Iraq, The most sucessful war in US history!

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Yes, the terrorism...

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

So, there's some more bullshit that's been knocked down. Got any more "justifications" for this "war"? :roll:

Did you miss Zarkawi cutting heads off in Iraq? Did you miss UBL defining him as the leader of the movement? I have provided the link where the administration warned the world he was there. FYI the UN and the Congress voted the affirmative to this. I honestly do not understand your point. You are taking a position that has no factual bases. What is your point? How does all this fit into an argument that states that Iraq is a failure??? That is what this thread is about. If I the Iraq operation is a failure what is your argument?

 

[shuamort]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Did you miss Zarkawi cutting heads off in Iraq? Did you miss UBL defining him as the leader of the movement? I have provided the link where the administration warned the world he was there. FYI the UN and the Congress voted the affirmative to this. I honestly do not understand your point. You are taking a position that has no factual bases. What is your point?

Did you miss the 9/11 Commission report? Apparently so because this arm flailing is getting you nowhere.

How does all this fit into an argument that states that Iraq is a failure??? That is what this thread is about. If I the Iraq operation is a failure what is your argument?

Hunh? I never said that Iraq was a "failure" if that's what you're accusing me of saying.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

What do you think they are going to "disarm"?

Fighter Jets, Missles, Rockets... all of which were ordered to be "distoryed" by both the agrreements at the end of the Gulf War and under many UN resolutions. But they were simply powered down and hidden, not distroyed. Just because you take the batteries out dosen't mean you have disarmed.

By-the-way... removing these weapons from iraq is another major historical sucess of this operation.

 

[Iriemon]

"Soveriengty" is a European historical sham. It is an excuse to do nothing. It has always been the silent approval that a dictator, no matter how brutal, is protected behind his soveriegn borders. This is the new world where globalization is tying us all together. A dictator no longer has his protected and unearned "soveriegnty."

Putting aside the glaring question of whether the US or anyone has the power to enforce its approved system of government upon the nations of the world, and putting aside the second glaring question of whether military intervention is an effective means of accomplishing the goal, and the third glaring question as to whether the consequences of military intervention justify the goals sought; if no nation has a right to its own system of government, then who is it that makes that determination in the international arena? The mightiest by virture of power? Might makes right? Sounds good only if you are the mightiest -- and such a rule would encourage other nations to expand their might since that is the only way they could have any security that their government won't be deemed unacceptable and overrun by the mighty.

You could argue that that has been the de facto rule of international law, and you would have a point. It has also led to innumerable wars throughout history. I don't disagree that even a respect for international rule of law (as opposed to might makes right) depends upon some degree of power as well, even democracies need police forces. But the police forces are supposed to act within a rule of law.

As to the concept of soveregnity being a European historical sham, I submit the opposite is true. Until the latter part of the 20th century, it was European nations that regularly ignored nations' sovereignity and militarily intervened and occupied nations on a variety of grounds not unlike the case you are making now -- that the nations were uncivilized, incapable of governing themselves, that occupation was beneficial for the occupied, it was necessary to maintain world order, that the native religions were unacceptable. Most European nations learned the hard way that the cost of this policy was not worth the benefits.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Did you miss the 9/11 Commission report? Apparently so because this arm flailing is getting you nowhere.



Hunh? I never said that Iraq was a "failure" if that's what you're accusing me of saying.

I have read the whole report from beginning to end. The report has a story to tell... you have to see it as a story not pull out little things that support your argument. Same with the NIE report. Taking things out of context disqualifies your argument.

No I didn't say you said that... but that is the topic of this thread.

 

[shuamort]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

No I didn't say you said that... but that is the topic of this thread.

Did you read the title of the thread? You might have since it was written by you. Lemme re-iterate:
"Iraq, The most successful war in US history!"

So, are we to infer the opposite (which would be incorrect debate form) or we to debate the resolution as set forth. By arguing that Iraq is not the most successful doesn't make the binary true... but you're not even stating that but going further from the binary by stating that since it's not "the most successful" it is ipso facto "a failure". The only failure I'm seeing here is the lack of logic and aliteracy.

