RE: Resolve (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 1:52:41 PM)

Greetings Meatcleaver,

There is nothing civilized about that. What Iraq was before the invasion is very relevant. History is always relevant. Understanding the ideology of a region and the people within it, based upon history is very relevant.

Orion

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Greetings Meatcleaver,

Define attack.

Define civilized.

Has anyone ever thought about how Iraq was held together before the US invasion? The problems in Iraq are very old ones.



What Iraq was like before the invasion is irrelevent. Supposed civilized nations (I include Britain here) invaded without provocation and created choas that has caused 2million Iraqis to flee their country and the deaths of several hundred thousand.

Now tell me what is civilized about that Orion.



NorthernGent -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 3:09:44 PM)

Orion,

There is only one thing Britian and the US need to understand. Regardless of the rights, wrongs, mistakes, or whatever, they are mistakes to be made by the people of that country. Britain and the US have no right, or place, to attempt to lead people towards an alien ideal of a better life. 

It's about live and let live, it is because this sentiment is not adhered to that places like Iraq become killing fields.

There's no use in going over the details of Saddam's barbarism because everyone is aware of it. Mind you, if it was such a problem, then why were the US and British governments best of pals with Saddam when he was at his worst i.e. when he was using biological weapons against the Iranians and Kurds. Any defence of Britain and the US can be shattered within a minute.

People could talk about the ifs, whats, whys, buts 'til the cows come home, and much of it is clouded by misinformation, lies, exaggeration and propaganda, but there are a couple of constants in this:

1) All nations have the right to self-determination.
2) The British and US governments have not been elected by the people of Iraq to act as guardians over their country, nor elected to lead them towards alien ideals of how they should lead their lives.

The sensible resolve is for people to stop messing around with the small details and the petty arguments directed by government spin, and see that what really matters here is points 1 and 2 above, and then lobby for a withdrawal of occupying forces - it will save a lot of lives.

P.S. It isn't the West. It is Britain, Australia and the US - much of the West opposed this invasion.



cloudboy -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 5:08:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

A strong arm is needed to hold a short leash. Most people of the more "civilized" nations do not have enough resolve for the solutions that are needed.


Orion


Yes, what the US needs to do is install a secular strong man. Ooops, we tried that already.....



Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 8:04:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

What the current administration is trying to do is use the same logic (insurgency is the result of Iran) in Iraq that the US would have won the Vietnam War if it wasn't for China.



I think we're saying the same thing, Sinergy - just laying it out in a different way.


I agree.

Sinergy



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 8:12:09 PM)

I find it funny that people often read want they want to see. I leave you all to your rhetoric.


Orion



minnetar -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 8:13:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I find it funny that people often read want they want to see. I leave you all to your rhetoric.


Orion


lmao

minnetar



juliaoceania -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 8:14:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I find it funny that people often read want they want to see. I leave you all to your rhetoric.


Orion


lmao

minnetar



Is this laughing in the face of irony?



minnetar -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 8:16:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

I find it funny that people often read want they want to see. I leave you all to your rhetoric.


Orion


lmao

minnetar



Is this laughing in the face of irony?


not at all i am laughing because He refuses to debate with others.

minnetar



juliaoceania -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 8:21:19 PM)

That is the irony, in refusing to debate his point and to go toe to toe with the others posting here he states "I find it funny that people often read want they want to see. I leave you all to your rhetoric." He obviously does not like what he is reading and does not want to see it either... I just love irony like that



Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 8:23:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

That is the irony, in refusing to debate his point and to go toe to toe with the others posting here he states "I find it funny that people often read want they want to see. I leave you all to your rhetoric." He obviously does not like what he is reading and does not want to see it either... I just love irony like that



I think the irony is that the person felt it was important enough to post on a message board that he did not like reading the posts on the message board.

Go figure.

Sinergy



minnetar -> RE: Resolve (4/21/2007 8:23:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

That is the irony, in refusing to debate his point and to go toe to toe with the others posting here he states "I find it funny that people often read want they want to see. I leave you all to your rhetoric." He obviously does not like what he is reading and does not want to see it either... I just love irony like that



i enjoy hearing others opinions based on facts. 

minnetar



caitlyn -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 6:12:35 AM)

General Response ...
 
