RE: A different voice on Iraq

RE: A different voice on Iraq (Full Version)

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

Message

Sanity -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 11:50:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You keep mentioning "the Generals". Are "the Generals" all supposed to be in total agreement with "the Administration"? If not, then why do you keep mentioning them that way. And what if "the Generals" hands were untied - would that make you happy? I'm going fishing...It is just that you are putting faith in someone's words and views who's attitude towards the war as well as the success of our troops has never appeared to wane....I think she is a believer...Fine. But beyond that it doesn't begin to answer how to solve the problems between the Sunnis and Shiites. Everyone who is there volunteered...the majority have beliefs which are on the "right " side of the political spectrum...They bought the stories...Good for them. I hope they believe in what they are doing and I hope hey all come home safely... But people have a way of rationalizing causes and crusades...I wish them well. there is a possibility they are unable to see the big picture...When they are wounded and interviewed this is how the typical interview goes....Reporter: "So are you going back to fight."...Soldier.."yep. I'm looking forward to rejoin my people." Soldiers have a tremendous sense of loyalty to one another...and thank God they do!...Yet as to giving an honest perspective of the situation is possibly outside of their grasp. I don't think what I am saying is unreasonable...And there is nothing that shows the two sides are any closer to getting along now...Is there a valid argument to the contrary? Well, that's a great answer, except that it doesn't have anything to do with the question that I asked.

Sternhand4 -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 12:04:52 PM)
A better voice.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-qBJwjSKA8

Real0ne -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 12:51:48 PM)
US soldiers call for Iraq withdrawal in petition (AFP) Updated: 2006-11-07 10:48 WASHINGTON - Hundreds of US soldiers have signed a petition calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq and the document is to be formally presented to Congress in January, organizers said. "As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq," the petition says. "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for US troops to come home," it says. The campaign's website, www.appealforredress.org, says the petition is sponsored by active duty service members based in the Norfolk, Virginia area and by a sponsoring committee of veterans and military family members. The committee includes Iraq Veterans against the War (IVAW), Veterans for Peace (VFP) and Military Families Speak Out. "Many active duty, reserve, and guard service members are concerned about the war in Iraq and support the withdrawal of US troops," the website says. "The Appeal for Redress provides a way in which individual service members can appeal to their congressional representative and US senators to urge an end to the US military occupation," it says. One of the campaign's activists told AFP hundreds of soldiers have signed the petition. According to a local newspaper, the Virginian-Pilot, the petition's leader is Jonathan Hutto, a sailor on the Norfolk-based aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt. His website was activated in October, the daily said. Iraq is the central theme of Tuesday's US congressional election, in which opposition Democrats hope to take control of Congress from President George W. Bush's Republicans. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2006-11/07/content_726738.htm

caitlyn -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 1:03:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I am no longer peace activist Caitlyn, but the fact remains, Iran is a larger country, they have more of a military than Iraq, they would be harder to invade, unlike Saddam they have a military. I did not say that their military would save them, I bet we could inflict major casualties, destroy their country if that were our aim. But beat them? We cannot beat countries that have little more than sticks and stones. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060531-121559-6573r.htm Now you may not have much respect for my opinion because I am propeace.... you can be as disrespectful to me as you like. In my opinion that illustrates your character, and has no relation to mine... I am not bothering with people that attack me anymore, if would like to go on that list of people, fine by me. Well julia, I am not attacking you, or disrespecting you. I don't even fucking know you for God's sakes. I am completely attacking your position, because it isn't accurate ... not at all. You said Iran had a real army (again, your words) when compaired to Iraq. That statement is just utter nonsense. If you are going to think it's disrespectful to point this out, then I will always look disrespectful to you. Iraq was far more militarily sophisticated than Iran. They had modern aircraft, modern tanks, highly trained troops, and a reasonably sophisticated air defense system. Iraq had a large and effective artillery component. Iraq had battle hardened troops. Iran has very little of any of these things, and what they do have is of very poor quality. Are you aware that most of the officer class from the last Iran/Iraq war, now live in Europe and the United States? You know, we wouldn't even have to shoot down their air force. If they started flying missions, the planes would probably fall apart on their own. They have an accute shortage of spare parts. Now Iran has lots of people, and has a plan to work the type of war that is happening in Iraq. The problem with that strategy is supply. Iraq has it easy ... they have Iran as a massive, safe, supply depot that can't be interdicted by the United States. Who do you suppose is going to be Iran's safe supply depot? Iran is pretty much surrounded by hostile states (most of which are us). In closing, I don't ever mean to disrespect you, or anyone else on here ... but what you are suggesting in reference to Iran's military potentuial, is just rediculous. I apologize if you feel the injured party ... what I would suggest it to not make these statement, without proper research.

