If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 3 NOV 2003 at 5:29pm |
LongBladeGeneral
Posts : 20587
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Offline | Your post actually seems to cover two questions: the topic, I think, implies that you're seeking some kind of conclusion as to whether the war was right or wrong.
The question you ask, however, is more subtle and asks how the war might end and what its impact will be. Perhaps you could rephrase either the topic or the question to clarify what you mean?
|
| 3 NOV 2003 at 6:05pm |
AddlemindedCenturion
Posts : 77
Joined: 3 SEP 2003
Status : Online | The war has been over since the time Bush said it was. The political/military organization known as Iraq failed to exist. We are currently involved in a reconstruction project that involves a police action. It is no more a "war" than similar actions in the US against gang-infested neighborhoods.
It was absolutely necessary that we go in and take care of business as we did. Hussein had the aspirations to be another Hitler. Just because most of the Western world doesn't care how many of his fellow Arabs he killed in his genocidal campaigns doesn't mean we should have avoided our moral imperative as the best-positioned nation to do something about it.
|
| 3 NOV 2003 at 6:54pm |
Centurion40General
Posts : 10892
Joined: 31 OCT 2003
Location: CA, Halifax
Status : Offline | One of my hopes in all of this was that western forces would get at the root of Osama & his ilk... Wahabism (sic?). That radical, twisted view of Islam that seems to want to eradicate anyone who doesn't submit to Islam, specifically their view of Islam... and that root is in Saudi Arabia. The hope, is that US & British forces can find a way to stabilize a gov't in Iraq. That said Iraqis will sell cheap non-OPEC oil to the US to say "thanks for ridding us of Saddam". That the cheap oil will destabilize OPEC & the current Saudi regime. That the drop of oil will mean less $$$ to the Saudi regime will be unable to afford contain their own cesspool of fanatics, throwing that country into civil war. The House of Saud will then need to scream-out help to the US, and US forces will go in & be able clean the main nest of Wahabi vipers, thus making the world a better & safer place.
But nothing in the Middle East is that simple. I don't think tha the US is going to be able to build democracy in Iraq. The reality is that the only gov't in the whole area even resembling a democracy is Israel- and there you need (as I understand it) to be Jewish in order to vote! It would take a couple of generations of western occupation (and daily reports of young men or women from New Jersey, or Michigan, or Utah, or California getting killed at a road checkpoint- or on a helicopter going home for Thanksgiving) in Iraq to begin to see democracy take deep roots. The only time that there was "order" in Iraq was during Ottoman Turk rule, or under Saddam! I think that the US should give the job back to Turkey. People are afraid of injustice against the Kurds if Turkey goes into Iraq. Well guess what... there will be injustice against the Kurds. There is injustice against them right now... and there always has been injustice against the Kurds. But maybe the Turks can contain the wingnuts so that they keep their suicide bombing in the Middle East, and stay away from European & American shores.
I do believe that it's going to take Middle Eastern ways to solve, or even contain Middle Eastern problems. If the Saudis can't do it, then let's go back to the old masters... the Turks.
"I love Anne Hathaway and her penchant for nudity." -The Dawg of Metal
|
| 3 NOV 2003 at 7:14pm |
TinCowCenturion
Posts : 168
Joined: 23 SEP 2003
Location: US
Status : Online | It is a monumental achievement to convert the unprecedented level of international support the US received after 9/11 into its current situation. GW Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in regards to foreign policy ever. The domestic issue has yet to be determined.
I will refrain from saying much more because I am significantly biased on this issue and find it difficult to be objective. When speaking to non-Americans, I am embarassed to tell them my nationality. I wish I could fall back on my dual-citizenship, but my accent and the fact that we dragged Britain into this mess with us negates that.
Unfortunitely, everyone is right when they say that now that we are there, we can't stay until it's fixed. I just hope there is something left of our international reputation and domestic unity when this is all over. As an amateur historian, I firmly believe that the US is in serious danger of being viewed historically as the 'bad guy' in this era.
|
| 3 NOV 2003 at 7:32pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | One word: Viet Nam.
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 3 NOV 2003 at 7:47pm |
pzgndrCommander
Posts : 1069
Joined: 27 SEP 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | More like, Viet NAMB. :rolleyes:
|
| 3 NOV 2003 at 7:50pm |
LongBladeGeneral
Posts : 20587
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Offline | Anybody read [URL=www.wargamer.com/reviews/savage_wars_of_peace/]The Savage Wars of Peace[/URL]? An understanding of its premise would be useful in this discussion. And it's an excellent read.
|
| 3 NOV 2003 at 8:02pm |
TinCowCenturion
Posts : 168
Joined: 23 SEP 2003
Location: US
Status : Online | Originally Posted By LongBlade
Anybody read [URL=www.wargamer.com/reviews/savage_wars_of_peace/]The Savage Wars of Peace[/URL]? An understanding of its premise would be useful in this discussion. And it's an excellent read.