I don't think Orion is dodging debate any more than those debating him are. All this talk about who has the right under international law, to do what ... and what the rest of Europe thinks of the British and Americans. If that isn't rhetoric, what is?
 
Exactly who has the authority to enforce anything on the United States?
 
This is just a debate between "Big Bad America" running around doing whatever the fuck they want to do, and pretenting they are the good guys ... and people that think they live in "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy" land ... thinking the world is anything other than what it clearly is.
 
Sounds like rhetoric to me.



NorthernGent -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 7:06:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

All this talk about who has the right under international law, to do what
 
 
 
Do you think that a government, any government, has the right to dictate to a group of people who haven't elected that government? i.e. a group of people who the dictating government has no authority over?

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

 ... and what the rest of Europe thinks of the British and Americans. 
 
 
 
In the interests of actually discussing points made, you've responded to a discussion around the uninvited actions of British and US governments - not the British and the Americans - and the point being made is that most other Western governments did not support the invasion of Iraq.
 
Fuck knows how you end up at your summation of the discussion.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

If that isn't rhetoric, what is?
 
 
 
If you disagree, you'd be better served arguing the points being made, rather than doing whatever you think you're doing.

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Exactly who has the authority to enforce anything on the United States?
 
 
 
Which comes first Caitlyn, the US government invading a land thousands of miles away - uninvited - or people making the point that the US government has no authority outside of its own borders.

  
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

This is just a debate between "Big Bad America" running around doing whatever the fuck they want to do, and pretenting they are the good guys ... and people that think they live in "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy" land ... thinking the world is anything other than what it clearly is.
 
 

:-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Sounds like rhetoric to me.



It will do to you.

Caitlyn, do you have anything to counter the points being made?



caitlyn -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 7:14:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Who Lincoln picked as general had almost nothing to do with winning the Civil War.  What had to do with winning the Civil War was an industrial base, a larger population, and the support of Europe.


I differ with this statement to a great extent. Industrial base, population and support from Europe (to a lesser degree), only come in to play if the right tool is in place to allow them to be a factor. U.S. Grant was that tool.
 
George McClelland was clearly a political rival to President Lincoln.
 
Joe Hooker didn't know how to be loyal to he superiors, not as a Corps Commander, and not at an Army Commander.
 
Ambrose Burnside didn't command the respect of the men under him.
 
George Meade was the best of the lot, which is why Grant kept him, but still didn't understand the dynamics of the war he was fighting.
 
Early in the war, Winfield Scott didn't take proper stock of his advantage. A two early points, First Manassas and during the Seven Days Campaign, the south stripped the Shenandoah Valley to fight further east, and both time Scott failed to order an attack in this vital area.
 
At Sharpsburg and Gettysburg, the Federals had wins that cold have turned in to greaters wins. Sharpsburg is understandable to a point. Harpers Ferry was still in Confederate hands, and the Federal cavalry is in a sorry state. McClelland really didn't know what he had in front of him. That said, it was clear that Lincln wanted him to take some risks. McClelland, thinking of his political career, wasn't willing to suffer a loss. At Gettysburg, there was no excuse. The confederate grasp on the Potomac was marginal at best, and two fresh Federal cavalry divisions had arrived on the scene. The Confederates were lot on ammunition and had virtually no ammunition for the artillery. It was a golden chance.
 
Enter U.S. Grant as commander. Grant didn't see the need to fire all his rivals, even though Lincoln wanted him to. He kept Meade and elevated men like Francis Barlow and John Gibbon, who had previously been denied important commands, because they were not West Point graduates. This was vital ... simply vital. Grant's first battle was a shambles in the Wilderness. Previous Union commanders would have withdrawn, but Grand pushed forward, with the support of the new Army & Corps commanders he had elevated. Men that were loyal to him, rather than rivals to him. Another defeat followed, at Spotsyvania Court House, followed by another at North Anna. Each time, Grant realized his advantages, and pushed forward.
 