luckydog1 -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 1:43:39 PM)
So we have 25 million living veterans, 1.4 million active duty, and 1.2 million reserves. Total 27.6 million plus thier families( lets ridiculously lowball it and say one familly member apiece). Which gives us 55.2 million people were eligible to sign the Redress petition which Real refers to. And Hundreds signed it. Not even thousands. Hundreds.... out of 55.2 million. And how many got arested under 134-12 for it?

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 2:16:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy I do agree to a point...I do know that bad news sells...So where does the truth lie? It would be nice to see some tangible evidence of success, yet the bodies of Iraqis and Americans seem to keep piling up by the hour...It is hard to imagine any success in bringing the Sunnis and Shiites together which has to happen to squelch the violence and have any form of democracy arise. The general who was in charge of the USSR pacification of Afghanistan pointed out that in both cases (Afghanistan and Iraq) the United States military is facing the same issue the USSR faced. Conguer a town, beat the bad guys, declare the town Democratized or Communized. Leave. Get orders to reconquer the same town because the bad guys moved back in. Lather, rinse, repeat, ad infinitum. If any of the pro-Iraq war contingent can provide any sort of example where this did not happen, I would love to hear an example. How many soldiers lives do you people plan to end trying to conquer and reconquer and reconquer and reconquer, say, Basra, before you realize there is no hope of establishing a functional peace in Basra? If you feel so strongly about it, why arent you over there doing your part? In Iraq, the only reason we are still in control of the Green Area is because we have not left yet. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 2:32:19 PM)
I think the point of Ms. Hess's interview and what my friend had to say, was that there are things going on over there besides conquer and reconquer. I'm not sure how you would answer Ms. Hess, but you basically discounted what my friend had to say, without ever actually knowing what any of it was. There was a time I was going to share ... but you clearly have your mind made up ... so I will let you move on to the next misrepresentation. [;)][;)]

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 2:45:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I think the point of Ms. Hess's interview and what my friend had to say, was that there are things going on over there besides conquer and reconquer. I'm not sure how you would answer Ms. Hess, but you basically discounted what my friend had to say, without ever actually knowing what any of it was. There was a time I was going to share ... but you clearly have your mind made up ... so I will let you move on to the next misrepresentation. [;)][;)] I met a traveller from an antique land Who said:—Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things, The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains: round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away. -Percy Bysshe Shelley Since you appear emotionally upset at my statement that these people might not be being forthright, I will accept your statement that they are being truthful and honest in their statements. However, on a long enough time line, the only thing going on in Iraq is conquer and reconquer. Many of the same things the people you quote are saying are almost identical to the things said about the United States military during our "police action" in Vietnam. We all know how well that worked out. I am not disputing that good things are being done by some people. The reality of the situation is that eventually our efforts to build a great city that others can look on and despair in that hostile desert will be overcome by the antipathy to our efforts by a culture we in the West do not comprehend. My point is how much of the wealth and civilization are we willing to give up before we go home with our tails between our legs. Monkeyboy has squandered the wealth of, bankrupted, and failed in every business venture he has ever been involved in. When a business actually survived his being in charge of it, it was because Saudi friends in Daddy's rolodex came through with money. Now he was given the keys to the US wealth, and is busily squandering and attempting to bankrupt it as well. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 5:53:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Iran has very little of any of these things, and what they do have is of very poor quality. Are you aware that most of the officer class from the last Iran/Iraq war, now live in Europe and the United States? Iran has an anti-ship missile which our navy has 0 defense against. One of them would sink an aircraft carrier. They bought them from the former USSR. Sinergy p.s. Not arguing with your other comments. If we invaded Iran we would conquer the country in 3 days. Then we would have the same issues we have in Iraq.

domiguy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 6:20:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 A better voice.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-qBJwjSKA8 I know you are a bright guy...Huge difference between the reasons for war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

