commision acknowledge that there were ties with sadaam and OBL as far as in agreement to infrastucture and ops. 911 and Sadaam however were not linked. I never mentioned any ties with 911 and iraq. distinguish!

    CBF- obviously you did read my whole article but didnt comprehend. WHen you advocate withdrawal from iraq you are in effect going against our interest.

    are you so stupid to think that if we were to withdraw ,that alqueda wouldnt seize the chance to both humiliate us therefore enlisting even more men to the cause? Not to mention that we would damage the M.E. worse than it is. If this is not our war then who's is it.

    Let me ask you something.

    Who do you think OBL waged war against? Just the republicans.

    Who died on 911? Just republicans,neocons and zionist jews?

    If OBL has waged war on us, then we are by definition forced at war with him.
    You'd have to ing ignore what had been happening Sept 10 and the past to ing think that 911 was started because republicans took over office. Infact you'd have to be even more insane and idiotic to believe that AQ is a ing respectable organization whose needs need to be met. But it doesnt stop there. You seem to think that 911 happened only because we've been in the ME for decades and that AQ wants their holy land back. Even more frightening is your insistence that we pull out because the iraqi people dont want us there. IF they didnt want us there then they would have asked us to pull out. I'd like you to ing come up with any proof that they have asked us to pull out either through polling data, a representative of the iraqi's, or any official because the only people asking for withdrawal is pussies like you and the sheehan mothership as well as France, Germany and AQ. If you dont think these elections have been a success then you might just well be in denial. I guess you determine the voice of the iraqi people to be syrian suicide bombers. That's equivalent to saying that france and germany speak up for the american electorate.... Wait! you probably do. If your not stupid by ignorance then what are you by fully knowing the consequences of your ideas.



    No one is ing forcing you to acknowledge anything. Quit acting like i raped you and forced you to wear a W for 04 sticker on your left cheek.

  17. #92
    Believe. gtownspur's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Post Count
    3,906
    how do you like them apples!!

  18. #93
    uups stups! Cant_Be_Faded's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Post Count
    28,114
    CBF- obviously you did read my whole article but didnt comprehend. WHen you advocate withdrawal from iraq you are in effect going against our interest.
    Comprehension does not require agreement.
    Agreement does not require comprehension.

    "Our interest" is what, exactly? To liberate Iraq? Or to protect the U.S.A.?
    What is "our interest"?
    And how would withdrawal 'in effect' be going against this interest?

    are you so stupid to think that if we were to withdraw ,that alqueda wouldnt seize the chance to both humiliate us therefore enlisting even more men to the cause?
    Show me proof that AlQaeda has been legitimately linked to the Iraqi insurgency.
    And if we are to suffer humiliation instead of death, then ehhh, I say so be it. But i'm no chickenhawk, so that's just a normal american's opinion.


    Not to mention that we would damage the M.E. worse than it is. If this is not our war then who's is it.
    What are you basing this on?
    If we leave Iraq right now, it would damage the M.E. "worse than it is"
    Why is it "worse" now?
    "if its not our war then who's is it" ?????? rofl....am i the only one reading this stuff?! lol..


    Who do you think OBL waged war against? Just the republicans.

    Who died on 911? Just republicans,neocons and zionist jews?
    If you lump me in with the dumbasses who would believe that, then no wonder you take pages to explain something simple.

    If OBL has waged war on us, then we are by definition forced at war with him.
    You'd have to ing ignore what had been happening Sept 10 and the past to ing think that 911 was started because republicans took over office. Infact you'd have to be even more insane and idiotic to believe that AQ is a ing respectable organization whose needs need to be met. But it doesnt stop there. You seem to think that 911 happened only because we've been in the ME for decades and that AQ wants their holy land back. Even more frightening is your insistence that we pull out because the iraqi people dont want us there. IF they didnt want us there then they would have asked us to pull out. I'd like you to ing come up with any proof that they have asked us to pull out either through polling data, a representative of the iraqi's, or any official because the only people asking for withdrawal is pussies like you and the sheehan mothership as well as France, Germany and AQ. If you dont think these elections have been a success then you might just well be in denial. I guess you determine the voice of the iraqi people to be syrian suicide bombers. That's equivalent to saying that france and germany speak up for the american electorate.... Wait! you probably do. If your not stupid by ignorance then what are you by fully knowing the consequences of your ideas.
    This part of your post is total rehashed cnn crap

