Obama: '3000 Lives of Americans ... Wasted'

[Jeremiah]

http://www.youtube.com/v/v6_vFcW9pZI&eurl=

[`thunder`]

wasted sounds a little bit hard...

[Durandal]

wasted sounds a little bit hard...

Hard but no less true.

Money and lives are being spent hand over fist with no net return.

[Bia]

I think wasted is a good word.

These great people could still be alive and that's a watse since there's been little positive changes.

Billions and billions of dollars and rivers of blood.... wasted.

[bugkill]

so, what he is going to call it if he has to send us to war that some may feel is "unpopular"? there is no such thing as a "good" war and if he is elected president, he WILL have to send us somewhere that may cost american lives and is not a "direct" threat to our country.

it is very easy for these politicians to get up there and talk out the side of their mouths when on the campaign trail, but their tone changes once they get into office. obama was stupid to make that statement because iraq is an "ongoing" operation and that is the one thing that pisses me off more than anything about the democrats and others. it's their total idiocy to start calling iraq a failure (which the whining has been going on for the last 3 yrs.), while we are still in the fight.

they are trying to make you believe that the soldier's that have lost their lives were wasted because bush is still in office. the only way that it will be a waste is if BUSH decides to pull the plug and we retreat from iraq. they (the dems) don't want to be the ones to pull the plug (that is why they won't stop the damn funding) and go down as the ones to quit in iraq.

history will dictate whether or not my fellow comrades died for nothing when it concerns the political aspect of the argument, but their lives will never be a waste to the guys that served with them.

[Bia]

so, what he is going to call it if he has to send us to war that some may feel is "unpopular"? there is no such thing as a "good" war and if he is elected president,
Newsflash.... countless people have got in my face and claimed this is a good war....and they are all fanatic extreme right wingers.
Go figure.


but their lives will never be a waste to the guys that served with them.Of course not. That's mixing the intent of the original message.
They are wasted on a human scale.....not on a personal scale.

[Damnhot]

Very unpopular but none the less it is a War. Then how about those military members who were killed in Somalia. Not the same kind of campaign but the President at that time didn't do the right steps and pulled out at the wrong time and look at the country now. Most of the campaigns the U.S were involved in seemed to be heading in the right direction but something back fired and bam pulled out. But to say wasted Obama just like Kerry, insert foot into mouth.

[Kant]

All wars are a waste.

[CPLHUNTER]

Please elaborate...

[Durandal]

they are trying to make you believe that the soldier's that have lost their lives were wasted because bush is still in office. the only way that it will be a waste is if BUSH decides to pull the plug and we retreat from iraq. they (the dems) don't want to be the ones to pull the plug (that is why they won't stop the damn funding) and go down as the ones to quit in iraq.

You can keep telling yourself that...

None of this is criticism against the troops either. All in all they have been one of the single best military commands the U.S. has ever seen.

That still does not change the fact that, while shutting down Sadr city, U.S. forces cut the murder/death rate in half and after politicians forced them to lift it, the death rate returned.

What gets me is that you think this continued action is going to win the war. Ok, more troops go in. They are going in to the capital. Yet, the entire nation, even Kurdhish regions is having problems...securing the capital, which will not happen since you either A) get told what to do by the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Iraqi government (remember, we are there to SUPPORT the "transparent and democratic government of Iraq) OR you do what no one wants to do and simply shut the nation down and start from scratch (which is what needs to be done...with another couple hundred thousand troops), ringing every city with compounds and restricting travel to almost nothing...then go house to house arresting suspected bad guys and separating the true bad guys form the innocents.

And the most important thing you need to learn here is that we do NOT dictate policy because it might go against what our troops think. The army is NOT our government, regardless of how high I might hold it, the military takes orders and follows it.

I could not think of a worse reason to stay in a conflict than "in the hopes of justifying a soldiers death" or "to help moral"...that is absolutely insane.

http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif

[CPLHUNTER]

I have to agree w/ alot of your post...the situation is very frustrating, however aside from boosting troops in country, what other options really exist? And don't say pull out and hope for the best. p-)

[shocker1]

Newsflash.... countless people have got in my face and claimed this is a good war....and they are all fanatic extreme right wingers.
Go figure.