Sternhand4 -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 6:40:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 A better voice.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-qBJwjSKA8 I know you are a bright guy...Huge difference between the reasons for war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Did you listen, it wasnt about his service in Afghanistan ( except the part where the governor of PA thanked them for thier service , in the wrong country lol ) it was posted for the "different voice" quality. These guys are going to head to Iraq because they believe in the mission. Last week on NBC they did interviews with the guys there, they think its a winnable cause and they want to finish the mission. But the minute you post stuff like that here, the "defeat america first" crowd chime up with strawman arguments like " they cant dissent" ( bull ) and reporters are just passing off these good new stories as propaganda. Look at the threads they start.. every day more negative shit.. its like a pack of wild dogs that scent a wounded animal. You think that they want us to succeed in Iraq? Of course not thy prefer the vietnam defeatist policy. It is in the best long term US strategic interests for a stabile arab democracy to be established in Iraq. Unless you want to fight the Islamic terrorists here.. The good news is that the guys there still believe and the new general has a plan. So far it seem to be heading in the right direction for a change.

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 6:49:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 Of course not thy prefer the vietnam defeatist policy. This is a bit idiotic, Sternhand4. Until the Tet Offensive, very few in the United States for the most part had even heard of Vietnam or that we even had people there. This happened 18 or so years after the French threw up their hands and left the pacification of Vietnam to the United States. Some call the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," while others call the French "People who can see their way through a brick wall in time, and bring their soldiers home from an unwinnable quagmire." What you call the "defeatist Vietnam policy" is better described as the "what the fuck have you cretins we keep electing President been doing for 18 years in Indochina? policy" or the "After 18 years, it seems that you morons who got elected to high office would realize your approach is not working and try a new one" policy. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 7:01:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Iran has an anti-ship missile which our navy has 0 defense against. One of them would sink an aircraft carrier. Some people never give up. [;)] The SS-N-22 Sunburn/Moskit is a serious weapon, as is the SS-NX-26 Yakhontz. Iran has both, although in reasonably limited numbers. They are supersonic and accurate. They both have the same three, fairly significant flaws. They have primitive targeting systems, very short range (150 miles for Moskit, 180 for Yakhontz), and being solid fuel weapons, they have a dirty lauch signature. Either one of these weapons would sink an aircraft carrier, if armed with a tactical nuke. Without a nuke, it would take four or five hits, to sink even an escort vessel. Iran doesn't have the version with nukes ... FYI [;)] Now, a carrier battle group can operate right around five hundred miles out. So, your theory is good ... all you have to do, is write the Iranians and tell them how to close that 300 to 400 miles they are short, in order to launch. Maybe they could swim, like those highly threatening Chinese. [;)] (By the way, it took me longer to type this post, than to research these weapons. I really think you are selling yourself short, not doing this before you post this stuff. Jane's is a very good research tool, and isn't in the business of scaring the fuck out of people)

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 7:09:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Iran has an anti-ship missile which our navy has 0 defense against. One of them would sink an aircraft carrier. Some people never give up. [;)] The SS-N-22 Sunburn/Moskit is a serious weapon, as is the SS-NX-26 Yakhontz. Iran has both, although in reasonably limited numbers. They are supersonic and accurate. They both have the same three, fairly significant flaws. They have primitive targeting systems, very short range (150 miles for Moskit, 180 for Yakhontz), and being solid fuel weapons, they have a dirty lauch signature. Either one of these weapons would sink an aircraft carrier, if armed with a tactical nuke. Without a nuke, it would take four or five hits, to sink even an escort vessel. Iran doesn't have the version with nukes ... FYI [;)] Now, a carrier battle group can operate right around five hundred miles out. So, your theory is good ... all you have to do, is write the Iranians and tell them how to close that 300 to 400 miles they are short, in order to launch. Maybe they could swim, like those highly threatening Chinese. [;)] (By the way, it took me longer to type this post, than to research these weapons. I really think you are selling yourself short, not doing this before you post this stuff. Jane's is a very good research tool, and isn't in the business of scaring the fuck out of people) You might be right. I will research the name of the weapon. I read about it this past week on yahoo news, and the two names you list are not the ones I remember. The main point of my post, which you ignored, is that I stated it would take 3 days to defeat the Iranian military. Then we have a hostile, heavily armed populace engaged in active guerilla warfare with our troops. We have how many troops in Iraq? I have not read much to suggest that our efforts there are working or that there is any end in sight. Additionally, it appears we are having trouble getting people to replace the people who are getting killed or wounded. Psychotic behavior is doing the same thing (invading a hostile country) and expecting a different (being welcomed as conquering heros) outcome. Sinergy p.s. I am sure that Britain felt the same way before that Exocet missile sank their warship off of Argentina.