    No one is ing forcing you to acknowledge anything. Quit acting like i raped you and forced you to wear a W for 04 sticker on your left cheek.
    Again, the republican condems debate, then after I point out your actions, you lie and say I was being radical about this.
    Way to represent.

  19. #94
    Retired Ray xrayzebra's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Post Count
    9,096
    " But you insist that the Repubs speak for the USA? GMAFB"

    The American People speak for the USA, at every election.

    ""Our interest" is what, exactly? To liberate Iraq? Or to protect the U.S.A.?
    What is "our interest"?
    And how would withdrawal 'in effect' be going against this interest?"

    Why cant it be both? Which I think it is. How would withdrawal affect our interest?
    The same way we did not respond to other attacks on our country. We are perceived as being weak because we did not react. The biggest blunder was when we wouldn't support our own forces in Ethiopia. Like you know "Black Hawk Down". Our President cut and run, literally.

  20. #95
    Believe. gtownspur's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Post Count
    3,906
    I didnt ing point a gun in your face or called the cops on you for your oppinions. i was just saying to stop being a tart.

    ANd for once you have proved that you are ignorant. Do you know who ZArqawi is or ZAwahiri?? if you dont then i suggest you find out before even suggesting that alqueda is not taking part in iraq.

    ONe more thing. YOur probably the only person on the planet who truly thinks that total withdrawal from iraq would make iraq would make the ME safer. See if you would only ing read the news for its content and not for the cool color pictures and captions you would know that the insurgency is largely Foreign enlistees from syria and iran. BUt you have no ing clue! Just because there were car bombs in iraq you presume that all the iraqi's want us out. I guess since timothy mcVeigh blew the OK building then that means that all american's want the govt to be abolished too!. Its stupid reasoning like this that makes it a waste of time to argue with you. i dont have to shut you up. its not like your saying anything thoughtful or with depth.

  21. #96
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672

    2.If you were to look in your ing history book and not the signed Noam Chomsky Book under your drag clothes drawer you would find that the U.S has been succesful in nation building. ANd no! it's not Goddamn Kosovo for all you Clinton s. It's Germany and Japan.

    Equating modern Iraq to post-ww2 Germany and Japan, simply proves how little YOU know about the history of any of the above countries.

    Let me break down why the US didn't do much "nation-building" in West Germany and Japan, and you may gain a bit of a better understanding.

    Human Capital
    The average education level of Germany and Japan in the post ww2 era was comparable to the other developed nations they fought. There was massive unemployment as there is in Iraq, to be sure, but there was a large industrial and educational base of expertise to draw on.

    Not so in Iraq.

    Physcial Capital
    This is another aspect of post-war Germany and Japan that is lacking in Iraq. Iraq's economy was/is geared to producing a raw material/commodity. This doesn't generally allow for much in the way of producing goods and services required locally. Iraq's economy has been huring for over a decade from sanctions and as such could be said to be similar to that of the two bombed-out losers in ww2, but this is more because of a lack of raw materials than anything else.

    Most of the factories in Germany and Japan in ww2 survived relatively intact. The main reason that industrial production in both countries fell during the war was due to raw materials and labor shortages.

    Monetary Capital
    This is about the only form of capital that Iraq has in common with the former Axis powers. All three suffered horribly from the collapse of whatever vestigal financial systems they had.

    Social Issues
    Germany and Japan were virtually genous in terms of culture, religion, and ethnicity. Not so in Iraq, as the simmering insurgency has proven to even the most obtuse observers.

    Summary
    In short, the "nation-building" in Germany and Japan had a HUGE headstart over Iraq, which didn't really have a Marshal plan other than "Let's give a bunch of no-bid contracts to our buddies".