Haven't read it, but after reading that review, it's on my To Buy list.
|
| 3 NOV 2003 at 8:25pm |
AddlemindedCenturion
Posts : 77
Joined: 3 SEP 2003
Status : Online | QUOTE]
Unfortunitely, everyone is right when they say that now that we are there, we can't stay until it's fixed. I just hope there is something left of our international reputation and domestic unity when this is all over. As an amateur historian, I firmly believe that the US is in serious danger of being viewed historically as the 'bad guy' in this era.
Are you off your nut? How is getting rid of someone who committed genocide a bad thing? Until you can explain this comment, everything else you say is irrelevent. As far as "international reputation," far more countries are behind us than against us. Those in the later group are either there out of habit (like Russia), were allied with Saddam in the first place (France) or are diplomatic eunichs (Germany).
We can't possibly leave the country in the state that it is in. We do need to give some reporters a kick in the nuts though for grossly misstating and overblowing the most minute events there. Thanks to them putting a name and face on every single casualty, they ignore the fact that given the population size of our force there, the mortality rate is probably less than it would be through incidental accidents, killings, etc. if they were "safely" in this country.
|
| 3 NOV 2003 at 8:32pm |
TinCowCenturion
Posts : 168
Joined: 23 SEP 2003
Location: US
Status : Online | My apologies, that was a typo. I meant "now that we are there, we can't LEAVE until it's fixed."
As for getting rid of Sadam because he committed genocide... well that's all nice and good, but that's not why we went there. We went there for two reasons (officially): (1) To get rid of WMD (2) To stop Iraqi support of terrorism. Seems clear to me that neither of those existed, and if anything we have only created #2 by being there.
We choose to ignore genocide all the time all across the globe. It's hypocritical to thus claim the high horse because a secondary effect is the only decent thing that has come about after pissing all over international law and order.
|
| 3 NOV 2003 at 11:12pm |
Blam0Centurion
Posts : 139
Joined: 6 OCT 2003
Status : Online | I'm quite sure that my views are going to be taken harshly here, but here goes....
Before I get started, let me make it clear that I believe Saddam is a bad man and needed to go. However, that should have been done under Bush I, and not Bush II. IMHO, the Arabs should keep their own house (probably another good topic).
I'm astounded that anyone could see the current administration's foreign policy as successful. In my view, it has been one resounding failure after another, starting with the intelligence failure of 9/11.
The war in Afghanistan was a failure because we were unable to accomplish what we went in there to do, namely capture or kill Osama. Rooting out the Taliban was done mostly by air and with indiginous troops, except for some of the more difficult work at the end. When this failure was becoming more and more aparrent, the Administration switched bad guys on us, and the media and the American public fell for it.
Not only did the Bush Administration distribute known false intel, it now looks like Rumsfeld had the intel that actually existed analyzed until he got the results he wanted so that Bush could get the war he wanted to distract the public from his failures both at home and in Afghanistan.
The complete failure to find the "huge stockpiles" of WMD demonstrates this single track thinking. The line then shifted to "there was a program" but we can't find those facilities either. Calling "dual use" facilities is nothing but lawyerspeak and coverup (I wonder how many "dual use" facilities the US has). Now that line is giving way under facts to "Well he was a bad guy."
Of course no mention was ever made of exactly how Saddam's weapons were ever a threat to US security...
In May, Bush mad a big show of declaring the war "over." I was completely shocked to see that there are some folks on this board (of all places) who actually buy that, and suggested that the violence in Iraq has been the due to gang violence!?!
There is no question that what is going on in Iraq is a very successful (so far) guerilla campaign. So far, both the Red Cross and the United Natinos has either left or reduced their presence. The Bush Administration is desperately looking for allies to reduce the load/casualties/costs to the US. It also looks like a clear exit strategy is going to be a key issue in the upcoming Presidential election (and most likely in Britain's next election as well).
I am currently reading The Savage Wars of Peace, and I must say that it does look like the US is doing "the right things" to quell the insurrection. The caveat would be that of all of the conflicts mentioned in the book, none of them have the religious nature that is prevalent in that part of the world now.