I see Grant's contribution as vital. Without him, it seems pretty clear that the Federals would have kept losing battles and backing off, allowing enlistments to expire ... they would have kept fighting with inexperienced armies against the hardened Confederates, kept leaving the field and restocking the Army of Northern Virginia with fresh artillery and ammunition.
 
Had the war lasted much longer, Robert E. Lee's health was deteriorating. It seems likely that if Lee had been forced to resign, James Longstreet would have been given command. His strategy of building massive defensive positions at key points in the east and moving the field army out west, might have been a serious problem for the north.



Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 7:36:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Who Lincoln picked as general had almost nothing to do with winning the Civil War.  What had to do with winning the Civil War was an industrial base, a larger population, and the support of Europe.


I differ with this statement to a great extent. Industrial base, population and support from Europe (to a lesser degree), only come in to play if the right tool is in place to allow them to be a factor. U.S. Grant was that tool.
 
George McClelland was clearly a political rival to President Lincoln.
 
Joe Hooker didn't know how to be loyal to he superiors, not as a Corps Commander, and not at an Army Commander.
 
Ambrose Burnside didn't command the respect of the men under him.
 
George Meade was the best of the lot, which is why Grant kept him, but still didn't understand the dynamics of the war he was fighting.
 
Early in the war, Winfield Scott didn't take proper stock of his advantage. A two early points, First Manassas and during the Seven Days Campaign, the south stripped the Shenandoah Valley to fight further east, and both time Scott failed to order an attack in this vital area.
 
At Sharpsburg and Gettysburg, the Federals had wins that cold have turned in to greaters wins. Sharpsburg is understandable to a point. Harpers Ferry was still in Confederate hands, and the Federal cavalry is in a sorry state. McClelland really didn't know what he had in front of him. That said, it was clear that Lincln wanted him to take some risks. McClelland, thinking of his political career, wasn't willing to suffer a loss. At Gettysburg, there was no excuse. The confederate grasp on the Potomac was marginal at best, and two fresh Federal cavalry divisions had arrived on the scene. The Confederates were lot on ammunition and had virtually no ammunition for the artillery. It was a golden chance.
 
Enter U.S. Grant as commander. Grant didn't see the need to fire all his rivals, even though Lincoln wanted him to. He kept Meade and elevated men like Francis Barlow and John Gibbon, who had previously been denied important commands, because they were not West Point graduates. This was vital ... simply vital. Grant's first battle was a shambles in the Wilderness. Previous Union commanders would have withdrawn, but Grand pushed forward, with the support of the new Army & Corps commanders he had elevated. Men that were loyal to him, rather than rivals to him. Another defeat followed, at Spotsyvania Court House, followed by another at North Anna. Each time, Grant realized his advantages, and pushed forward.
 
I see Grant's contribution as vital. Without him, it seems pretty clear that the Federals would have kept losing battles and backing off, allowing enlistments to expire ... they would have kept fighting with inexperienced armies against the hardened Confederates, kept leaving the field and restocking the Army of Northern Virginia with fresh artillery and ammunition.
 
Had the war lasted much longer, Robert E. Lee's health was deteriorating. It seems likely that if Lee had been forced to resign, James Longstreet would have been given command. His strategy of building massive defensive positions at key points in the east and moving the field army out west, might have been a serious problem for the north.


That was a wonderful response, caitlyn, and I have little or no disagreement with it in terms of individual portions of the conflict.

So to bring it full circle to the topic.

Why have the previous generals failed to solve the 6 year quagmire in Iraq?

Based on this analysis, what will changing the General running the show in Iraq do to solve the problem?

If the answer is "we need go give the general X to do the job," then we go back to the same thing Clinton's study (that was ignored by Bush) claimed would be needed.  Clinton, the UN studies for peacekeeping forces, etc., all had studied the topic for years.  Bush and his ilk "knew" better, and sent the US military to do a job they were not prepared to do, had insufficient resources to do, and had no training in (urban pacification of 40 million people).  The word for this is "hubris" and now the rest of us are stuck with the bill.