 

[MSR]

Putting aside the glaring question of whether the US or anyone has the power to enforce its approved system of government upon the nations of the world, and putting aside the second glaring question of whether military intervention is an effective means of accomplishing the goal, and the third glaring question as to whether the consequences of military intervention justify the goals sought; if no nation has a right to its own system of government, then who is it that makes that determination in the international arena?

Very good argument. All subjects worthy of debate. On most issues of this type there are good arguments on both sides and we need to look at the facts and decide as a people how we feel about it. But one MUST deal with facts and realities not idealogical lies that are offered by both sides.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Did you read the title of the thread? You might have since it was written by you. Lemme re-iterate:
"Iraq, The most successful war in US history!"

So, are we to infer the opposite (which would be incorrect debate form) or we to debate the resolution as set forth. By arguing that Iraq is not the most successful doesn't make the binary true... but you're not even stating that but going further from the binary by stating that since it's not "the most successful" it is ipso facto "a failure". The only failure I'm seeing here is the lack of logic and aliteracy.

In the first post I offered a comparison.. I have invited a debate based on comparisons.. success or failure. You are free to present arguments for each or anything in between as long as you help everyone to understand the bases of fact you are operating from. Just because you think the war is unpopular and present arguments as to why it is unpopular do not address the primary question of the thread. As to incorrect debate form... opinion is transformed into arguments for debate by facts not other opinions. Debating using fact is very difficult and is indeed proper form. However I might have missed your question in all the neo-intelligentsia.

 

[shuamort]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Just because you think the war is unpopular and present arguments as to why it is unpopular do not address the primary question of the thread.

I think you might have conflated me with someone else as I've never made any statements in this thread re: the popularity.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

I think you might have conflated me with someone else as I've never made any statements in this thread re: the popularity.

You are correct, I apologize, I did not mean to infer that you had stated that.. what I was trying to say is that your arguments support that.. Your arguments speak to the reasonings for the war becoming so unpopular among so many people. With my flawed logic or lack there of... I was trying to say that I do not understand how the fact that people don't like the war is an argument that the war is successful or not as compared to other military operations in history.

 

[tryreading]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

there were MULTIPLE reasons for the Iraq war. everytime someone tries to turn it into a SINGLE reason......I will point that out.

now, a question for you.

If its ok with you that we stayed in Afghanistan and faught terrorists, causing the deaths of innocent civilians in the process, then why is it not ok in Iraq?

I said 'one of the advantages,' which obviously implies multiple reasons, and does not mean a single reason. I'll point that out.

It is okay with me, 100%, that we went into Afghanistan, because the government there was harboring a terrorist group that attacked our country and killed 3,000 people. The government in Afghanistan would not give us access to these terrorists, and would not turn them over to us. Attacking the country was the proper thing to do. I'll say it was our right and duty as a nation to do so. It was necessary. The terrorists could not be left intact as a group so they could freely plan and execute another attack on us.

I am not anti-military, or even anti-war, when war is necessary. But the Iraq war was not necessary.

 

[tryreading]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Exactly. During the Cold War, we bent our own rules and defaced our values to beat the Soviet influence to all those poor countries that had their hands out. The status quo of keeping stability, no matter the cost, was shattered with Iraq. Taking Saddam out was a step back in the right direction. It's up to future administrations to continue.

Iraq's democracy is an Iraqi problem. We have provided the opportunity and the tools. We are providing the training. We have provided the encouragement to remain together for security and economic reasons. However, we will have made a mistake if we deny the sentiment of the population to seperate. Democracy is about free will and representation. If we do not stand up for what the population ultimately wants then we will have negated our purpose. in the MIddle East. Besides, if we do not support the will of the people, who will?

Right, forced democracy is an oxymoron.

 

[tryreading]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Critical thought requires that in order to evaluate any issue one must use statistical information and precedence. Anything else would be a shot in the dark.