While I don't agree with the justification for the war, I do believe that there are potentially huge benefits for the US if we are able to put a stable, democratic government in place there...but I'll save that for another post.
Jon-Mark
(Please pardon my spelling)
[image]http://www.wargamer.com/forums/upfiles/2480/Nl309651166.jpg[/image]
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 1:51am |
LongBladeGeneral
Posts : 20587
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Offline | Actually, Blam0, there was a fairly robust discussion prior to the start of the war as to whether it was the correct course of action. I can't tell you with any degree of certainty how many folks were for or against, but the discussion had input from all sides, and your point of view is always welcome.
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 1:56am |
LongBladeGeneral
Posts : 20587
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By TinCow
Haven't read it, but after reading that review, it's on my To Buy list.
You won't regret it. Whether you agree or disagree with its conclusions, its perspective is unique and compelling enough for me to have called it "Required Reading" for students of history and military science.
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 2:50am |
KillrothCenturion
Posts : 562
Joined: 3 NOV 2003
Status : Online | Well a couple of things I want to say in israel you do not have to be Jewish to vote since the Jewish parliament has a block of Palestinian members within it. Another thing though I felt the war was neccesary yet now I feel like the Bush Administration didn't have a real plan set up after the war to build a post-war Iraq. As for no WMD I think that this is a tough issue 1. Because we know Saddam has had WMD since hes used them on the Iranians and when he used them on his own people!! So he has had WMD and if he did get rid of them why did he not publicly show his dismantling and removal of the weapons?? It would be a huge publicity victory for him worldwide. Another thing is addressing a democratic government in iraq I think will never work 1 because there are too many factions with historical hatreds of each other including the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunni's. Also I now realize Ive been jumping around lol but for terrorism you are right that Saddam never supported Al-Qeuda but he has supported other terrorist orginazations including Hezzbollah, the PLO, and Islamic Jihad to name a few. he also had a million man volunteer armoy willing to give there lives to wipe Israel off the map. So all in all I felt the war was neccesary yet sadly I feel like its lost its direction now in the Post war conflict!!
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 5:25am |
medlinkeCenturion
Posts : 4
Joined: 4 NOV 2003
Status : Online | I think it's a moot point at this time for a couple of reasons...
1) We've spent more than we'll ever recover in terms of both money (and more importantly) lives.
2) It would be tantamount to international suicide to walk away from the situation. We're being scrutinized for our ability to handle this thing alone and at this point to turn away would send the message that we have good intentions but no real interest in following through unless it's continually in our best interest.
That said...
I think the reasons for going to war were shaky. the world's a much more gray place though. On the one hand I had friends who were from Iraq who hated Saddam because they had had relatives killed by him. On the other hand...we are nation building.
My biggest beef at this point is probably with the way the President has marketed himself and this conflict. There were ways to sell it without flat out lying. There are still ways to sell it without selling out his ideals, the American agenda, and the American Economy.
Finally...I'm really regretful for all the loss of life on both sides of the terrible conflict. To think of people my age over they killing each other is pretty sickening when there aren't clearly defined rights and wrongs. I'm regretful that this is going to take money out of American pockets in tough economic times. Most of all I'm worried about the long term economic and international impact this will have.
It appears to be the beginning of the end as the US as a sole super power country. Regional assemblies are becoming much more prominent.
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 3:28pm |
klausCenturion
Posts : 3
Joined: 4 NOV 2003
Status : Online | "We've spent more than we'll ever recover in terms of both money (and more importantly) lives."
Sometimes an investment has to be done without having a direct return. The operation will show its benefits in later times. And according to lives. Do you mean american lives? How many allied soldiers has been killed in this conflict? (fewer than 250 in 8 months I think) So far I know the american army has in peacetimes 270 lethal casualties per year due to equipment malfunction and accidents. No Sir, its more the biased way the media reports about those terrorists than the direct number of dead soldiers.
"I think the reasons for going to war were shaky. "
The real reasons to go for war are always questionable. But I think that your government was afraid to tell the american and international public the full truth why it was inevitable to go to iraque. For me the conflict is fully acceptable and necessary for several economical and strategic reasons. I regret that the EU (which is my place of living) have not the nuts to take their share of responsibility in the world.
"My biggest beef at this point is probably with the way the President has marketed himself and this conflict. There were ways to sell it without flat out lying. There are still ways to sell it without selling out his ideals, the American agenda, and the American Economy."
Maybe there has been ways to tell the americans something, but American agenda and american economy is not important for the average Europeans. If he declared that America has "american reasons" to wage a war, the opposition in Europe (and I am sure in USA too) would have been even louder. Thats why I think that your president has done it the right way.