Of course not. That's mixing the intent of the original message.
They are wasted on a human scale.....not on a personal scale.
Waste is not the proper term to use because of the insulting nature it has to those who serve and have a different opinion on the matter. However it has become obvious that the Iraqis do not care for the most part. They seem more interested in who's Imam or shrine is the best. I would not support a complete withdrawl from Iraq but after watching some of the new Docu's I have to ask, what are we trying to do there now? Why after 5 years the Iraqis can not defend their own streets? The bottom line is this war was right IMO but ran into the ground by politics and unclear mission goals. I have two family members in Iraq, they have faith in their mission and seem to know what they are doing there in their heart.

We are a Republican family our Rightwinger opinions are wrong and their service is a waste to Lefty Loons. If this is the situation in America it is time for us to come home and not waste our blood on people here who think it is a waste. This war only has about a year left in it's weird logic, if this new "plan" fails I see no logical reason to keep fighting for people who do not care, Iraqis and Americans.

[phoilme]

Listen to you who immediately agree with such statements! How easy it is to step in the pesimistic line. Amazing what you can simply write off as a "waste." No hope in this active war, but hope in stem cells and positive about global warming. Sure, I'm a conservative, but I am not writing off Iraq and those who gave and are giving. You know, if the Bears did such and such... Get it? Get lost!

[Durandal]

...what other options really exist? And don't say pull out and hope for the best. p-)

Tell me why pulling out is bad. I used to think this was the case too. For several reasons, all of which have changed over the last couple of months.

The writing is on the wall I believe and I am going to make the call right now.

We pull out now, say, in the next 12 to 18 months. I'd like to see it sooner, but I don't think that is possible.

Leave the middle east and let it implode. Let the Sunni, Shia in several nations and Salafi or Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia take sides...

Meanwhile, we rebuild and keep our borders as secure as possible, rebuild our waning dollar and economy (our our economy is strong but EXTREMELY vulnerable right now IMO).

Imagine if we had spent the money we did in Iraq (or WILL in Iraq even) on alternative energy sources, new oil and natural gas drilling, nuke plants, and battery technology...as the sciences in general...

Man...


Trust me, people though the entire pacific rim was going to go pinko on us if we left Vietnam and as a result, 30 years later we have a professional all volunteer military, the single best military force this world has seen and and Vietnam has rebuilt itself and hosted an economic conference and is on good terms with the U.S....

No matter how good our military is though, they are only as good as their political leaders...and I think we can all agree that those political handlers have been of the poorest of quality as of late.

[CPL Trevoga]

I remember in Sept 2001 Americans were scared and Bush did correct thing by attacking Taliban and Iraq in 2003, but you go to war with president you have not the one you wish you had. Anyway in 1945 in Japan American occupational goverment run things for a long time, Okinawa was returned in 1974 to Japan! Wars are always a waste, but sometime you have no other choice but to fight. The only reason why Osama attacked was because he thought all Americans are weak, fat, lazy cowards.

[CPLHUNTER]

Tell me why pulling out is bad. I used to think this was the case too. For several reasons, all of which have changed over the last couple of months.


Looking at the state of Iraq, it does seem that the writing is on the wall...however as we all know, it takes more than 4 years to defeat an insurgency, and possibly longer due to the complex nature of this conflict.

The problem w/ pulling out is the simple fact that we have alllies in the region that would be in grave danger if we did pull out...IE Israel, Saudi Arabia, the shaky government in Lebanon, Jordan, and more I'm sure.

It's all well and good to talk about pulling out and taking all those war monies and focus on alternative fuels, etc, but the problem is that these plans take a long time to come in being. How long has alternative fuels been talked about? And how much has been done? What do you do in the meantime when gas prices go thru the roof b/c we all pulled out of Iraq...

The prospect of an Iraq dominated by a Iranian run Shi‘ite goverment doesn't sound too good. Imagine Iran then launching attacks from Iraq on Israel and taking over major oil resources in the region...And that's only one possible outcome...

I don't believe we did a real great job planning the war and anticipating such a complex insurgency that we face now, but we are in now, and the prospective of pull out doesn't really seem to have any good outcomes.