This does not speak well for the competence of the Commander In Chief, Rumsfeld, etc., in doing their jobs.  If they are not competent, it does not speak well for their ability to choose people to do the work.  This is why I have little faith in General Petraeus being able to do anything.  He may be a wonderful general, but he lacks what he needs to get the job done.

Sinergy



caitlyn -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 7:36:38 AM)

It doesn't matter who has the right to do what, when there is no mechanism in place to make them do it, or keep them from doing whatever they want to.
 
I'm not understanding you point. I'm not arguing about right and wrong ... only saying that when you have no chance in hell of enforcing right and preventing wrong, then consistantly talking about what it right, and what is wrong, tends to be rhetoric.
 
It's sort of like you are worrying about air, when thats is all there is to breath. Discussing how to keep air clean, is on point. To move this analogy to Iraq, discussing how to get the British and Americans out, is on point.
 
Everything else, is rhetoric in my view. I'm willing to accept that I don't get your point.



caitlyn -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 7:46:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Why have the previous generals failed to solve the 6 year quagmire in Iraq?

Based on this analysis, what will changing the General running the show in Iraq do to solve the problem?


I'm going to be an actual person on this board that will accept and understand their limitations. I'm a historian ... I know about history. I'm not an expert on the military happenings as they apply to Iraq.
 
What I can comment on, is what I have been told by someone over there that commands over 3,000 men,
 
a) We didn't have enough troops initially, which was a huge mistake by Rummy.
 
b) The troops thought Rummy was a tool and are glad to see him gone ... this especially from the officer corps.
 
c) General Petraeus is a huge step up from other commanders. I've read some info that Rummy was intimidated by him, and held him back from the top command. Remind you of anything?
 
d) General Petraeus has more men than previous commanders, including men from top American formations.
 
Please keep in mind that I indicated I'm not an expert, and in no way am I saying that these are going to make a difference. This is raw data, and in most cases, just opinion. Readers can come to their own conclusions.



Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 7:51:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

To move this analogy to Iraq, discussing how to get the British and Americans out, is on point.
 


Correct me if I am incorrect, NorthernGent, but I believe the answer to getting the British and Americans out is to pack them all on planes and fly them back home.

What will happen is that the system space (middle east) will go through enormous upheavals for a while and then settle out into some sort of stable status quo.

I believe the point NG and I are making is that the American occupation of Iraq, whether right or wrong, is doomed to failure.  We have been throwing good money after bad for years trying to fix the situation that Bush got us in to in his hubris and idiocy.  In other words, we will leave eventually because we have neither the manpower or money to stay there forever, and those who are there are simply waiting for us to leave.

To reiterate, leaving is easy for the US to do.

Going there in the first place broke Humpty Dumpty and it will never be put back together again the way it was.  The system space will change because of it, which will probably cause the end of both Israel and Jordan.  The war might spill over into Turkey and move north into Europe.   Additionally, the US doesnt have the means to guarantee that it is put back together the way the US wants it to be put back together.

Sinergy




xBullx -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 8:15:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

This does not speak well for the competence of the Commander In Chief, Rumsfeld, etc., in doing their jobs.  If they are not competent, it does not speak well for their ability to choose people to do the work.  This is why I have little faith in General Petraeus being able to do anything.  He may be a wonderful general, but he lacks what he needs to get the job done.

Sinergy



Greetings Sinergy,

Agreed!!!!!!!!!  The point is not to run though, or pull out....We have started this mess and now cedibility and integrity are at stake. Their are those in the world with soft underbellies and they believe hasty retreat after hasty retreat is the answer. Some day retreat is at the cliffs edge. WE started this, and men/women (I'm outside my Gor thread I used a bit of PC[:)]) with integrity and honor of purpose GET IT RIGHT, we must keep reinventing the wheel until we get it right. Grant was the Unions right wheel, no PC no more Mister nice guy, he won the day, period. Now he didn't have CNN or NY times or any other large political device to corrupt the sentiment of the populice, at least not to the degree we have now. Ask the men over there. Many know the Iraqi folks want us to stay until the evil intended are defeated. Theoir elected Government ahs asked us to STAY. The difficulty is we are fighting as best we can BY THE RULES. We have made mistakes but we're trying to do it right as the enemy follows no rules, has no compassion for a baby in the market and lives to create havoc.