"Most of all I'm worried about the long term economic and international impact this will have."
The long term impact will be very beneficial if USA has the willpower to stay in the region with several divisions. Only just because there are some drawbacks and terrorist attacks, one should not make the mistake to declare the operation as a failure. And please - someone above mentioned the word "Vietnam". It really polemic to compare the iraque war with Vietnam.
"It appears to be the beginning of the end as the US as a sole super power country. Regional assemblies are becoming much more prominent."
The neo-liberalistic US politicians which called the "New American Century" into live have a good reason to believe that the super power status of your fine country will last at least for this century. I want to second this opinion.
bye
Klaus
PS: sorry for my bad english
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 3:41pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | Iraq: wrong.
There is no military or political point to planning a war if you do not plan for the victory as well. Bush didn't.
There is no excuse for the lies and deceptiion which accompany just about anything the Toxic Texan does in the political arena. Certainly not concerns about how Euro's will react to "American goals and ideals". The Euro's don't show any reciprocal concern over how we might react to [I]their[/I] Eurocentric concerns, so?
Bush was desperate for something to deflect the American public away from his miserable domestic performance, and just maybe to make him popular enough to consider re-election. He hasn't achieved that, as the domestic situation steadily worsens and Iraq is revealed for the cancerous, gangrenous wound that it is, while America is daily revealed as having little or no actual control over it's erstwhile conquest.
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 3:44pm |
TinCowCenturion
Posts : 168
Joined: 23 SEP 2003
Location: US
Status : Online | The thing the bothers me the most about all this is how Bush squandered the immense international support we received after 9/11. With proper management, that goodwill could have been turned into a world-unifying force which could have lasted a decade or more. Instead, we are now at best tolerated and at worst detested.
In my personal opinion, the best move Bush could have made would have been to pledge total support, both economically and militarily to Russia. Help the Russians rebuild their economy and assist them however they would want in solving the Chechan problem and they would be eternally grateful. Even though the power of the Soviet Union is gone, Russia has immense potential and would have been the perfect ally for 21st century America. The other available options are Europe and China, neither of which had (have) the potential for a truely magnificent alliance that Russia does.
Sure, Russian power has diminished... but what nation would oppose any action that was jointly and passionately supported by both the USA and Russia? This is a missed opportunity I think we will sorely regret.
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 3:59pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | TC - agree, except that I don't think we "missed the opportunity; I don't think the Toxic Texan ever saw it in the first place.
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 5:08pm |
KevinuglyCenturion
Posts : 713
Joined: 31 AUG 2003
Status : Online | Biggest problem? The coalition failed to finish the job in 1991. Opportunity was there, Bush snr. got cold feet. This time, killed too many Iraqis to claim a surgical strike but not enough to make them give us respect. Result - US and British troops and civilians will continue to die at the hands of the followers of Islam.
Thank you for using the World Wide Web: British made, given to the World freely.
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 5:34pm |
klausCenturion
Posts : 3
Joined: 4 NOV 2003
Status : Online | "Iraq: wrong."
I say Iraq: right.
"There is no military or political point to planning a war if you do not plan for the victory as well. Bush didn't."
Maybe you dont have much trust in the planning quality of your generals. I have. I think that the US-pentagon has the compentence to plan for the time after the victory over iraq.
"There is no excuse for the lies and deceptiion which accompany just about anything the Toxic Texan does in the political arena. Certainly not concerns about how Euro's will react to "American goals and ideals". The Euro's don't show any reciprocal concern over how we might react to [I]their[/I] Eurocentric concerns, so?"
You seem not to like your president, do you? No prob I also dont like the austrian president. But to be honest I dont think that the Bush administration does not all care about other governments. Its just a matter of priorities. If it is easy to be nice to others, why not. But when US-national interests are in danger, then the opinion of others which act also according to their own national interests is secondary. (even if they claim to be allies) And I am sure the "Euros" think similar. (Gladly not all EU-nations, Blair was on side of the US against british population and his own political party. He is the only real ally the US have His strategic and political farsight seems to be remarkable) Your government tries to involve some other minor countries (Spain, Poland etc.) and even the UN to administrate post-conflict iraq. Thats for me the proof that they want to on good terms with other governments.
"Bush was desperate for something to deflect the American public away from his miserable domestic performance, and just maybe to make him popular enough to consider re-election."
Sounds for me like too much watching "wag the dog" films from hollywood.
Klaus
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 5:36pm |
MarlboroughCenturion
Posts : 654
Joined: 10 SEP 2003
Status : Online | The war was probably necessary but it should have been fought in 1991 not 2003. I just wish our governments had been more honest about the reason why the war was fought. No one in their right mind could have honestly thought that Iraq under Saddam was supporting Bin Laden and his ilk. If anything powerful secular rulers of Moslem nations are more of a threat to/enemy of Al Quaeda than the Western democracies. WMD was a complete red herring. Had Saddam had such weapons and used them militarily the response from the US and its allies would have demolished him - he may have been mad but not that mad.
Turning back to "probably necessary" the bottom line was that in 1991 Saddam had shown himself to be a threat to the stability of a region that is of global importance. He should have been toppled then. He was hardly a threat by 2003 but had continued to "thumb his nose" at the US and the UN. He was, in effect, inviting such a show down and eventually got what he was asking for. Whether the US and UK should have risen to the bait is another issue. That was the real reason for this war.
All this talk of him being an evil dictator and killing his own people is probably true but it was not the reason for going to war. Both Britain and the US have a long history of supporting "evil dictators" when they see it as being in their interest to do so. In fact both countries supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war.
However, what is done is done and we should now address how to make sure we make the best of the present situation. What is most important is for the West (particularly the US) to stop playing into the hands of those who want to portray this as part of a religious war. If we allow this view to prevail and continue to encourage it we can look forward to decades of tension and terrorism.
It strikes me that the key to this is for the US to behave in a more even-handed manner when dealing with the Palestine/Israel issue. Its seemingly unquestioning support of Israel not only fuels Arab hatred for America and the West but also fuels hatred for Israel both by encouraging the far right in Israel and by increasing the sense amongst Arabs and elsewhere that the situation is simply "unfair" for the Palestinians.
This issue must be resolved one way or another and the US is the only country with the power to bang some heads together and make it happen.
Finally, there will never be peace in Iraq while US troops continue to wear helmets and sun glasses. I know I would want the sense of security that such items give if I was patrolling the streets of Baghdad, but how can you expect a population to trust or like you when you are dressed like one of Darth Vader's storm troopers? They need to see a human face and to be able to look into the eyes of the occupying forces before they will ever truly believe that they are their for the good of Iraq.
"By the help of God I will hold the balance level" General Charles "Chinese" Gordon - Khartoum 1884.
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 5:53pm |
TinCowCenturion
Posts : 168
Joined: 23 SEP 2003
Location: US
Status : Online | [B]Marlborough
Finally, there will never be peace in Iraq while US troops continue to wear helmets and sun glasses. I know I would want the sense of security that such items give if I was patrolling the streets of Baghdad, but how can you expect a population to trust or like you when you are dressed like one of Darth Vader's storm troopers? They need to see a human face and to be able to look into the eyes of the occupying forces before they will ever truly believe that they are their for the good of Iraq.[/B]
That reminds me of a rather decent British Army television ad. That 'what would you do' type campaign was well done.
|
| 4 NOV 2003 at 7:57pm |
AA_Brian_Centurion
Posts : 103
Joined: 15 JAN 2003
Status : Online | Hello All...Iam by no means,a expert in this area ..you could say iam just a war history buff..who happens to like stratgey games...Iam a mason by trade and live a simple life....I read/watch/whatever, all the time ,to try and grasp what is happening in the world around us.We can see (and have seen) how crafty these religious fantics are!!I mean look what they are capable of..9/11 being #1.In my opinion Iraq & Afganastan is only the begining of a long drawn out Guerilla War...not only that i think they will have to go at other countrys too if they trully wish to eliminate this threat.
WMD...I for one belive somewhere in th Middle East these weapons are present...Look at how good they are at hiding Osama and Saddam ...you really think these people arent capable of hiding WMD ...even if it means moveing it to another country? ( Like Saddam did with his AirForce in first GW sending them to Iran) Dont forget they had almost 5 years with no weapons inspections...plenty o time to hide things.
Iran..lately has been found with weapons type uranium (something they agreed not to have)Iran is supposedly funding North Koreas Nuke program ,so they may attain a nuke them selfs...the list gets long .....Syria,Palistine,Sadi Arabia and many more that support the (and hide) Terroists.....so if there willing to do that ...then iam sure they would hide WMD too!!
Anyone with a mind knows you cannot EVER let these people attain or build these weapons ...we already know they will use them!!! 9/11 Rember!!
War does not decide who is right !!!
War decides who is left!!!!
|
