View Full Version : The Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History
k4kyv
11-01-2006, 03:19 AM
The U.S. failure in Iraq has been even more damaging than Vietnam because the opponent was punier and the imperial ambitions even greater. For the second time in a generation, America is going to lose a war thanks to the stupidity of another half-witted Texan.
No, we aren't talking about fascists. It takes competence to be a fascist.
War and Resistance (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43412/)
Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Oct. 31 2006,20:19)]The U.S. failure in Iraq has been even more damaging than Vietnam because the opponent was punier and the imperial ambitions even greater. #For the second time in a generation, America is going to lose a war thanks to the stupidity of another half-witted Texan.
No, we aren't talking about fascists. #It takes competence to be a fascist.
War and Resistance (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43412/)
Actually we if we do lose this it is because we will pull out early because so many peope have been blinded by thier hatred for the party in power that they are actually hoping we lose and already calling it a loss, just to further thier own agenda.
The war is very winnable, but winning won't help dems, so they fight against it and try to declare it "already lost".
If we pull out early and only embolden our enemies by doing so, that political power the dems have gained by playing this game will come at a very, very high price down the road.
Fact is that our losses in this war have been moderate to light by historical standards, the majority of the provinces in Iraq are peacful, and the Iraqi Army and Security forces, along with the fledging democracy are developing faster than any government in history.
Will it take more time to make it all work? Of course. Will Iran and Syria do all they can to stop democracy from coming to the middle east? You can bet on it, they fear thier people seeing that democracy can exist in the middle east. But can we establish a secure, self sufficient and democratic Iraq? Unless we are undermined by a bunch of whiners who are willing to sell our long term security down the river for short term political gain, yes we can.
Looks like the terrorists have one -- they have us pointing fingers and fighting each other.
What is it going to take to break this chain, another 911?
It sucks how we got into Iraq -- but does anyone really believe the world would be better of if Saddam was still in power.
Oh, yes -- let me save you the question, still not sure where Osama is......................
n2ize
11-01-2006, 04:21 AM
Quote[/b] (KF4PEP @ Oct. 31 2006,20:33)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Oct. 31 2006,20:19)]The U.S. failure in Iraq has been even more damaging than Vietnam because the opponent was punier and the imperial ambitions even greater. For the second time in a generation, America is going to lose a war thanks to the stupidity of another half-witted Texan.
No, we aren't talking about fascists. It takes competence to be a fascist.
War and Resistance (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43412/)
Actually we if we do lose this it is because we will pull out early because so many peope have been blinded by thier hatred for the party in power that they are actually hoping we lose and already calling it a loss, just to further thier own agenda.
The war is very winnable, but winning won't help dems, so they fight against it and try to declare it "already lost".
If we pull out early and only embolden our enemies by doing so, that political power the dems have gained by playing this game will come at a very, very high price down the road.
Fact is that our losses in this war have been moderate to light by historical standards, the majority of the provinces in Iraq are peacful, and the Iraqi Army and Security forces, along with the fledging democracy are developing faster than any government in history.
Will it take more time to make it all work? Of course. Will Iran and Syria do all they can to stop democracy from coming to the middle east? You can bet on it, they fear thier people seeing that democracy can exist in the middle east. But can we establish a secure, self sufficient and democratic Iraq? Unless we are undermined by a bunch of whiners who are willing to sell our long term security down the river for short term political gain, yes we can.
Yeah, just like the democracy we set up in Vietnam.
n2ize
11-01-2006, 04:23 AM
Quote[/b] (KF4PEP @ Oct. 31 2006,20:33)]
Quote[/b] ]
The war is very winnable, but winning won't help dems, so they fight against it and try to declare it "already lost".
I see you are keeping up with the latest conservative talk show buzz. How the "republicans want to win" is the latest last minute push befor the upcoming election.
W1GUH
11-01-2006, 05:04 AM
The more this debate goes on, the more I beleive the next few year are going to make the 60's look like a cakewalk or a tea party. #The acute divisions in the country run so deep and are so apparently irreconciliable with extremely virile beliefs on each side that it appears a reasonable compromise is out of the question. #God help us.
So what if the commies rule in Vietnam...they are finally at peace.
w2amr
11-01-2006, 10:42 AM
Quote[/b] (n0ov @ Oct. 31 2006,20:44)]It sucks how we got into Iraq -- but does anyone really believe the world would be better of if Saddam was still in power.
Yes I do. And if poll numbers are correct, so do the majority of Americans.
KC2KFC
11-01-2006, 11:03 AM
Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Oct. 31 2006,22:04)]...The acute divisions in the country run so deep and are so apparently irreconciliable with extremely virile beliefs on each side that it appears a reasonable compromise is out of the question. God help us.
I don't think that's really true, contrary to what the left wing and right wing pundits want you to believe. It's only here on qrz.com. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
W1GUH
11-01-2006, 12:46 PM
Quote[/b] (KC2KFC @ Oct. 31 2006,05:03)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Oct. 31 2006,22:04)]...The acute divisions in the country run so deep and are so apparently irreconciliable with extremely virile beliefs on each side that it appears a reasonable compromise is out of the question. #God help us.
I don't think that's really true, contrary to what the left wing and right wing pundits want you to believe. It's only here on qrz.com. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I'd LOVE it if that proves to be true.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
W3MIV
11-01-2006, 01:12 PM
Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Nov. 01 2006,01:04)]The more this debate goes on, the more I beleive the next few year are going to make the 60's look like a cakewalk or a tea party. #The acute divisions in the country run so deep and are so apparently irreconciliable with extremely virile beliefs on each side that it appears a reasonable compromise is out of the question. #God help us.
I don't believe that this is true. The deep divisions of which you post are a hallmark of the political parties, but they are not necessarily present in our society as a whole. Look at the voter stats: the electorate seems more animated by an overwhelming sense of apathy than by any rage to even a score.
The coming election will be an important event in that one of the two major parties is going to suffer a serious loss, and that loss should (will it?) impel an agonizing reappraisal of its fundamental tenets and of its actual performance. In an ideal world, such a reappraisal should result in a recasting of the political philosophy of that party.
Over the past few Congresses, the Republicans have been abandoning traditional Republican principles, and so, too, have the Democrats. But for a very few rancorous issues (and those more for image than from principle), they have become a homogeneous mass of spendthrifts wasting through the national treasure at a record rate. For those of you neanderthals who blame Bush for everything, bear in mind that no president (NO president) can spend a dime unless and until that dime is handed to him by the Congress.
If the Republicans lose heavily, as many now predict, that will put an new onus on the Democrats to actually perform -- not merely snipe from the sidelines. Can they do it? We shall see.
By the same token, it must impel that reappraisal on the part of the Republicans and cause them to re-examine their fundamental tenets -- a philosophy that has, objectively examined -- offered far more appeal over the past few decades than have those of the Democratic Party as currently constituted and managed.
How all of this will shake out remains to be seen, but it may be viewed in a far more positive light than your post would indicate. What happens on the 7th will to a very great extent set the stage for 2008, and that sets many tails awagging hereabouts -- but small dogs in tall grass wag their tails all the while.
As to the title of this thread, it is silly trumpery to announce any of this foolishness as the "Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History."
WB8MKV
11-01-2006, 01:20 PM
I just visited the mall in Washington D.C. where the war memorials are located and next to the Korean war memorial was this sign engraved in marble that read " Freedom is not free"
K8MHZ
11-01-2006, 01:27 PM
Osama Bin Laden's goal is to bankrupt the US. #I just read an article in our local paper saying that the US is either close to it or is already there due to the war.
Seems he is getting his wish and is still NOT CAPTURED.
Bin Laden and this war. #Making fools of the US since practically the turn of the century. #At least the 'majority' of the US, right?
KG6JTB
11-01-2006, 01:30 PM
Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Oct. 30 2006,21:19)]The U.S. failure in Iraq has been even more damaging than Vietnam because the opponent was punier and the imperial ambitions even greater. #For the second time in a generation, America is going to lose a war thanks to the stupidity of another half-witted Texan.
No, we aren't talking about fascists. #It takes competence to be a fascist.
War and Resistance (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43412/)
America first got involved in Vietnam in 1956 when US advisors became responsible for training the Army of South Vietnam. The president was Eisenhower, a Republican.
Iraq will never compare to the 58,000 U.S. lives lost in Vietnam.
That said, we have found that Democracy doesn't grow everywhere, especially in the Middle East.
Dave
KG6JTB
W1GUH
11-01-2006, 01:38 PM
Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Oct. 31 2006,07:27)]Osama Bin Laden's goal is to bankrupt the US. #I just read an article in our local paper saying that the US is either close to it or is already there due to the war.
Seems he is getting his wish and is still NOT CAPTURED.
Bin Laden and this war. #Making fools of the US since practically the turn of the century. #At least the 'majority' of the US, right?
Could you supply some more detail about the news article when you get a chance? #I'd love to hear/read more.
Even if we aren't going bankrupt, Osama and Saddam have won in one respect...they've messed us up big time, with no relief in sight.
BTW, 'NH, you got another of those "round tuits" for me. #I could sorely use one. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
W3MIV
11-01-2006, 01:49 PM
Quote[/b] (KG6JTB @ Nov. 01 2006,09:30)]America first got involved in Vietnam in 1956 when US advisors became responsible for training the Army of South Vietnam. The president was Eisenhower, a Republican.
Perhaps you should do a little research and compare the actual number of American military personnel that Eisenhower sent to VN with the number that Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, both Democrats, sent.
If the purpose of your post was to highlight the fact that Eisenhower was a "Republican," it was certainly an ineffective and even silly point to make.
KG6JTB
11-01-2006, 02:20 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 31 2006,07:49)]Quote[/b] (KG6JTB @ Nov. 01 2006,09:30)]America first got involved in Vietnam in 1956 when US advisors became responsible for training the Army of South Vietnam. The president was Eisenhower, a Republican.
Perhaps you should do a little research and compare the actual number of American military personnel that Eisenhower sent to VN with the number that Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, both Democrats, sent.
If the purpose of your post was to highlight the fact that Eisenhower was a "Republican," it was certainly an ineffective and even silly point to make.
No, I really didn't want to go there. It was to point out the idiocy of your post that the opponent was "punier" in Iraq and that this is somehow American imperialism. Besides, plenty Americans died after Nixon became president.
25 million Iraqis, of which 3/4 would like to see us gone is a pretty formidable enemy, if only passive aggressive towards our efforts to stabilize the country. No army can fight against a civilian population that wants to kill each other.
I don't see any imperialism here... How are we supposed to be benefiting?
I wish people would stop comparing the conflicts and failures of each. How about Korea? Starting to look like we really failed there too after 50 years of holding the line? We could include the American expedition into Siberia and central Russia in 1917 as a failure too since we didn't take control before the Bolsheviks took over. We'd never have a cold war, hitler might have never invaded Poland, etc, etc.
Dave
KG6JTB
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 31 2006,21:21)]Yeah, just like the democracy #we set up in Vietnam.
More like the one that is up and growing in Afghanistan.
The north and west there are peaceful, and the east, once the worst area, if well on the way. The major steps in the south are just beginning and already we are moving into the rebuilding/civil action phase there.
The Army there is coming a long way, I watched and worked with them there and over the course of a year it was quite a development. The police were very bad when we got there, and efforts to straghten them out were just begining, but I watched the police in one villiage turn 180 degrees once new, coalition trained, leadership was brought in and that gives me hope for them too.
People out there say that a democracy cannot exist in a muslim nation, but Turkey proves that wrong. What makes them different? A very strong western influence and a strong secular military. There is no reason that cannot be repeated in Iraq.
That said, nobody ever said it would be easy.
W3MIV
11-01-2006, 03:47 PM
Quote[/b] (KG6JTB @ Nov. 01 2006,10:20)]It was to point out the idiocy of your post that the opponent was "punier" in Iraq and that this is somehow American imperialism.
You must have someone else in mind, for I have never made such a comment about Iraq nor have I ever considered our venture into that benighted realm to be a matter of "American imperialism."
I believe it is fatuous to compare the Viet Nam conflict with this current imbroglio: both fit the mold of fiascos, certainly, but the origin of each is far different from the other. I did not believe then, nor do I now, that Viet Nam presented a threat to the US, and I considered it a mistake to have made such a vast and ill-starred commitment.
Iraq, however, is a different issue. I believe we all now know that it was a mistake to have gone in at all; unlike many of the regulars here, I believe the errors were "honest" ones -- even the Clinton administration believed that Saddam had the WMD, and no one denied that he had the resolve to use them (indeed, he had already done so on his own people, as testimony in his trial is now bringing forcefully into the open). They were, however, errors nonetheless.
But the problem of getting out of this one is even more difficult. The problem now is oil -- which is no small problem, and not simply a matter of commercial or other pecuniary interest on our part.
We cannot simply "cut and run," thereby abandoning the vast resources of that region to the likely domination of a Shiite majority under the influence of Iran, a state which would dearly love to dominate the region and is actively seeking to do so: Why else does anyone think they are pushing to acquire a "bomb?" And only a fool would deny that as their goal.
It is a big enough problem having the bulk of the world's oil resources in the hands in which it now resides. To acquiesce in control by radical states who will use the "oil weapon" to our detriment is unacceptable -- and I believe that this scenario will be just as unacceptable to a Democratic majority in Congress -- or indeed a Democrat in the White House -- as it is to any Republican hegemony.
Quote[/b] (KF4PEP @ Nov. 01 2006,01:51)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Oct. 31 2006,21:21)]Yeah, just like the democracy we set up in Vietnam.
More like the one that is up and growing in Afghanistan.
The north and west there are peaceful, and the east, once the worst area, if well on the way. The major steps in the south are just beginning and already we are moving into the rebuilding/civil action phase there.
The Army there is coming a long way, I watched and worked with them there and over the course of a year it was quite a development. The police were very bad when we got there, and efforts to straghten them out were just begining, but I watched the police in one villiage turn 180 degrees once new, coalition trained, leadership was brought in and that gives me hope for them too.
People out there say that a democracy cannot exist in a muslim nation, but Turkey proves that wrong. What makes them different? A very strong western influence and a strong secular military. There is no reason that cannot be repeated in Iraq.
That said, nobody ever said it would be easy.
Wrong. The telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/18/witacs18.xml)
Quote[/b] ]The Americans admitted 376 fatal casualties from August 1990 to February 1991, but almost all were the results of accidents.
We were old that it would be painless if we avoid accidents. We were told that we would be greeted with roses and that the operation would be a few weeks or months, over 3 years ago.
W1GUH
11-01-2006, 04:11 PM
Question -
Is comparing Iraq to Afghanistan doing apples and oranges? #I know some of the history of Iraq, but am pretty much in the dark about the history of Afghanistan. #Fact is, I didn't even know where it was and was only dimly aware of its existance before it was invaded by the Soviet Union.
But my dim perception is that it isn't a seething area of different factions who hate each other, like Iraq, and certainly seems to have far fewer people who are or were much less developed. #Guess I'll go look this up on the web.
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Nov. 01 2006,08:47)]Quote[/b] (KG6JTB @ Nov. 01 2006,10:20)]It was to point out the idiocy of your post that the opponent was "punier" in Iraq and that this is somehow American imperialism.
You must have someone else in mind, for I have never made such a comment about Iraq nor have I ever considered our venture into that benighted realm to be a matter of "American imperialism."
I believe it is fatuous to compare the Viet Nam conflict with this current imbroglio: both fit the mold of fiascos, certainly, but the origin of each is far different from the other. I did not believe then, nor do I now, that Viet Nam presented a threat to the US, and I considered it a mistake to have made such a vast and ill-starred commitment.
Iraq, however, is a different issue. I believe we all now know that it was a mistake to have gone in at all; unlike many of the regulars here, I believe the errors were "honest" ones -- even the Clinton administration believed that Saddam had the WMD, and no one denied that he had the resolve to use them (indeed, he had already done so on his own people, as testimony in his trial is now bringing forcefully into the open). They were, however, errors nonetheless.
But the problem of getting out of this one is even more difficult. The problem now is oil -- which is no small problem, and not simply a matter of commercial or other pecuniary interest on our part.
We cannot simply "cut and run," thereby abandoning the vast resources of that region to the likely domination of a Shiite majority under the influence of Iran, a state which would dearly love to dominate the region and is actively seeking to do so: Why else does anyone think they are pushing to acquire a "bomb?" And only a fool would deny that as their goal.
It is a big enough problem having the bulk of the world's oil resources in the hands in which it now resides. To acquiesce in control by radical states who will use the "oil weapon" to our detriment is unacceptable -- and I believe that this scenario will be just as unacceptable to a Democratic majority in Congress -- or indeed a Democrat in the White House -- as it is to any Republican hegemony.
Very valid points, the "Bush Lied" crowd seems to have no problems with Clinton making the same satements when he was President.
Granted some posters here like to look at it through rose colored glasses, and actually think Saddam was complying with the weapons inspectors 100%.
Look at it this way, at best we were in a situation where we could not confirm 100% that he DID NOT HAVE the WMD's.
Then again I have wonderd if it was a bluff on Saddams part where he actually wanted us to think he had things he did not by sending our false intel, in hopes that would scare us from any attacks. Having seen what a big deal the media made of Scuds and possible chemical weapons during GW1 he may have thought that was a valid point. And it would explain the mixed intel.
If that is what happened, and he did fool us, he failed to account that someone would not be scared of it.
Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Nov. 01 2006,09:11)]Question -
Is comparing Iraq to Afghanistan doing apples and oranges? #I know some of the history of Iraq, but am pretty much in the dark about the history of Afghanistan. #Fact is, I didn't even know where it was and was only dimly aware of its existance before it was invaded by the Soviet Union.
But my dim perception is that it isn't a seething area of different factions who hate each other, like Iraq, and certainly seems to have far fewer people who are or were much less developed. #Guess I'll go look this up on the web.
Tribal warfare has been going on in Afghanistan for as long as there is written history. The Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks and many others have a long history of clashes. And tribes within the major tribes often fought among themselves. There are even 2 competeing languages, Dari and Pashto.
In fact even when fighting the Soviets the factions often fought each other as well.
One of the ways the new government is lessing this is allowing all decent representation, but also moving officials out of tribal areas. No ANA unit, down to the platoon level, are all from one tribe except in a few rare cases, and the leadership is mixed as well. When a new soldier enlists he trains with soldiers from all tribes and then will be stationed away from his own tribe. Police officials are also moved away from home territory to eliminate tribal leaders influence on local officials.
What has changed? Now Afghans have pride in being Afghan, not just in a tribe. They see the big picture. indeed most of the border crossers from the Madrassas in Pakistan are Pakistani Pashtuns, and 20 years ago that tribal bond beat any national identity. Now the Pashtun ANA soldiers fight then just as any enemy.
W1GUH
11-01-2006, 04:33 PM
Quote[/b] ]Then again I have wonderd if it was a bluff on Saddams part where he actually wanted us to think he had things he did not by sending our false intel, in hopes that would scare us from any attacks. Having seen what a big deal the media made of Scuds and possible chemical weapons during GW1 he may have thought that was a valid point. And it would explain the mixed intel.
If that is what happened, and he did fool us, he failed to account that someone would not be scared of it.
I've wondered about the same thing, but in a different light. #But yours might make more sense than mine. #
That's the "in hopes that would scare us from any attacks." part. #
Saddam was (and hopefully won't be again) a brutal, self-centered megelomaniac monster who deserves everything we can throw at him. #But that doesn't make him stupid. #I've often wondered why, especially when it became obvious that we meant business, he didn't comply with inspections, knowing he had nothing.
[insert - there's still the thought that the WMD's are actually there, only hidden very well. #Or, they were moved out of the country during the run-up. #Any thought on this?]
Unless he was mad with power, it seems as if he would have known that his bravado would be his undoing. #Maybe I'm giving him too much credit there, but still, if he had nothing to hide, why did he pretend to hide it? #He could have opened the country to complete inspections, and when nothing was found, he'd get off scott-free.
Or did he not trust the world to keep its word on that?
In other words he seems to have chosen certain defeat and probable execution over being allowed to continue his regime.
Of course one answer to that is he was mad. #Let's establish that up front.
But if he wasn't mad....what then?
Good questions.
I honestly think he felt we would not invade.
He had to know that once offensive operations started his number was up. But bolstered by 8 years of being able to repeatedly violate the cease fire, target and shoot at our planes, and do whatever he wanted he may very well have felt that we in fact lacked the will to take him on.
And he may have counted on the WMD threat as part of that.
He may have been promised support from Syria or Iran only to not recieve it... indeed the politics of that region would ake such an act possible.
Who knows what was in his head, except that he only had to allow full and unfettered access and comply with the demands to avoid what happened. And for whatever reason he did not.
G0GQK
11-01-2006, 09:46 PM
Iraq is another country where the US government elbowed its way in without thinking. I thought everybody knew the expression ' engage brain before opening mouth'.
Remember the US instigated the wars in Vietnam and Iraq, many people either don't know or have forgotten that small point. Neither Vietnam or Iraq posed a threat to the US. Afghanistan does, they grow the poppies that makes half of America either happy or miserable.
Afghani's don't really have pride in being Afghani, they are proud of kicking out every infidel who ever set foot on their rock hard dirt. They'll cut each others throats without a blink when they feel inclined.
The government knew Hussein didn't have WMD's because for ten years before the US attacked the USAF and the RAF had been controlling a No Fly zone and bombing everything which moved. You telling me that they didn't take ANY photographs of what was on the ground !
Someone wrote that Osama bin Laden wishes to see the US bankrupt. Man, the US was heading towards becoming bankrupt when Bin Laden was 10 years old !
Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq, he only met Hussein once, taking a long time for that to sink in.
G0GQK