I am not comparing WWII to Iraq. I am comparing the liberation of Italy to the liberation of Iraq. Please, Please... offer another comparison that achieved the same goals that was more successful. This is the center of the argument. If Iraq is a failure... how has it failed and what are you comparing it to?

Critical thought requires a lot more than numbers, and I was using precedence. To me, the reason for beginning the war is very important. Your figures don't account for that.

Don't think I ever said it failed. But you missed my point. You have created a thread with a premise based on evaluating the war from a particular angle, and my point was that I can't use that basis alone to evaluate the war in Iraq.

Probably, since I can't play along, I should leave your thread, huh?

 

[bismitch]

Ok where are the WMDs in those statments? There is a very long list of itmes that Saddam was supposed to disarm. So where is the focus on WMDs?

Really, what the @#$# would they be talking about? ssabmud

 

[tryreading]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

I agree with you. But on the point of WWII. We entered both Germany and Italy with the intent of setting up democracies after the war. Now Stalin had something to say about that and it lead to the cold war. But especially in Italy.. we removed a dictator and worked to achieve and support a democracy and each were primary goals. Our military is still in Italy, we never left. The liberation of Italy and the support of it, to this day is very much a military function.

We went into Germany and Italy to crush heads. To destroy the machine.

 

[bismitch]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Alright, I haven't said anything on this post for a while, so to jump back in......
What is your definition of a "successful war"?

The interpetation of this question can mean several comments to your post, so if you narrow it down we can have a real debate.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

You have created a thread with a premise based on evaluating the war from a particular angle, and my point was that I can't use that basis alone to evaluate the war in Iraq.

Yes you are 100% correct I created a thread that looks at the single premise that many Dems are using to say George Bush is asleep at the wheel. Many, Many Dem's are saying that Iraq has failed. This "angle" is a lie. And it is far worse than any lie that they also claim Bush has told because they know it is a lie before they tell it. Bush found out after the fact that his information was wrong. These Dem's know that they are telling people is a lie because they think you are stupid (Bill Clinton's Idiot Mass as he used top call them). They think we are too stupid to do the research. This is the root of my point with this thread. Critical thought can not be void of facts just because they do not support an idealogical viewpoint.

But please do not leave. Please present your argument. Answer the question... as of today is Iraq a military sucess or failure. There is a political party that is asking you to vote for them and this is the foundation of their argument. You need to know if they are telling you the truth or not.

As to an argument for a wars popularity... There is no such thing as a popular war. No nation, no mother, no father, no brother, no sister, wants to send their men and women to fight and die. We all jsut want it to be over ASAP. I think we all agree on that one.

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

We went into Germany and Italy to crush heads. To destroy the machine.

So what was the Marshal Plan all about? An operation headed by an American General?

 

[MSR]

Really, what the @#$# would they be talking about? ssabmud

I answered this earlier in the thread:

"Fighter Jets, Missles, Rockets... all of which were ordered to be "distoryed" by both the agrreements at the end of the Gulf War and under many UN resolutions. But they were simply powered down and hidden, not distroyed. Just because you take the batteries out dosen't mean you have disarmed.

By-the-way... removing these weapons from iraq is another major historical sucess of this operation."

 

[MSR]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

Alright, I haven't said anything on this post for a while, so to jump back in......
What is your definition of a "successful war"?

BINGO! You just put it in a nut-shell....

I am not defining that. I want historical fact and military precedence to tell us. That is the point of the thread. Is the Iraq operation successful as compared to other Military operations that had similar goals? There are operations that were similar but not successful, like Korea and Viet-Nam.. So Compared to those we are doing GREAT! In those we never removed the leader and we never got them to a constitutional government. In my research I have found Italy to be the most successful operation of this kind. So I have used it as a comparison. I was hoping someone would find another one that I am missing that was even more successful. This would give the Dem's argument some traction. But I can not find it. They say its failed... the facts seem to show that in Iraq we are clipping along pretty good as compared to other similar operations. I know that is not what a lot of people want to believe but it seems that saying Iraq is a failure is just wrong. To this point... it has hit major milestones more quickly than they were achieved in Italy. History shows that insurgency will continue for at least another 30 years and this is exactly what the administration has been saying.. 30 to 50 years. Italy had to deal with violence of this type for 32 years (thousands died). Insugency is a known reselut of toppiling governements and the exact same thing would happen in the US if our governement was toppiled. Look at what happend in New Orleans when the civil authorities left.