Sternhand4 -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 7:17:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 Of course not thy prefer the vietnam defeatist policy. This is a bit idiotic, Sternhand4. Until the Tet Offensive, very few in the United States for the most part had even heard of Vietnam or that we even had people there. This happened 18 or so years after the French threw up their hands and left the pacification of Vietnam to the United States. Some call the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," They did surrender at Dien Bien Phu in 54 while others call the French "People who can see their way through a brick wall in time, and bring their soldiers home from an unwinnable quagmire." Defeat always makes you go home What you call the "defeatist Vietnam policy" is better described as the "what the fuck have you cretins we keep electing President been doing for 18 years in Indochina? policy" or the "After 18 years, it seems that you morons who got elected to high office would realize your approach is not working and try a new one" policy. Sinergy Really did they sleep through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964? Tet was 4 years later in 1968 ( of course I'm guessing they noticed peolple there befor that.. I know my dad did he was there in 64. ) But Im only 40, so what was done I know from second hand info and research.

Sinergy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 7:24:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 Of course not thy prefer the vietnam defeatist policy. This is a bit idiotic, Sternhand4. Until the Tet Offensive, very few in the United States for the most part had even heard of Vietnam or that we even had people there. This happened 18 or so years after the French threw up their hands and left the pacification of Vietnam to the United States. Some call the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," They did surrender at Dien Bien Phu in 54 while others call the French "People who can see their way through a brick wall in time, and bring their soldiers home from an unwinnable quagmire." Defeat always makes you go home Fair enough. Please clarify what "winning vietnam" would have consisted of. quote: quote: What you call the "defeatist Vietnam policy" is better described as the "what the fuck have you cretins we keep electing President been doing for 18 years in Indochina? policy" or the "After 18 years, it seems that you morons who got elected to high office would realize your approach is not working and try a new one" policy. Sinergy Really did they sleep through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964? Sleep is the wrong term. The people in the United States believed the twaddle provided to them by the US government about how everything was hunky dory and if we just add 20000 or 50000 or 4000000 troops we will "win" the war. quote: Tet was 4 years later in 1968 ( of course I'm guessing they noticed peolple there befor that.. I know my dad did he was there in 64. ) But Im only 40, so what was done I know from second hand info and research. My bad. 14 years went by, not 18, before the public in the United States realized the fiasco in Indochina was not what the politicians made it out to be. Have you ever heard of the term "credibility gap?" Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 7:40:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The main point of my post, which you ignored, is that I stated it would take 3 days to defeat the Iranian military. Then we have a hostile, heavily armed populace engaged in active guerilla warfare with our troops. We have how many troops in Iraq? I have not read much to suggest that our efforts there are working or that there is any end in sight. Additionally, it appears we are having trouble getting people to replace the people who are getting killed or wounded. I didn't ignore it. I completely agree with you. I also agree that war with Iran would be well beyond foolish. By the way, the officer I know, would agree with both of us I think. He says straight out, that Iran is not powerful enough to control the groups that are fueling the insurgents in Iraq, and to hold the Iranian government responsible is unreasonable. My response in this thread, was limited to statements made by you, that we do not have a sufficient military to invade Iran, and statements by julia which vastly inflated the military capability of Iran. All I did was point out the inaccuracies. I also took issue, when you discounted words, you have never heard. Sue me. [;)][;)] Believe me, I'm on the same side as you ... I just see danger in practicing opposition by misinformation. edited to add: The other missile the Iranians have is the Silkworm, which appears to be a serious dog. I think they have large numbers of these. They are only effective if the enemy doesn't know you intend to shoot at them.