I'm not a Bush supporter, I'm not a Re or a De, I'm an American, I've served many years in the Army, I stood in the darkness and faced fear, so I can run my mouth, one as an American, two as a warrior. I have sons on their way, I hate sacrifice as much as anyone. But why do you think these insurgents think they can win....Because we have many times over not honored the commitments that WE have placed upon ourselves. I DON"T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE AGE OLD DEBATE OF WMD. That is no longer the issue, hasn't been for a long time. The insurgents know that if they make it hard, not impossible, just hard that our soft underbelly and the fear sets in. It has more to do with our past then theirs. Hell, Ho Che Min came to ask our help to start a soveriegn nation after WWII, but no let's give Vietnam back to a useless bunch that couldn't defnd or manage their own country and then not only are we facing their incompetence in WWI and WWII, we are also left to deal with their mess in south east Asia. Again though, if we had played less politics would 54,000 have died in rice patties.

Let's consider the Soviet block countries that we promised to support if they revolted. Wow, how about some credibility lost their.... Perhaps we should have listened to Patton instead of killing him off. Another man that said shove your politics and played to win. How many times do you get mad at a football team for playing a prevent defense only to watch them loose the game. This is life, we don't get offered many next seasons in this game of world domination. I agree with what Orion said, A democracy as we see it will not work there......YET.............And a Dictator is damn sure not the answer. but surely there are some of these smart, know it alls that can contrive some damn better wheel, reinvent it, we're all so damn smart but we can't help OUR fighting men help a worn out and scared people to THEIR promise land. All we ever do is DEBATE and bicker about NOTHING.......No one is doing a damn thing but bitching about the ones that are doing something....Their is no easy answer to this one people....It is one of those times in the world that we define ourselves as men (gender neutral). Lenny squoshed his mouses head, remember, the meek will not inherit the Earth, that was politcal rhetoric to appease the masses, Thanks Pope on a rope, you have inpired 1000's of years of appathy and acceptance of mediocracy and failures.

Let's solve this issue without throwing the people we said we'd help, to the wolves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Try firing Bush to find a man capable of leading instead of capable of running!!!!!! Talk about moving forward on this globe, not retreating to the same ole, same ole....Yeah, yeah, they've been fighting for thousands of years, let's help them find a reason not too. Sure a leopard can't change his spots and our Demcracy was suppose to die off long ago as well.

I like you guys, there are some brilliant minds that debate and discuss life situations here. We know we can't take the path of least resistance any longer in solving our worlds problems, that extends well beyond this war too..... Make our noise to stop profiteering on our worldly efforts, that's what stands in the way of success this time, most times.....

Live well,

Bull

Kicks the soap box to the next in line....................



Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 9:56:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

a) We didn't have enough troops initially, which was a huge mistake by Rummy.



We still dont.  UN peacekeeping guidelines as well as Clinton's study assume that for peacekeeping to work requires one soldier on the ground for every 40 civilians.  Until we have a million soldiers in Iraq, our military will be unable to accomplish their mission.

quote:



d) General Petraeus has more men than previous commanders, including men from top American formations.



More, but not significantly more considering how many are required according to experts in urban pacification.

While a lot of posters on here insist we need more resolve to accomplish our goals, the sad reality is that we dont have enough of a military to do the job that Bush and Rumsfeld sent over there to do it.  When I read the postings about needing more resolve it reminds me of an 8 year old holding his or her breath until Daddy takes them to Disneyland.

Regarding Rumsfeld, I think Bush' incompetence speaks for itself.  I would tend to imagine his lack of competence would extend to his ability to hire competent underlings.

Sinergy



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875