 

[bismitch]

I answered this earlier in the thread:

"Fighter Jets, Missles, Rockets... all of which were ordered to be "distoryed" by both the agrreements at the end of the Gulf War and under many UN resolutions. But they were simply powered down and hidden, not distroyed. Just because you take the batteries out dosen't mean you have disarmed.

By-the-way... removing these weapons from iraq is another major historical sucess of this operation."

Do you know how weak Saddam's army was after the Gulf War? I don't think that his conventional army was much of a threat anymore.

 

[bismitch]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

BINGO! You just put it in a nut-shell....

I am not defining that. I want historical fact and military precedence to tell us. That is the point of the thread. Is the Iraq operation successful as compared to other Military operations that had similar goals? There are operations that were similar but not successful, like Korea and Viet-Nam.. So Compared to those we are doing GREAT! In those we never removed the leader and we never got them to a constitutional government. In my research I have found Italy to be the most successful operation of this kind. So I have used it as a comparison. I was hoping someone would find another one that I am missing that was even more successful. This would give the Dem's argument some traction. But I can not find it. They say its failed... the facts seem to show that in Iraq we are clipping along pretty good as compared to other similar operations. I know that is not what a lot of people want to believe but it seems that saying Iraq is a failure is just wrong. To this point... it has hit major milestones more quickly than they were achieved in Italy. History shows that insurgency will continue for at least another 30 years and this is exactly what the administration has been saying.. 30 to 50 years. Italy had to deal with violence of this type for 32 years (thousands died). Insugency is a known reselut of toppiling governements and the exact same thing would happen in the US if our governement was toppiled. Look at what happend in New Orleans when the civil authorities left.

Once again as with the beginning of the post you are comparing two wars that were not of equal magnitude or setting. In the Vietnam war we were up against rebels that were well organized and funded, in a jungle terrain perfect for them to fight and hide in. Korea was a much larger war than Iraq, involved North Koreans with Russian tanks, aircraft and guns with the Chinese fighting too. A war that could be compared with the Iraq war in size and scope would be the Soviet invasion(compared to US) of Afganistan(Compared to Iraq).

I'm pretty sure that the insurgentcy in Italy was not quite as bad in Iraq.(I never really heard about them) But usually after conquest there is some kind of opposition in the form of rebellion. I'm sure it wasn't in the thousands ok. If it was even over a thousand, please provide some kind of proof.

 

[26 X World Champs]

if these cowards were fighting us straight up, they would get slaughtered and we would barely have a scratch.

Right...too bad that the days of the Red Coats lining up, loading their muskets and charging have passed and in the 21st Century ANYTHING goes...You act as if it's a surprise that they've adopted guerilla tactics.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Iraq, The most successful war in US history!

now, a question for you.

If its ok with you that we stayed in Afghanistan and faught terrorists, causing the deaths of innocent civilians in the process, then why is it not ok in Iraq?

Hello! Al Qaeda AKA Afghanistan ATTACKED the USA on 9-11! I know of no one who objected to the war in Afghanistan.

How can you ask this question? It's amazing to me! It's like you're linking OBL to Iraq...a ploy that no one but the most extreme and BLIND Republican war mongerers believe!

Amazing!

 

[Billo_Really]

I objected to Afghanistan! I object to the fact that we told the Taliban 5 weeks before 9/11 that if they don't accept our carpet of gold and let us build a pipeline through their country, we will bury them under a carpet of bombs. 9/11 just made that more convenient.