    The current administration has proven itself patently less competant and has a MUCH harder task ahead of them. If Bush et al. had had any REAL inkling as to what they were doing before they invaded, they could have saved a lot of lives, American, AND Iraqi. If I had to assign a grade it would be a middle range "D".

  22. #97
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    "how do you deal with terrorist"

    I'm all for attacking the causes of terrorism and terrorists, I was all for Gulf War and invading Afghanistan.

    But Iraq was not a terrorist country or an threat to USA, but Iraq is full of terrorists now. Nice work, dubya.
    Yup. Afghanistan was the 100% right move to fight the Al-Qaeda-brand ideology. Iraq had almost nothing to do with what most people call "terrorism" until we invaded it, gave al-Qaeda a huge propaganda victory, as well as an urban training ground for guerilla warfare.

  23. #98
    Lottery Pick Dos's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    559
    Yup. Afghanistan was the 100% right move to fight the Al-Qaeda-brand ideology. Iraq had almost nothing to do with what most people call "terrorism" until we invaded it, gave al-Qaeda a huge propaganda victory, as well as an urban training ground for guerilla warfare.
    so destroying the taliban and removing them from power would have never caused more terrorist attacks....?

  24. #99
    Believe. gtownspur's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Post Count
    3,906
    Random Guy: Germany had just went through Nazism. And nazism had to be eradicated through germany as there were still violent elements in that nation. There was violence and the press at that time was not so focused on casualties like it was now.

    THe United States had full cooperation with reconstruction from both parties Repub and democrat. The Democrat party of today has only been half assed supportive from the beginning. You remember the memo from MCCaulife. They wanted to paint this war in bad light for gainl. THe president has not been given a fair chance by the democrats.These democrats of today were not like the bi partisan republicans of Post war WW2.

    The Iraqi people have decided themselves that they want a society of their own. THey have participated in democracy.
    In two years we have killed all of hussiens heirs and now the dictator is on trial.
    The casualties suffered by the U.S have been extremely small by other standards.
    if you are not acknowledging that we are winning then you do so at a closed minded way.

  25. #100
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Random Guy: Germany had just went through Nazism. And nazism had to be eradicated through germany as there were still violent elements in that nation. There was violence and the press at that time was not so focused on casualties like it was now.

    THe United States had full cooperation with reconstruction from both parties Repub and democrat. The Democrat party of today has only been half assed supportive from the beginning. You remember the memo from MCCaulife. They wanted to paint this war in bad light for gainl. THe president has not been given a fair chance by the democrats.These democrats of today were not like the bi partisan republicans of Post war WW2.

    The Iraqi people have decided themselves that they want a society of their own. THey have participated in democracy.
    In two years we have killed all of hussiens heirs and now the dictator is on trial.
    The casualties suffered by the U.S have been extremely small by other standards.
    if you are not acknowledging that we are winning then you do so at a closed minded way.



    Hate to tell ya, but there were quite a few Nazis that never went to trial or prison. The former members of the Nazi party recognized that their best interests lay in a stable West Germany as a defense against the Communists who they hated more than the Western Allied powers.
    There was indeed some small amount of Nazi insurgency, but this was relatively miniscule, easily handled, and short lived. The "media" being nice to the armed forces had nothing to do with that, it was sheer self interest on the part of the average german.

    I would also point out that most Democrats have voted FOR the required funding for the Iraqi war, even though they might not be huge supporters of it. They recognize the needs of the troops prevails over other considerations.

    All this is STILL irrelevant to the fact that the Bush administration is, has, and will continue to up the occupation of Iraq and get our troops killed.

    Lastly:

    I DO acknowledge that SOME good is happening in Iraq.

    What you keep failing to acknowledge is that there is a lot of stuff that is ed up, and a good chunk of the responsibility for the bad is DIRECTLY attributible to the administrations piss-poor planning and lack of understanding of what they are/were doing.

    Who is being closed minded again?

    Stop blinding yourself to the bad news, it is less than intellectually honest.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •