Ok...first off this theory on the entrance to Iraq was told to me by my counciler at Boy's state who is a grad student at George Washington University, and it was told to him by his professor, so if im a little off its becuase my memory is kinda @!#$ty....also im 17 and a republican...but i thought this theory kinda made sense no matter what side of the aisle your on.

Also wether you agree or dissagree doesn't matter to me, as someones sig said. "opionions are like @!#$s, everyone has one" Thanks for your time


OK...here i'm gonna give you some dates and places

Oct. 23 1983-Marine Barracks, Beruit
Dec. 21 1988-Lockerbie, Scotland
Feb. 26 1993-World Trade Center Bombing
Aug. 7 1998-US embasy Bombings-Kenya and Tanzania
Oct. 12 2000-USS Cole Bombing
Sept. 11 2001-World Trade Center, you know what happened


Ok, so now that I have laid that out for you, some information to go with these dates. All of these events, attacks supposedly have been done by Islamic extremists, which might have been helped by Osama. These attacks were pretty dastardly acts, and although they were horribale acts of agression, we sat back and did nothing.


Now, our first mistake was to help out Osama in the first place, we helped his cause by giving weapons, medical supplies, etc. to his men, to help fight the russians, just like the Russians in Korea, and the Chinese in Vietnam.

Now after that happed, and the taliban and all those guys basicly won, they were free to roam and preach religous doctrine, and they talked about anti-western ways, you guys have talked about it enough so i don't need to re-hash

ok, so now to saddam, once again we help him out becuase he's fighting the iranian's and we dont like them becuase they took our people hostage for 444 days, so we help him out in his war against iran, which he pretty much loses.

So now he has to pay back his debts, and he basicly has no army becuase of his war with iran that went over for 4 years, so he invades kuait and takes their oil cause theres more of it. When that happens the Saudi royal family "by their asking", askes the US military to protect them and their oil from crazy Saddam, so we go and help cause were buddies and there is Operation Desert Shield. Well we try talking or whatever so then @!#$ happens and there we have Desert Storm.

Now for the handy map i make in Paint


Now as you can see...we were in Iraq, but not we didn't persue the 16 year old lead Republican Guard, we just did what we were supposed to do, nothing more.

And then we just stayed stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuait, and then when ever Saddam got a wild hair to move some of his tanks close to the border our guys would have to go and protect our intrests, totaly at the asking of the king of SA, which from what i've heard from DS vets was a pain in the @&%.

So 9-11 happens and were out for blood, well we go into Afganistan, take down the Taliban, and hunt Osama. Good we got rid of the threat right? wrong, we just fuled the fire that they had been preaching, the extremist now had proof that we were imperialistic pigs still on holy soil, so what the answer to fix that...leave the holy ground to take away the whole reason of them really hating us.

Why not just go into Kuait you ask? well i know the A1's are fast...but they aint that fast, toping out at around 55 mph is pretty good, but thats on pavement, not on the hard packed desert, its flat but its still really bumpy, and we couldn't not protect them.


Ok so now it just sound's like we were in it just for the oil...well dont forget that the british and the french were there too...the french just left and decieded to take their chances.

Back on topic, so after 9-11 Karl Rove in all his infinate wisdom (or large ears) talked about how he heard G dub-ya talkin about Iraq, but after the stuff i've just talked about is stated, it then makes sense that the only way to keep Osama off our back and still protect the worlds largest supply of oil is to invade Iraq, to get rid of the threat of Saddam, cause Osama is one slipery $%#@)!$.

Now on to the whole WMD thing, IMO the reason he might have been braggin about that is to keep up with Iran, who already has, or is going to have nukes, so sayin that you got some of the toys just keeps you in the loop. I know the intel was kinda shadey, but a couple of other countries said it was ok...like UK and Russia...what was really known is unseen but is important.

So, ive just laid out a theory that was told to me...but its much shorter and maybe doesn't get the message across as nicely. But it does give us another explanation as to why this action took place




Alrighty, now granted I'm saddend that the lives of US soldier's are lost, but you gotta look on the bright side, a lot of people were living in fear of a crazy guy and they coudn't and didn't stand up for them selves, so we did it for them, he used posion gas and torture, and he was just a bad guy, not to mention ethnic clensing...and people weren't pissed at us for going into Bosnia, but then again they are in Europe, which is "superior" to the middle east, and it has always seemed like that is the way people view it....well im done rambling, im tired, hope you opend your mind and read what ive wrote, and just take it like it's said.


Thanks everybody

hmm interesting...

But did you know that during the war in between the soviets and afghans during the 80's, there were 2 resistance figthers. The Mujahadin (sp?) *moderatly extremist ,didn't kill civilians* and there were the extremists who were sent out of prisons from across the middle east to fight and the gov'ts had hopes that they would die. Most of them were actually in prision because of the assasination on Sadat in Egypt. One of these guys was Iman Zuwari (sp?). Bin Laden came to afghanistan and joined the Mujahadin but was later convinced by Iman to join his cause, that way they got the saudi money and osama got to be the leader. When the soviets left they celebrated and they thought they could beat anyone because the soviets were defeated but they couldn't have done without american weapons. Its all political philoshpy.

What A1s are you talking about, the HMMWVA1, M2A1, M3A1, AAV-7A1, M16A1, M1A1. You're being very vague by just saying A1, you can get away with that in a military setting talking about a specific piece of gear, but not on a public forum where very few people will know what you're talking about.

As far as speed for land vehicles goes, in a military convoy, 40 mph may as well be light speed, it's about as fast as a convoy is going to go. It's not the top speed of the vehicles, just what is briefed as the convoy speed, and may be adjusted on the fly. If you were referring to M1A1, which weighs 70 tons, doing 55 mph as just pretty good is a little bit of an understatement, that's like saying a J running 12s is average. Unless you see one of those things on the move you really have no appreciation of what it really takes to get them up and moving even to 35 mph.




Yella02-I promise I will return to you in one piece and this will stay up until I am safely home

Given that it's coming second hand: I'll go easy...

Adam Asmus wrote:
OK...here i'm gonna give you some dates and places

Oct. 23 1983-Marine Barracks, Beruit
Dec. 21 1988-Lockerbie, Scotland
Feb. 26 1993-World Trade Center Bombing
Aug. 7 1998-US embasy Bombings-Kenya and Tanzania
Oct. 12 2000-USS Cole Bombing
Sept. 11 2001-World Trade Center, you know what happened

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing">Beiruit - Marine Barracks bombing</a> - Attributed to Hezbollah.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103">Pan Am Flight 103 bombing</a> Attributed to Libya state sponsored terrorism
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103">1993 WTC Bombing</a> Not attributed to any Organisation, but some of the principals involved are linked to people who much later became part of al-queda
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings">1998 US Embassy Bombings</a> The first major terrorist actions linked directly to Al qaeda and Usama Bin Laden.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing">USS Cole Bombing</a> responsibility claimed by Al qaeda
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks">9/11/01...</a> Definitely Al qaeda, and do not forget the Pentagon and Flight 93...

Quote:


Ok, so now that I have laid that out for you, some information to go with these dates. All of these events, attacks supposedly have been done by Islamic extremists, which might have been helped by Osama. These attacks were pretty dastardly acts, and although they were horribale acts of agression, we sat back and did nothing.

The thing that you have to remember, is that you can't rout out the bad muslims from the good ones in the mid east, and even if you could, the US respected the fact that there really wasn't a lot that could be done. Even though there was a lot of talk and even some economic sanctions, the fact that Ross Perot had paid for a commando team to go into Tehran and liberate the hostages that ultimately failled, pretty much illustrated the fact that you couldn't martial the troops for limited actions.

Also, until Iraq, one or two countries invading another for whatever reasons was an act of war... even if it was opportunistic or retaliation. Just remember, regarding Iraq/Kuwait, it wasn't ever JUST the USA... it was a UN Mission.

Quote:

Now, our first mistake was to help out Osama in the first place, we helped his cause by giving weapons, medical supplies, etc. to his men, to help fight the russians, just like the Russians in Korea, and the Chinese in Vietnam.

Okay.. here's where I have to straighten you out a little, again, I'm not trying to be harsh.

Usama Bin Laden fought in the Afghani war against Russia with the mujahadeen.. They were basically a populace/muslim revolt against Russian occupation. During the war, not only did the US provide arms (ie, surplus Israeli captured warsaw pact munitions) but most of NATO had given support of either cash, military trainers, or other weapons. Near the end, the US okayed the shipment of Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.

Quote:


Now after that happed, and the taliban and all those guys basicly won, they were free to roam and preach religous doctrine, and they talked about anti-western ways, you guys have talked about it enough so i don't need to re-hash

Yeah, and it is a good idea to prime yourself about it as well. After the Russians retreated, Afghanistan had no clear king or government, and in the absence of a government (or help from the George HW Bush Administration as was promised) basically gang-style militias formed and warred for power, with the Taliban ultimately winning. At this point Usama Bin Laden was in the Sudan, where his beliefs had become more radicalised under a clerics tutelage (I forget which specifically) and after the US Embassy Bombings, Sudan asked him to leave, which he did, and went to Afghansitan.

Quote:


ok, so now to saddam, once again we help him out becuase he's fighting the iranian's and we dont like them becuase they took our people hostage for 444 days, so we help him out in his war against iran, which he pretty much loses.

Well, it was more like fought to a bloody draw... but it's splitting hairs.

Quote:

So now he has to pay back his debts, and he basicly has no army becuase of his war with iran that went over for 4 years, so he invades kuait and takes their oil cause theres more of it. When that happens the Saudi royal family "by their asking", askes the US military to protect them and their oil from crazy Saddam, so we go and help cause were buddies and there is Operation Desert Shield. Well we try talking or whatever so then @!#$ happens and there we have Desert Storm.

Actually, the nation had little cash problems after the Iran war. The US was still funding him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Quote:

Prior to World War I, under the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, Kuwait was considered to be an autonomous caza within Ottoman Iraq. Following the war, Kuwait fell under British rule and later became an independent emirate. However, Iraqi officials did not accept the legitimacy of Kuwaiti independence or the authority of the Kuwaiti Emir. Iraq never recognized Kuwait's sovereignty and in the 1960s, the United Kingdom deployed troops to Kuwait to deter an Iraqi annexation.

Iraq was "taking back" what they had long considered theirs to begin with.

Desert Shield was started to prevent Iraqi retalliation on Saudi Arabian interests because of their backing of US/UN invasion.

Quote:


Now for the handy map i make in Paint


Now as you can see...we were in Iraq, but not we didn't persue the 16 year old lead Republican Guard, we just did what we were supposed to do, nothing more.

Troop movements actually were more pointing towards Baghdad and Kuwait as I remember, but perhaps someone can correct me.

Quote:


And then we just stayed stationed in Saudi Arabia and Kuait, and then when ever Saddam got a wild hair to move some of his tanks close to the border our guys would have to go and protect our intrests, totaly at the asking of the king of SA, which from what i've heard from DS vets was a pain in the @&%.

Desert Shield ended in 1991, and what replaced it was a US enforced UN No-Fly Zone.

Tanks were allowed to patrol the border, but not to engage anything outside the border. Also, Iraq had border patrols which were carried out in order to keep Iran and Saudi Arabia (which frankly ain't lilly white and fresh smelling either) from invading.

Quote:

So 9-11 happens and were out for blood, well we go into Afganistan, take down the Taliban, and hunt Osama. Good we got rid of the threat right? wrong, we just fuled the fire that they had been preaching, the extremist now had proof that we were imperialistic pigs still on holy soil, so what the answer to fix that...leave the holy ground to take away the whole reason of them really hating us.

More or less right... The Taliban are not "taken down" so much as deposed, they're still in the hills. Afghanistan isn't really considered "holy" per se, because there isn't anything of any great significance there, other than a couple of pipelines, and nothing really spiritually significant. The invasion hasn't been decried, or used as a rallying call because most Islamic leaders, radical or moderate, realise that afghanistan did the wrong thing by allowing a dangerous terrorist use the country as a staging ground (think like, your dog with fleas sleeping in the same bed as you... ).

Quote:


Why not just go into Kuait you ask? well i know the A1's are fast...but they aint that fast, toping out at around 55 mph is pretty good, but thats on pavement, not on the hard packed desert, its flat but its still really bumpy, and we couldn't not protect them.

Umm... I don't follow your thought. If you mean in relation to the picture, I've already answered that.

Quote:

Ok so now it just sound's like we were in it just for the oil...well dont forget that the british and the french were there too...the french just left and decieded to take their chances.

If you mean Afghanistan, no, they're still part of the multi-national mission. If you mean Iraq, France had a vested interest in Iraq and actually had legitimate humanitarian ends... France's main petroleum supplier was Iraq, and they also had several water purification plants and aquaducts built. Britian turned tail out of the Mid-east in the early 20th century.

Quote:

Back on topic, so after 9-11 Karl Rove in all his infinate wisdom (or large ears) talked about how he heard G dub-ya talkin about Iraq, but after the stuff i've just talked about is stated, it then makes sense that the only way to keep Osama off our back and still protect the worlds largest supply of oil is to invade Iraq, to get rid of the threat of Saddam, cause Osama is one slipery $%#@)!$.

The last point goes without saying, but he's not in Iraq. The Oil is quite possibly the only thing that was motivating. Hell, Iran has enriched Urainum 235 coming out of its zabri (sp?) they're a more legitimate WMD threat.

Saddam on the other hand, really wasn't any kind of threat as a terrorist (all his bank accounts in Switzerland and the Caman Islands had been frozen), and the funny thing is that there were no terrorists in Iraq BEFORE the invasion, once the invasion started and the borders became extrememly porous, that was when you started seeing foreign terrorists... as well, you also saw Fedayeen Hussein converting to small unit guerilla tactics.

Also, here's an interesting, interesting question that isn't germaine to the discussion, but bears thought and answering: IF Iraq is supposed to be able to pump out oodles of oil now that Saddam isn't in power, why the hell is oil over $60 a barrell? Arent' they supposed to have tons and tons of pumping and refining facilities? Where the hell is all that oil, and why isn't gas a buck a gallon?

Quote:

Now on to the whole WMD thing, IMO the reason he might have been braggin about that is to keep up with Iran, who already has, or is going to have nukes, so sayin that you got some of the toys just keeps you in the loop. I know the intel was kinda shadey, but a couple of other countries said it was ok...like UK and Russia...what was really known is unseen but is important.

Whatever there was of Iraq's WMD (ie CBRN weapons) programme, it wasn't anything close to what it was in 1990.

In the UK, Her Majesty's Royal Intelligence Service stated that the intelligence regarding the WMD's in Iraq had a zero reliability rating. Russian President Vladimir Putkin had said that FSB had gotten rumblings about Iraq trying to buy North Korean enriched uranium from an african nation (it was Nigeria IIRC), but that was later proven to be false... and it had been reported to the CIA, the NSA and the NSIA as such, and finally reported to the Whitehouse long before the invasion.

Quote:


So, ive just laid out a theory that was told to me...but its much shorter and maybe doesn't get the message across as nicely. But it does give us another explanation as to why this action took place

If there's more to it, I'd like to read it.

Quote:

Alrighty, now granted I'm saddend that the lives of US soldier's are lost, but you gotta look on the bright side, a lot of people were living in fear of a crazy guy and they coudn't and didn't stand up for them selves, so we did it for them, he used posion gas and torture, and he was just a bad guy, not to mention ethnic clensing...

Yes, absolutely. And after he did that, the USA poo-pooed him for a month, but was buddy buddy until the Kuwait thing.

I feel bad that soldiers and civillians had to die for something as pointless as oil and for something as de-valued and politicised as freedom. I've said for a long time, Iraq was hardly the worst-off place that needed help. I won't rhyme them off just yet, but there are literally 15 countries within 1000 miles of Iraq that need help way more... they're just of no strategic value, so the horrors and evil being done there doesn't warrant as much attention.

The invasion isn't about freedom, no matter what the overall operation is misnamed.

Quote:

and people weren't pissed at us for going into Bosnia, but then again they are in Europe, which is "superior" to the middle east, and it has always seemed like that is the way people view it....well im done rambling, im tired, hope you opend your mind and read what ive wrote, and just take it like it's said.

Well, here again, you're off thinking that this is something the USA undertook on its own. Yugoslavian operations were under the perview of the UN and undertaken by NATO, which is a lot more countries... What was happening in Bosnia/Hertzigovena and other fmr Yugoslavian countries is genocide on a much larger scale than what happened in Iraq, as well, this happened with widespread organised military and political groups in the midst of war. Everyone saw what happened, and everyone is taking part in fixing it. What happened in Iraq was seen by everyone, but it was excused and forgotten because of Iran being the bigger enemy.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

As for your troop movements Gam I dont need to correct you at all we were damn near looking down at Baghdad and we where told to stop. Had we been allowed to go in by Sr. none of this s--t would be happening now.

The Abrams A1 battle tank if I remember correctly CAN do almost 55mph but as saint said thats flying in one of those things. But if you look at the rate of our advance during both wars we put the blitzcreg to shame that the germans did in WW II. During the second war we actualy set the world record for an advancing army thru enemy held terratory. So while we may not get a speeding ticket on the highway, on the battlefield
nothing can touch us.

Other then these two tid bits Gam pretty much has it under control so I'll just defer to him.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Well, given that Panzers had a WEEE bit older engines, and a lot heavier plating, I think we can give them credit for being pretty damned quick in their own rite.

I know a couple of CDN forces guys that were wondering WTF was happening when they were ordered to halt.

I agree, had Baghdad been taken, a lot of the current predicament would have been moot, but I think "what if" is a game for kids to play.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Oh I agree about the whole "what if" stuff and I wasn't going there I was only trying to show that we weren't pointing in that direction we were already there.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Saint wrote:

As far as speed for land vehicles goes, in a military convoy, 40 mph may as well be light speed, it's about as fast as a convoy is going to go.

you never traveled with the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment our convoy speed was as fast as the slowest vehicle would allow, usually around 50mph. we figured the faster you get from point a to b, the less chance of attack......and we never had one vehicle get hit in our squadron even though we went through a lot of the hot spots, mabey it was luck, mabey it was our speed, idk, but it worked


You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan

(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)

Saint & Mike: Yeah I was talking about the M1 Abrams tank, and I can appreciate a 60 ton machine going 55, those things gotta be hella scary flying at those speeds.

GAM: I'll try to get it straight from the horses mouth for you, and I just talked about the US cause I was really tired and kinda forgot that part about everyone else And I totaly agree that there could have been a lot better places that we could have went into, like Sudan for instance.

Also, thanks for setting me straight on the whole Afganistan thing, I was just taught about one group (thanks World History video's), we basicly skimmed over that, we are just basicly taught that it was the Soviet Union's Vietnam, and thats about all.

Thanks for the information and opinions

Adam: no biggie. My only advice is to not buy hook line and sinker into everything you're taught in HS, because you're getting a very sanitised, glossy and idealised version of some very bloody and politically dirty spots in History.

You're going to get the gist of it, but you're not getting the whole story which is really interesting



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Wait a minute Gam!! they lyed to us back in school and sugar coated everything?!?!?
G A S P !!!! I can not believe it !!!! I'm in shock!!!!



Its known as revisionist history which simply means the only history that matters is the history told by the victor after combat is done. This is nothing new as its been done since wars have been faught.





Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

i like the what if game
what if the goverment would let us do our job....

Chris


"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

It's up to them to decide when to make you do your jobs ultimately Taesch.

jack: There's an old saying that goes: "until the sheep have their own historians, the story will be told by the victors."

At least we have a way to research reliably.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

mikec, I never said the speeds we normally traveled at, no need of putting our TTP on the internet for anyone to look at. I'm just saying what we were briefed the convoy speeds were. I also never said if that was one specific road or the whole trip. Trust me I've buried the needle in a HMMWV before on a convoy, so we went at some pretty high, for the military, speeds. It just depended on the vehicles, the load and the Convoy Commander as to our actual convoy speeds.




Yella02-I promise I will return to you in one piece and this will stay up until I am safely home

"Yes, absolutely. And after he did that, the USA poo-pooed him for a month, but was buddy buddy until the Kuwait thing.

I feel bad that soldiers and civillians had to die for something as pointless as oil and for something as de-valued and politicised as freedom. I've said for a long time, Iraq was hardly the worst-off place that needed help. I won't rhyme them off just yet, but there are literally 15 countries within 1000 miles of Iraq that need help way more... they're just of no strategic value, so the horrors and evil being done there doesn't warrant as much attention.

The invasion isn't about freedom, no matter what the overall operation is misnamed. "



Right on dude, never seen us rushing to prevent the genocide happening in Africa, they have no oil so they arent important. It disturbs me that they try to justify this whole war by saying that it is about Iraqi freedom, when in all reality that isnt at all why it was started it was started to prevent instability to the US oil flow which has backfired and caused nothing but instability. How many times have they changed the purpose or excuse for being there? I am against the war because it is a waste of American lives and resources, is that against the ppl who are there no. Its not disrespecting them, its caring about them. If one is to die for thier country and AMERICAN freedom, it is done by defending a known threat to America, not a potential one never able based on false information by a coward with no regrets for thier actions or any type of willingness to admit wrong. I would have a ton more appreciation for Bush if he simply stated "this was a mistake". Kerry hit the nail on the head "you go to war because you have to not because you want to". This war has nothing to do with American freedom, its a war based on politcal interests and America flexing its muscles.

For that reason I really do feel sorry for those that serve there and those that have been lost. They do thier jobs as told so honorably for a cause that is pointless, they do not question they only serve. My heart goes out to ppl that have lost a parent, a child, a brother, sister, or a friend in this. Theres honor in death for something you believe in, there is none in a pointless war. Theres nothing worse than a meaningless deathfor political gain, for most ppl here you see it on TV, you forget about it 15 min later. Thats wrong, thats horribly wrong, if someone must die it better be for a damned good reason which has an impact on American lives, the only impact this war has had really, is on the ppl there and thier familys not anyone outside of that. I can wake up in the morning 15 ppl could die there and it really wouldnt affect my life at all I'm not there and I dont know anyone how is. The military and thier families are the real losers here and unfortuntely you have a president that views you as expendable. If a war is that detached from American consciousness is it really worth it in the first place?



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85

i gotta agree with gam on which groups did what attacks. but ossama had money anyways, we just helped him. The reason he has all the caves and fortress things is that he brought construction equpment to afganistan as he had it available from the construction company his family owns and opperates. IDK if any of u have read the 9/11 report. i have only read part but it is very enlightening into the history of al qaeda. also there are lots of books out about them and it is a very interesting topic. hence the reason why im gonna major in it in college

Usama bin Laden's family's money was frozen (at least the 12 Billion they could find in the Saudi banks.. no telling about the Caymans or Swiss or Belgian banks) until they publically denounced him.

They did.

Bin Laden and al-qaeda at large has been financed by several house of Saud princes that have radicalised views of world politics, and, those who stand to gain more money from Chinese oil contracts than American ones.

Regarding Afghani caves etc.... They're a natural occurrance. As well, a Bin Laden family company was contracted by the Afghani Government to help rebuild key government facilities after the Taliban gave him refuge in the country.. What was rebuilt were basically a couple of large mosques, and a few government buildings and their associated infrastructure (electrical/communication/water/santitation...) after that, they packed up and left.

Afghanistan has a lot of mountainous terrain (ask a marine that was in Torra Bora) and a LOT of cave areas.

Also, the 9/11 commission report to Congress is being kept in static review (ie, some external links may have gone dead) here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Rodimus Prime wrote:"Yes, absolutely. And after he did that, the USA poo-pooed him for a month, but was buddy buddy until the Kuwait thing.

I feel bad that soldiers and civillians had to die for something as pointless as oil and for something as de-valued and politicised as freedom. I've said for a long time, Iraq was hardly the worst-off place that needed help. I won't rhyme them off just yet, but there are literally 15 countries within 1000 miles of Iraq that need help way more... they're just of no strategic value, so the horrors and evil being done there doesn't warrant as much attention.

The invasion isn't about freedom, no matter what the overall operation is misnamed. "



Right on dude, never seen us rushing to prevent the genocide happening in Africa, they have no oil so they arent important. It disturbs me that they try to justify this whole war by saying that it is about Iraqi freedom, when in all reality that isnt at all why it was started it was started to prevent instability to the US oil flow which has backfired and caused nothing but instability. How many times have they changed the purpose or excuse for being there? I am against the war because it is a waste of American lives and resources, is that against the ppl who are there no. Its not disrespecting them, its caring about them. If one is to die for thier country and AMERICAN freedom, it is done by defending a known threat to America, not a potential one never able based on false information by a coward with no regrets for thier actions or any type of willingness to admit wrong. I would have a ton more appreciation for Bush if he simply stated "this was a mistake". Kerry hit the nail on the head "you go to war because you have to not because you want to". This war has nothing to do with American freedom, its a war based on politcal interests and America flexing its muscles.

For that reason I really do feel sorry for those that serve there and those that have been lost. They do thier jobs as told so honorably for a cause that is pointless, they do not question they only serve. My heart goes out to ppl that have lost a parent, a child, a brother, sister, or a friend in this. Theres honor in death for something you believe in, there is none in a pointless war. Theres nothing worse than a meaningless deathfor political gain, for most ppl here you see it on TV, you forget about it 15 min later. Thats wrong, thats horribly wrong, if someone must die it better be for a damned good reason which has an impact on American lives, the only impact this war has had really, is on the ppl there and thier familys not anyone outside of that. I can wake up in the morning 15 ppl could die there and it really wouldnt affect my life at all I'm not there and I dont know anyone how is. The military and thier families are the real losers here and unfortuntely you have a president that views you as expendable. If a war is that detached from American consciousness is it really worth it in the first place?

I really feel sorry for you and your simplistic view of the world. It's so easy for you to sit back a criticize things in a Monday morning quarterback type of way just because you have all the answers after the fact. Sure you can say that they didn't have WMDs, but I'll bet you thought they had them at the start of the way the same way that our government and many other governments did.

The government gave you the main reason for the war, the threat of WMDs. I'm sure this wasn't the only reason. Iraqi opression, oil stability, terrorist training facilities, revenge for the first gulf war probably were factored in also. Did you buy your car based on one attribute or did you look at many different things before making you purchase?

Maybe it would have been better if we hadn't gone to war, but it's a moot point now and the best thing is to stay the course and not leave the Iraqi people high and dry like a previous country (yes we can learn from our mistakes). I'm sure that the Washington planners didn't know it was going to be this difficult to stabilize the country. I'm sure you didn't either. I'm sure they were wrong about many things and they realize it now. Would you be acting different if they had found massive amounts of WMDs in Iraq? I'll be you would.

I'll let you know something that not only applies here but you'll find it applies in your personal life also. You never make yourself look better by making others look worse.


I will have to admit one thing. After seeing how this Iraqi infighting and insurgents battles are going I've started to think that Saddam was smarter than I gave him credit for. Maybe he was right about the best way to deal with those people.

Labotomi wrote:I really feel sorry for you and your simplistic view of the world. It's so easy for you to sit back a criticize things in a Monday morning quarterback type of way just because you have all the answers after the fact. Sure you can say that they didn't have WMDs, but I'll bet you thought they had them at the start of the way the same way that our government and many other governments did.

Call it what you will, but it's his opinion on things and he's just as entitled to his own as you or I.

Also, Monday morning Quaterbacks re-run what shoulda/coulda/woulda been done to win the game from what was remembered in a beer soaked haze... I'm not drinking, and I have read quite a lot about the situation in Iraq, and frankly, if the Bush Administration did any more tap-dancing about the actual reason they committed about 180 Billion dollars to the invasion of Iraq, frankly, they'd be in the runnings for a Tony Award.

The simple fact is that there was no information (regarding CBRN weapons) about what the hell was going on on the ground in Iraq pre-invasion. Going into battle without operational Intel is like going into battle without bullets.

What WAS found in Iraq was over 12 years old... ie leftovers from Op. Desert Storm.

Quote:

The government gave you the main reason for the war, the threat of WMDs. I'm sure this wasn't the only reason. Iraqi opression, oil stability, terrorist training facilities, revenge for the first gulf war probably were factored in also. Did you buy your car based on one attribute or did you look at many different things before making you purchase?

- Iraqi WMD's - Proven false.
- Iraqi Oppression - May be a back-burner idea... but there are places where military intervention is needed and have been needed for years or decades. I'd rhyme them off here, but it's been done in the past.
- Oil Stability - Interestingly, there hasn't been any oil shipped out of Iraq since the invasion. No oil company (read heavy political contributor) wants to see oil come out of Iraq because it has the largest available supply fields. It's the same reason that Bush will not exercise presidential discretion and sell off some of the Strategic oil Reserve. MONEY.... Oil companies are making money hand over fist over claw because of the record amount of oil thats being consumed, and the bigger squeeze is that China has been buying up oil contracts in the gulf like it's going out of style... Since there's no recession and as of now, inflation has been pretty low, oil prices have been free to climb, and so has the bottom line of most oil companies.
- Terrorist Training Facilities: If there had been any found they would have been paraded in front of cameras like a $2 whore on payday. There were none in Iraq because Militant islamic factions regarded the Hussein Regime as a SECULAR regime, to them it was as repugnant as the western influence.
- Revenge - I don't doubt this was a motivating factor, but I wouldn't make it look like I was no better than a street punk with a chip on my shoulder if I were in the world spotlight. However, I wouldn't have invaded Iraq on the pretext of enforcing a UN resolution when the UN clearly wasn't behind the resolution.

Quote:

Maybe it would have been better if we hadn't gone to war, but it's a moot point now and the best thing is to stay the course and not leave the Iraqi people high and dry like a previous country (yes we can learn from our mistakes). I'm sure that the Washington planners didn't know it was going to be this difficult to stabilize the country. I'm sure you didn't either. I'm sure they were wrong about many things and they realize it now. Would you be acting different if they had found massive amounts of WMDs in Iraq? I'll be you would.

At this point, I won't speculate on "what if" games... Afghanistan is still in the hands of the UN, and The US does infact have some troops stationed there (I don't recall which, but I seem to remember it was the Army that had that detail), and there is no choice regarding Iraq. The US and UK are going to have to rebuild it on their own, and they will also be fully responsible for all failures that happen there, politically and militarily.

BTW, Washington planners HAD a study on what it would take to enforce a regime change on a country (none specified as I remember). However, it was drawn up by some hick governor from Arkansas' administration... No self-respectin' hick governor or Texas would use that now would they? I forget the exact name of it right now, but Saint had mentioned it a while ago, and when I read a bit of it, it was actually fairly well thought out... go figure... a Rhode's scholar in the whitehouse.

Quote:

I'll let you know something that not only applies here but you'll find it applies in your personal life also. You never make yourself look better by making others look worse.

Apparently, that doesn't apply to any political campaign. Smear ads do and have worked... it just depends on timing.

Quote:


I will have to admit one thing. After seeing how this Iraqi infighting and insurgents battles are going I've started to think that Saddam was smarter than I gave him credit for. Maybe he was right about the best way to deal with those people.

Well, I'll give you a little bit of information:

There aren't as many insurgents as the media is leading you on to believe.

The Republican Guard under Saddam Hussein was training for the 5-6 years previous to the 2003 invasion, for just such an event. There are several fanatical and dedicated cadres of former military personel called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedayeen_Saddam">Fedayeen Hussein</a> that use guerilla warfare tactics.

If you remember, upon invasion, many Marine units came across schools and other large public places where they found dozens-hundreds of uniforms and packing crates for ak-47's and soviet fragmentation grenades.

They've incorporated a lot of the former surviving military. While I have no doubt there are in fact al-qaeda fighters in the midst of Iraq, I don't believe there are nearly as many as most think. Iraq isn't an option for most of them because it was a secular regime before invasion, and there are secular warriors fighting to take it back.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Labotomi wrote:Also, Monday morning Quaterbacks re-run what shoulda/coulda/woulda been done to win the game from what was remembered in a beer soaked haze... I'm not drinking, and I have read quite a lot about the situation in Iraq, and frankly, if the Bush Administration did any more tap-dancing about the actual reason they committed about 180 Billion dollars to the invasion of Iraq, frankly, they'd be in the runnings for a Tony Award.

Also, Monday morning Quaterbacks re-run what shoulda/coulda/woulda been done to win the game from what was remembered in a beer soaked haze... I'm not drinking, and I have read quite a lot about the situation in Iraq, and frankly, if the Bush Administration did any more tap-dancing about the actual reason they committed about 180 Billion dollars to the invasion of Iraq, frankly, they'd be in the runnings for a Tony Award.

I never said they weren't tap dancing. I said they thought Iraq had WMDs at the beginning of the war. I think they had faulty information, but I don't think it was fabricated to justify the invasion. If they want to tap-dance to try to save face then so be it. While I don't agree with it, it doesn't justify the vitrol spewed here.
And WTF does drinking have anything to do with this?

Labotomi wrote:The government gave you the main reason for the war, the threat of WMDs. I'm sure this wasn't the only reason. Iraqi opression, oil stability, terrorist training facilities, revenge for the first gulf war probably were factored in also.

Are you arguing? I said that these weren't the major issues. You called them "back-burner" ideas and that's what I was saying

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:- Iraqi WMD's - Proven false.

I didn't say they were there, I said the administration believed they were.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:- Iraqi Oppression - May be a back-burner idea... but there are places where military intervention is needed and have been needed for years or decades. I'd rhyme them off here, but it's been done in the past.

Again, just another contributing factor to the invasion decision.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:- Terrorist Training Facilities: If there had been any found they would have been paraded in front of cameras like a $2 whore on payday. There were none in Iraq because Militant islamic factions regarded the Hussein Regime as a SECULAR regime, to them it was as repugnant as the western influence.

but we thought they were there and in actuality they were, it's just that they hadn't been used in a long time.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:- Revenge - I don't doubt this was a motivating factor, but I wouldn't make it look like I was no better than a street punk with a chip on my shoulder if I were in the world spotlight.

I don't think that he did.
My point was that you can have multiple reasons for going to war, not just the publically stated ones. Taken alone these probably weren't enough to justify the invasion, but when taken together, the result could have overwhelmingly pointed toward war.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Labotomi wrote:I'm sure that the Washington planners didn't know it was going to be this difficult to stabilize the country. I'm sure you didn't either.

BTW, Washington planners HAD a study on what it would take to enforce a regime change on a country (none specified as I remember). However, it was drawn up by some hick governor from Arkansas' administration... No self-respectin' hick governor or Texas would use that now would they? I forget the exact name of it right now, but Saint had mentioned it a while ago, and when I read a bit of it, it was actually fairly well thought out... go figure... a Rhode's scholar in the whitehouse.

Even with an accurate study, you can not plan for every variable. If the Iraqi people would stand up for themselves and attempt to stop the insurgency, the country would be stabilzed very quickly and the US would withdraw. The more they become angry with our presence and protest and fight and generally make it more difficult, the longer it's going to take and the longer we'll be there....and the more angry they'll become...and so on.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

Labotomi wrote: I will have to admit one thing. After seeing how this Iraqi infighting and insurgents battles are going I've started to think that Saddam was smarter than I gave him credit for. Maybe he was right about the best way to deal with those people.

Well, I'll give you a little bit of information:

There aren't as many insurgents as the media is leading you on to believe.

The Republican Guard under Saddam Hussein was training for the 5-6 years previous to the 2003 invasion, for just such an event. There are several fanatical and dedicated cadres of former military personel called Fedayeen Hussein that use guerilla warfare tactics.

If you remember, upon invasion, many Marine units came across schools and other large public places where they found dozens-hundreds of uniforms and packing crates for ak-47's and soviet fragmentation grenades.

They've incorporated a lot of the former surviving military. While I have no doubt there are in fact al-qaeda fighters in the midst of Iraq, I don't believe there are nearly as many as most think. Iraq isn't an option for most of them because it was a secular regime before invasion, and there are secular warriors fighting to take it back.

That information is irrelevant to my statement

I'm going to snip out re-quoted items.. just keeping the page shorter

Labotomi wrote:I never said they weren't tap dancing. I said they thought Iraq had WMDs at the beginning of the war. I think they had faulty information, but I don't think it was fabricated to justify the invasion. If they want to tap-dance to try to save face then so be it. While I don't agree with it, it doesn't justify the vitrol spewed here.
And WTF does drinking have anything to do with this?

Beers and sunday night football are inseperable. When you hear Monday morning quarterbacks talking, they're not always recalling every play, just the interesting ones and the veracity isn't perfect.

I admit I have animosity towards the administration, but it's mainly because I can't believe the lines they're putting forward, and the fact that they are using information cooked up almost directly out of the Heiritage and CATO institutes weekly press releases. If you want shadey stuff, have a read of their effluent.

Labotomi wrote:The government gave you the main reason for the war, the threat of WMDs. I'm sure this wasn't the only reason. Iraqi opression, oil stability, terrorist training facilities, revenge for the first gulf war probably were factored in also.

Are you arguing? I said that these weren't the major issues. You called them "back-burner" ideas and that's what I was saying

Errmmm you quoted yourself there... anyhow... The fact is, that if the main thrust and provocation for invasion was to free the Iraqis, just cop to it up front, and don't waiver... the extra stuff that you listed just makes you the more right. The fact that the thrust changes weekly, and that the administration still clings to old excuses and that this disinformation is being dished with both hands is frankly insulting.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:- Iraqi WMD's - Proven false.

I didn't say they were there, I said the administration believed they were.

They knew the information they were basing their decisions on was not credible from the outset.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:- Iraqi Oppression - May be a back-burner idea... but there are places where military intervention is needed and have been needed for years or decades. I'd rhyme them off here, but it's been done in the past.

Again, just another contributing factor to the invasion decision.

Well, there's the fact that there are other places that needed humanitarian aid more than the west needed anything they could give in return.

If that was to have been the main thrust, cop to it. If anything else was uncovered in the mean time, it's gravy and makes it look all the better. Also, if that oil had gotten flowing it would have placated a lot of people...

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:- Terrorist Training Facilities: If there had been any found they would have been paraded in front of cameras like a $2 whore on payday. There were none in Iraq because Militant islamic factions regarded the Hussein Regime as a SECULAR regime, to them it was as repugnant as the western influence.

but we thought they were there and in actuality they were, it's just that they hadn't been used in a long time.

If you can find the info that says that, I'd like to see it.
The camps that have been found were not on satellite images of the area pre-invasion, and what ones were found usually had a few dozen Iraqi military uniforms in there from what I have read.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:- Revenge - I don't doubt this was a motivating factor, but I wouldn't make it look like I was no better than a street punk with a chip on my shoulder if I were in the world spotlight.

I don't think that he did.
My point was that you can have multiple reasons for going to war, not just the publically stated ones. Taken alone these probably weren't enough to justify the invasion, but when taken together, the result could have overwhelmingly pointed toward war.

Maybe it would have looked better to pick a place that needs help and freedom a little more.

Quote:


Even with an accurate study, you can not plan for every variable. If the Iraqi people would stand up for themselves and attempt to stop the insurgency, the country would be stabilzed very quickly and the US would withdraw. The more they become angry with our presence and protest and fight and generally make it more difficult, the longer it's going to take and the longer we'll be there....and the more angry they'll become...and so on.

The problem is that the "insurgents" are former Iraqi military, and they move in and out of the populace easily. Even foreign born al-qaeda do, and they're not generally liked either.

The problem is that you can't "stand up" against them without retalliation. You could, but your family, or business, or your life, would be forfeit. Put yourself in the same situation, you'll see that you're either in the frying pan, or in the fire.

Quote:

That information is irrelevant to my statement

No, on further reading I took it out of context... My apologies.

Hussein basically used the military to crush the will of the people, and there were no insurgents present pre-invasion because there was a strict border patrol, which dissolved after the invasion which allowed whoever wanted to get in unfettered passage.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I'll try to shorten the discussions further.

I think the administration genuinely believed that Iraq had WMDs and that was the main reason for the invasion. It may or may not have been enough by itself to justify the war. All the other things like freeing the people, a democratic society in the middle east, revenge etc were just additional reasons that contributed to the final decision. There may be places that need humanitarian aid more than Iraq, but this wasn't the original reason for the invasion. I'm not saying that the war was the right thing to do now that I know the current situation, but at the time it started I thought it was the right thing along with most of this country. I'm man enough to admit that my opinion and the opinion of my government may have been wrong. I think now the right course is to stay in Iraq and finish the job.

The statement about Saddam being smart about how to handle them was meant half in humor. It just seems that unless you crush them entirely they will continue to fight. And Saddam seemed to know this and used this method to rule.

The more people that jump on the media bandwagon and echo how bad it is over there the more the opposition is emboldened to continue fighting and the less the public will support the rebuilding. The prediction of failure becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

GAM, it was a Retired Marine Corps General, General Tony Zinni that initially came up with the plan for what to do about SASO missions.

In Afghanistan it is mainly Army units, however the Marine Corps as at least one MEU there at all times.




Yella02-I promise I will return to you in one piece and this will stay up until I am safely home

Wow this is a heck of a lot bigger discussion than I had planned...but just something interesting I found out....I guess up in Canada (GAM help me out here) somewhere, there are huge oil fields...and I guess they are larger than thoes of Saudi Arabia...just something interisting.


Oh, also I have another theory about the whole WMD thing...what about Syria, I'm just curious as to what you guys think about the whole idea that some WMD's might have been moved.

I think that it is totaly possible...but thats just my opinion

Adam:
The Idea that there are WMD's in Syria in not entirely impossible, and would be likely, but there was no means to transport them there (at least not in the purported quantity. . Flights and train shipments are monitored, as well, most roads wouldn't be the kinds of places I would easily ship volatile items over. the paved roads are primarily running north/south. The only other way I could think of is if the offending items were shipped by sea, but I doubt that highly especially with a carrier group parked on Iraq's front doorstep. I think the lion's share of the CBRN weapons and factories were destroyed in 1992-94. Also, in regards to the nuclear facilities, they weren't using the right kind of Uranium to make bomb-grade materials.

Canada supplies the US with 40% of its domestic consumption of oil. There are oil fields in Alberta in traditional deposits and Oil-sands, in Ontario (although they are largely depleted), Quebec (see: Ontario), and within our protected waters on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland's shores. For some reason, we pay about 50% more than what Americans do for gas, not counting taxes. That ain't right!!!

Saint:
Really? Was it JUST him or was there a committee, and was it commissioned? I seem to remember you had said it was something that the Whitehouse had requested or commissioned.

I don't remember the specifics of that, but it seems like a great idea... you know... planning stuff loosely before you commit.

I didn't realise before, but there's been almost continuous US army presence in Afghanistan since invasion... I didn't read anything about Marines though, unfortunately. I don't like to miss those things esp, if I know someone (even if informally through a model specific Car board) that is involved.

Labotomi:

Quote:

I think the administration genuinely believed that Iraq had WMDs and that was the main reason for the invasion. It may or may not have been enough by itself to justify the war. All the other things like freeing the people, a democratic society in the middle east, revenge etc were just additional reasons that contributed to the final decision. There may be places that need humanitarian aid more than Iraq, but this wasn't the original reason for the invasion. I'm not saying that the war was the right thing to do now that I know the current situation, but at the time it started I thought it was the right thing along with most of this country. I'm man enough to admit that my opinion and the opinion of my government may have been wrong. I think now the right course is to stay in Iraq and finish the job.

While I don't agree that it was the right thing to do at the time of invasion, I agree that there's no point in creating another Afghanistan-situation, there is no choice but to hold fast and stay the course in Iraq. Maybe the UN will come around, maybe not. I thought at one point that if they didn't it would serve the US/UK right, but I can't tolerate that the people of Iraq would be left in the lurch. I hope that the UN or NATO starts mobilising aid and troops quickly.

Quote:


The statement about Saddam being smart about how to handle them was meant half in humor. It just seems that unless you crush them entirely they will continue to fight. And Saddam seemed to know this and used this method to rule.

That would explain it.

I can be a little dense.

Quote:

The more people that jump on the media bandwagon and echo how bad it is over there the more the opposition is emboldened to continue fighting and the less the public will support the rebuilding. The prediction of failure becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

Well, the opposition will continue to fight because they are fanatical, the only difference between the al-qaeda and fedayeen Hussein are who they're fighting for.

I can honestly say that until either the US or UK formally requests the Security Council institute military operations to secure Iraq, the help won't be forth coming. I just hope sincerely that the US doesn't end up hamstrung like in Vietnam.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.