domiguy -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 7:42:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: Sternhand4 A better voice.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-qBJwjSKA8 I know you are a bright guy...Huge difference between the reasons for war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Did you listen, it wasnt about his service in Afghanistan ( except the part where the governor of PA thanked them for thier service , in the wrong country lol ) it was posted for the "different voice" quality. These guys are going to head to Iraq because they believe in the mission. Last week on NBC they did interviews with the guys there, they think its a winnable cause and they want to finish the mission. But the minute you post stuff like that here, the "defeat america first" crowd chime up with strawman arguments like " they cant dissent" ( bull ) and reporters are just passing off these good new stories as propaganda. Look at the threads they start.. every day more negative shit.. its like a pack of wild dogs that scent a wounded animal. You think that they want us to succeed in Iraq? Of course not thy prefer the vietnam defeatist policy. It is in the best long term US strategic interests for a stabile arab democracy to be established in Iraq. Unless you want to fight the Islamic terrorists here.. The good news is that the guys there still believe and the new general has a plan. So far it seem to be heading in the right direction for a change. quote: .. Domiguy....My hero! But people have a way of rationalizing causes and crusades...I wish them well. there is a possibility they are unable to see the big picture...When they are wounded and interviewed this is how the typical interview goes....Reporter: "So are you going back to fight."...Soldier.."yep. I'm looking forward to rejoin my people." Soldiers have a tremendous sense of loyalty to one another...and thank God they do!...Yet as to giving an honest perspective of the situation is possibly outside of their grasp. I don't think what I am saying is unreasonable...And there is nothing that shows the two sides are any closer to getting along now...Is there a valid argument to the contrary? What I hear him saying is that morale is high and he would like to rejoin his troops. it is exactly what I would expect and hope for. These guys love each other...They also share a common point of view similiar to the other folks on this thread who support the "right." However the times they are a changing...Military recruiters not meeting their goals..The population at home no longer duped by phrases like "The War on Terror."...Americans now realize we are not fighting terrorists but Muslims defending their territory and wanting to remove the invading forces. It is apparent our borders are sieves...And these terrorists do have significant resources per Bin Laden to utilize...Why are we not experiencing daily suicide blasts in this country? is it because we are keeeping the terrorists busy overseas...Doesn't make much sense. It took a small group of terrorists (16?) and a small amount of funds to create 9/11....And it took our country to war....To fighting a country instead of an ideal. We are in a stuation that cannot be won...How many Americans thought that Sadam had ties with Bin Laden or that Sadam was connected to 9/11?...This is how you get the "little guy"(courtesy of Johnny Got His Gun) to sign up for a war. Wave a flag ...Talk in concepts that he can understand...Then he gets blown up for principals based on lies, misinformation and deceit. Tryng to install freedom for a country that has no ability to appreciate the meaning or the scarifice to make it so. You trade your life for nothing but words...What a waste...There are things worth dying and fighting for...this is not one. The whole thing is a shame...If there was a way to install a democracy or Sanity to the region (Quite frankly I'm all for sending Sanity there...lol)..I would be all for it...Every arm, leg, head and life irreparably damged will all be for not...There is no greater good coming out of any of this. I do hope that every one of our men and women in uniform the best...And I hope they come home safely and as soon as possible.

juliaoceania -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 7:49:41 PM)
quote: My response in this thread, was limited to statements made by you, that we do not have a sufficient military to invade Iran, and statements by julia which vastly inflated the military capability of Iran. All I did was point out the inaccuracies. Curious, what I remember posting was that this would not be the same or as easy as toppling Saddam after 10 years of sanctions. I believe I said that Iran is larger and has more people, more healthy well fed people that are of age to fight. Now you can spin what I said all you like, but I stand behind what I said.. Iran would be far harder to take on than Iraq because we simply do not have the manpower to occupy it, and it has a military... unlike Afghanistan and Iraq... I did NOT say that Iran was a military power in the world... but they certainly have more of a military than the two countries that currently have us mired down. BTW, if you think for a second that Iran's military would fight the same way as Saddam's (laying down their guns), I think you are wrong. It would cost more lives than Iraq did in the invasion stage.

Sanity -> RE: A different voice on Iraq (3/24/2007 7:54:38 PM)
Hey, I'd love to go. After all, life is an adventure, and we'll never get out of it alive no matter how careful we are. Too bad I'm too old... I'd love to become more intimate with Iraqi cultures. That region is the cradle of civilization, and I'm sure it's just fascinationg. I love that kind of adventure and learning opportunity. Another thing - I am also far too responsible and dedicated as a Father to my little girl to go wandering around the planet in a uniform as if I were seventeen again... like the first time that I did. quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy The whole thing is a shame...If there was a way to install a democracy or Sanity to the region (Quite frankly I'm all for sending Sanity there...lol)..I would be all for it...Every arm, leg, head and life irreparably damged will all be for not...There is no greater good coming out of any of this.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875