[akd]

I remember in Sept 2001 Americans were scared and Bush did correct thing by attacking Taliban and Iraq in 2003, but you go to war with president you have not the one you wish you had. Anyway in 1945 in Japan American occupational goverment run things for a long time, Okinawa was returned in 1974 to Japan! Wars are always a waste, but sometime you have no other choice but to fight. The only reason why Osama attacked was because he thought all Americans are weak, fat, lazy cowards.

Oh the irony. Thank you Donnie!

[Durandal]

I remember in Sept 2001 Americans were scared and Bush did correct thing by attacking Taliban...

I never said anything about Afghanistan...nor is anyone else from my recollection.

In fact, the one conflict that we had the moral high ground and just cause to wage we are now losing because we decided to squander our resources in a pointless conflict. Wooo hooo...Saddam is gone. What else has changed? Oh yeah, we helped a government get elected that rarely has a quorum and a majority support militias that are doing a good job killing as many Iraqis as Sadam did.

Good job!

Meanwhile, we listen to heart breaking stories about how our soldiers in a small corner of this nation gave the people hope, building a school, a bridge, securing a town ONLY to see it lost in the greater scheme of things...all that hard work lost because we did not have the leadership to make to right calls...because our leadership did not have the balls to tell the nation "you are at war" and only sent in the troops...with little power and little planning.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan the nation we PLEDGED ourselves to free and right that which was wrong is now slipping into anarchy...poppy crops are growing, our dictator friend in Pakistan (you know the leader that was one of the few to RECOGNIZE the Taliban) is doing nothing to help rid the region of one of the larger problem.

If Bush had fought World War 2, we would have never had D-Day and we would be fighting the Soviets AFTER they took over all of Europe...and the kicker...we would probably be paying for oil and paying the Japanese, funding their war effort.

That is how ƒucked up I see this whole thing as being.

We bitch about be tied to the oil reserves in that area and instead of dumping billions into research and production of alternatives we dump it into a corrupt regime and corporations (some of the American by god) with no return.

Makes me sick.

There is no more money people...there are no new M1A2s. There are no new Bradleys. We are simply refitting old vehicles. Apaches were not designed to operate in the desert of 5 or 6 years. We've burned through munition stores, spare parts, vehicles, etc...this nation has its limit and we are seeing the beginning of it...

WTF.

[shocker1]

In fact, the one conflict that we had the moral high ground and just cause to wage we are now losing because we decided to squander our resources in a pointless conflict. Wooo hooo...Saddam is gone. What else has changed? Oh yeah, we helped a government get elected that rarely has a quorum and a majority support militias that are doing a good job killing as many Iraqis as Sadam did.


I tend to agree with this. I however see the moral ground in what we set out to do in Iraq. The question is what is the clear mission goal. It seems to change all the time to suit the political climate. maybe we should put a lock down on Iraq like we did after GW1 and let the Iraqis shoot it out on the ground for themselves.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I wonder if Obama would have declared the same thing during the US Civil war, for example, after the Union had sustained the same 3000 casualties - 3 whole months into the 4 year war. And of course there were those who opposed the war - there were riots in NYC as people were called up to serve - legions of people who said it could not be won and was not worth the cost. Thankfully our forefathers seemed to have a lot more sense than we do. But it's probably best to keep throwing our troops into battle, then remembering what war is, then pulling them out having accomplished little, only to have to do it again when the intolerable situation returns.

[California Joe]

What do you do in the meantime when gas prices go thru the roof b/c we all pulled out of Iraq...

The prospect of an Iraq dominated by a Iranian run Shi‘ite goverment doesn't sound too good. Imagine Iran then launching attacks from Iraq on Israel and taking over major oil resources in the region...And that's only one possible outcome...

Gas prices go wherever Exxon/Mobil sends them in the quest for ever larger quarterly profits.

If we are to believe the Administration, one of the main reasons for going there in the first place was to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. Now, the fact that they were too f*cking stupid to see that a free Iraq would vote in a theocratically inclined Shiite government that was Iran friendly and not US friendly boggles my mind, unless.....they actually believed that they could manipulate freedom and set up some bullsh*t Ahmed Chalabi type douchebag and pretend it was "democratic".

2Sheds, our own Civil War was just that. OURS. Not one we instigated thousands of miles away in some sh*thole that no one here actually cares about unless we are convinced we are in imminent danger of being chucked in a woodchipper by the next Hitler only this one has nook u ler bombs hidden in his panty drawer.

[Durandal]

I wonder if Obama would have declared the same thing during the US Civil war, for example, after the Union had sustained the same 3000 casualties - 3 whole months into the 4 year war. And of course there were those who opposed the war - there were riots in NYC as people were called up to serve - legions of people who said it could not be won and was not worth the cost. Thankfully our forefathers seemed to have a lot more sense than we do. But it's probably best to keep throwing our troops into battle, then remembering what war is, then pulling them out having accomplished little, only to have to do it again when the intolerable situation returns.

I wonder if anyone would consider a rift in the Union in the form a of civil war as comparable to a small, EXPENSIVE, conflict in another nation, stuck in the middle of multiple warring factions.

Considering that the Civil War last nearly as long and at this point in the conflict we new were kicking the South's @ss, I hardly consider this a good comparison.

I think your comparison would be more accurate if the Confederates succeeded, a brief war was waged, and four years later we are fighting the in Canada against the Brits instead of the Confederates (having amde little head way) because the Brits were manufacturing cannon, cotton, and might help the Confederates.

[Firetxmi]

Another issue I have with the American Civil War comparison is that WE actually wanted our freedom and instigated the conflict to obtain it, it wasn't necessarily an uninvolved nation coming in and (accidentally?) instigating a civil war.

If you want freedom bad enough then you will stand up on your own to gain it.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

Gas prices go wherever Exxon/Mobil sends them in the quest for ever larger quarterly profits.

Nicely put.


2Sheds, our own Civil War was just that. OURS. Not one we instigated thousands of miles away in some sh*thole that no one here actually cares about unless we are convinced we are in imminent danger of being chucked in a woodchipper by the next Hitler only this one has nook u ler bombs hidden in his panty drawer.[/

nook u ler ?

How do you ****ounce this word? :-D

[CPL Trevoga]

I never said anything about Afghanistan...nor is anyone else from my recollection.


I know what you saying man, I just think sudden pullout will be sign of weakness and being weak or perseption of being weak is what got us 9/11 in the first place. Iraq what it is today is responsibility of US, it's a mess of US creation, you can't just ****up a place and just leave.

[Firetxmi]

I know what you saying man, I just think sudden pullout will be sign of weakness and being weak or perseption of being weak is what got us 9/11 in the first place. Iraq what it is today is responsibility of US, it's a mess of US creation, you can't just ****up a place and just leave.

Fair enough. How long should we stay there- 10, 20, 30 years? What will it take to guarantee that we aren't just leaving them worse off?

[SBL]

Not something you say to put yourself in the fast-track to the presidency, imo.

[Kilo]

Gas prices go wherever Exxon/Mobil sends them in the quest for ever larger quarterly profits.

Source: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/

Goldman Sells GSCI to S&P

in Commodities (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/commodities/index.html) | Corporate Management (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/corporate_management/index.html) | Index/ETFs (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/indexetfs/index.html)


We've mentioned the role Goldman Sachs has played in energy prices last year. They have been accused of manipulating GSCI for trading gains, political advantage (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/10/blog_spotlight_.html), etc. When Oil first dropped, I doubted (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/09/why_is_oil_drop.html) there was any political manipulation until I could see a market mechanism. It turns out the GSCI was that mechanism.
Now, GS has decided to get rid of the index. From an S&P Press Release:
Standard & Poor’s will acquire the market leading Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (“GSCI”) and two equity index families from the Goldman Sachs, the two companies announced today. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.
The GSCI, created in 1991, currently includes 24 commodities and is designed to provide investors with a reliable and publicly available benchmark for investment performance in the commodity markets.
The clear commodity index leader, the GSCI has an estimated $60 billion in institutional investor funds tracking it, the majority of that coming through over-the-counter derivatives transactions.
After a brief transition period, the index will be renamed the S&P GSCI Commodity Index. (emphasis added)
Hmmm, I wonder when the honchos over at GS decided "we no longer have a need for that index?"
I guess Goldman Sachs naked attempts at manipulating commodity prices, indirectly the equity markets, and possibly even the mid-term elections is now past its "Sell-By" date. I cannot say there was much of a public relations backlash -- a smallish NYTimes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/business/30trading.html?ex=1317268800&en=71e4abc79ad7a34d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss), and the slings and arrows from a few outraged bloggers. But that was pretty much it.

The suspect timing of the unscheduled GSCI rebalancing last July left one to consider to possibilities: that GS is either a collective of naive dolts, or they were blatantly attempting to manipulate the outcome of the mid-term elections. The public clearly thought there was price manipulation going on (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-09-25-gas-poll_x.htm?csp=15); they weren't fooled. And the appointment of their Chairman Hank Paulson to Treasury Secretary just before these changes must have been just one of those serendipitous coincidences.
The changes in the GSCI led to a subsequent sell off in the gasoline futures market. After a 5 year run in energy prices, there was a 30% drop in the price of oil after their rebalancing -- and during the 2 months prior to the election. Another lucky coincidence!
Another fortuitous coincidence: GS had a blockbuster quarter following the ramp of the markets.
~~~

There were enough conflicts of interest in place that the markets -- and maybe even GS itsef -- are better off with the index in the hands of a more neutral 3rd party . . .

>
Hat tip: Naked Shorts (http://nakedshorts.typepad.com/nakedshorts/2007/02/too_many_confli.html)
>
Source:
Standard & Poor’s To Acquire Goldman Sachs’ GSCI (http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/020607_GSCI.pdf)
Press release Feb. 6 2007
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/020607_GSCI.pdf

[CPL Trevoga]

Fair enough. How long should we stay there- 10, 20, 30 years? What will it take to guarantee that we aren't just leaving them worse off?

If you look at previous US occupations, such as Japan and Germany, it took decades to fix them up, mind you they did not have religious and ethinic hatreds either. Simply put it will take decades to stabilise Iraq and that prabobly if you start killing US enemies. Does anybody knows why Sadr is still alive? You just can't pussyfoot around in the Middle East.

Fixing up Iraq is possible, look at Kurds, it took them a decade to bring order and economic stability, so there is no reason why others can't be un****ed. One thing US doesn't seem to understand that these people respect only force and it will take a long, long time for them to change.

[CPLHUNTER]

Gas prices go wherever Exxon/Mobil sends them in the quest for ever larger quarterly profits.

If we are to believe the Administration, one of the main reasons for going there in the first place was to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. Now, the fact that they were too f*cking stupid to see that a free Iraq would vote in a theocratically inclined Shiite government that was Iran friendly and not US friendly boggles my mind, unless.....they actually believed that they could manipulate freedom and set up some bullsh*t Ahmed Chalabi type douchebag and pretend it was "democratic".

2Sheds, our own Civil War was just that. OURS. Not one we instigated thousands of miles away in some sh*thole that no one here actually cares about unless we are convinced we are in imminent danger of being chucked in a woodchipper by the next Hitler only this one has nook u ler bombs hidden in his panty drawer.

Fair enough point about the oil prices, however you're only talking about a dollar shift in either direction. If you think oil prices would stay in the moderate range they are in now if we pulled out, then I'm not sure what to tell ya :).

In regards to bringing democracy and all that happy stuff to Iraq, of course a ****e government would be elected since the Sunnis oppressed Iraq for so many years...plus the Sunnis are a minority.

Putting aside any oil or Iranian concerns, we have allies in the region that we support and I highly doubt we would leave them high and dry, especially Israel p-)

Pulling out of Iraq and burying our head is the sand is not a viable option right now, although I wish it was b/c it breaks my heart everytime I hear of another service member being KIA or WIA.

[CPLHUNTER]

If you look at previous US occupations, such as Japan and Germany, it took decades to fix them up, mind you they did not have religious and ethinic hatreds either. Simply put it will take decades to stabilise Iraq and that prabobly if you start killing US enemies. Does anybody knows why Sadr is still alive? You just can't pussyfoot around in the Middle East.

Fixing up Iraq is possible, look at Kurds, it took them a decade to bring order and economic stability, so there is no reason why others can't be un****ed. One thing US doesn't seem to understand that these people respect only force and it will take a long, long time for them to change.

That's a good point about taking time to bring change around...and also about the Kurds. I'm sure they would sh1t their pants if we pulled out, a repeat of 1991 would probably go down, b/c you know those oil reserves are a hot item

[BadKarma26]

i think this could be a campaign killer to be honest

[demotivater]

i think this could be a campaign killer to be honest
Agreed. What a dumb ass.

[Erik2a4]

To say that their lives were wasted is an insult, and shows a lack of understanding on the part of Senator Obama.

You can argue the different opinions and perspectives all you want; the fact of the matter remains that I couldn't help but think "You ****ing ****!" when I saw his comments on TV... and I'm pretty much a centrist. That being the general consensus of those around me as well. The fact that he's never served further reinforces our suspicions of his motives.

[CPLHUNTER]

Well, he has changed his tune now and says it was slip of the tongue:

Funny thing is, Kerry used pretty much the same excuse on his slip up...Democrats can't seem to keep their foot out of their mouths...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/13/obama.apology.ap/index.html

NASHUA, New Hampshire (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is apologizing for saying the lives of the more than 3,000 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war were "wasted."|

During his first campaign trip this weekend, the Illinois senator told a crowd in Iowa: "We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." (Watch Obama announce his candidacy (http://www.cnn.com/video/politics/2007/02/11/crowley.obama.announcement.cnn))

He immediately apologized on Sunday, saying the remark was "a slip of the tongue."

During an appearance Monday in Nashua, New Hampshire, he apologized again, telling reporters he meant to criticize the civilian leadership of the war, not those serving in the military.

"Even as I said it, I realized I had misspoken," Obama said. "It is not at all what I intended to say, and I would absolutely apologize if any (military families) felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown."

Obama made his second visit to New Hampshire on Monday, following his speech Saturday announcing his candidacy in Illinois on Saturday and a visit to first-caucus state Iowa.

[sir-chimp]

I wonder if Obama would have declared the same thing during the US Civil war, for example, after the Union had sustained the same 3000 casualties - 3 whole months into the 4 year war. And of course there were those who opposed the war - there were riots in NYC as people were called up to serve - legions of people who said it could not be won and was not worth the cost. Thankfully our forefathers seemed to have a lot more sense than we do. But it's probably best to keep throwing our troops into battle, then remembering what war is, then pulling them out having accomplished little, only to have to do it again when the intolerable situation returns.

Well Obama has made a comparison between himself and Lincoln.

The man couldn't compare himself to the dog s_hit on Lincolns shoe let alone the man himself.

funny how the democrats "slip of the tongue" always seems to be attacking the troops in some manner

where is his buddy turbin durbin when ya need him.

[Erik2a4]

I never said anything about Afghanistan...nor is anyone else from my recollection.

In fact, the one conflict that we had the moral high ground and just cause to wage we are now losing because we decided to squander our resources in a pointless conflict. Wooo hooo...Saddam is gone. What else has changed? Oh yeah, we helped a government get elected that rarely has a quorum and a majority support militias that are doing a good job killing as many Iraqis as Sadam did.

Good job!

Meanwhile, we listen to heart breaking stories about how our soldiers in a small corner of this nation gave the people hope, building a school, a bridge, securing a town ONLY to see it lost in the greater scheme of things...all that hard work lost because we did not have the leadership to make to right calls...because our leadership did not have the balls to tell the nation "you are at war" and only sent in the troops...with little power and little planning.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan the nation we PLEDGED ourselves to free and right that which was wrong is now slipping into anarchy...poppy crops are growing, our dictator friend in Pakistan (you know the leader that was one of the few to RECOGNIZE the Taliban) is doing nothing to help rid the region of one of the larger problem.

If Bush had fought World War 2, we would have never had D-Day and we would be fighting the Soviets AFTER they took over all of Europe...and the kicker...we would probably be paying for oil and paying the Japanese, funding their war effort.

That is how ƒucked up I see this whole thing as being.

We bitch about be tied to the oil reserves in that area and instead of dumping billions into research and production of alternatives we dump it into a corrupt regime and corporations (some of the American by god) with no return.

Makes me sick.

There is no more money people...there are no new M1A2s. There are no new Bradleys. We are simply refitting old vehicles. Apaches were not designed to operate in the desert of 5 or 6 years. We've burned through munition stores, spare parts, vehicles, etc...this nation has its limit and we are seeing the beginning of it...

WTF.

Right. Doesn't mean that their lives were given in vain. However, you are exactly correct in stating that the "utility" of the current force is not being support by the administration; or the Legislative, for that matter.

I'm attempting to seperate what I see as two different arguements. One far more emotional than the other.

[D-gin]

i think this could be a campaign killer to be honest

Agreed........Besides the fact that he just disrepected the fallen, He is also showing his inexperience it that he is forgetting that he is going to need conservatives to vote for him just as much as liberals if he ever wants to be sitting in the oval office.


Just my .2cents.

[Erik2a4]

Well Obama has made a comparison between himself and Lincoln.

The man couldn't compare himself to the dog s_hit on Lincolns shoe let alone the man himself.

funny how the democrats "slip of the tongue" always seems to be attacking the troops in some manner

where is his buddy turbin durbin when ya need him.


Hmmmm...off the top of my head, didn't Lincoln suspend habeus corpus?

Ah, well, the point is that he's revered as a great president now...

[Raptus_regaliter]

This guy is so much the novice. Doesnt know how to play the game yet, but he's apparently thick enough to go for the top dog office.

[sir-chimp]

Hmmmm...off the top of my head, didn't Lincoln suspend habeus corpus?

Ah, well, the point is that he's revered as a great president now...


You should read the news articles of the day, like say the new york times.

Not much has changed.

[shocker1]

You should read the news articles of the day, like say the new york times.

Not much has changed.
Lincoln was a Republican after all, fighting the Dixecrats.

[Herrmannek]

Yup, it would be better those lives would be wasted on sitting home, watching CNN and dying from obesity. War on terror lasts for 6 years now. Anyone who believe his life isn't worth the price, should be long gone from the military...

[D-gin]

This guy is so much the novice. Doesnt know how to play the game yet, but he's apparently thick enough to go for the top dog office.

He reminds me of something.....like a high school star quarterback that wants to skip college ball altogether and go straight for a job in the NFL.

[Erik2a4]

You should read the news articles of the day, like say the new york times.

Not much has changed.

I prefer International Herald Tribune, thanks. But I am guilty of digressing off topic, so let's go back to Mr. Obama... before the stickly morass of "Legality" raises it's ugly head.

[bugkill]

guys, please stop talking about things that are only based on theory. the situation in iraq is what it is, and it is a tough one. the people talking about quitting and bringing up vietnam is comparing apples to oranges. vietnam did not have the resources that greatly impact our country like in the middle east, a totally different war during a different time.

also, we have enemies in the middle east that are a threat to our "friends" and "interests" in that region that will greatly affect us here. if we pull out of iraq, what makes you think that we won't go back? do you believe that oil companies only have republican friends? this whole thing has been turned on it's head by people that feel that it is hopeless (or make you believe that it is for political reasons), without truly understanding the nature of the business.

this s**t does not happen overnight or on a set timetable. it will take many years (which the president said since day one) and is very difficult, what part of that do you people don't understand? we are not threaten militarily and it was the reliance on the political process that became the real problem, we gave too much to the iraqis in too short of a time.

all this talk about iraqis not wanting us there is f**kin' ridiculous and completely overblown. if the iraqis did not want us there, we would be either gone or there would be a hell of a lot more dead iraqis. the numbers do not support the theory that iraq is too dangerous for american troops. 3,200 troop deaths (with close to 800 due to accidents) in close to 4yrs. is not a high number, the numbers do not support the argument of getting out. hell, we are doing missions that make it easy for them to kill us and it still very low. i just don't get all the crying about getting out, after we have come this far, sounds pretty stupid to me.

by the way, obama has apologized for his comments.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

nook u ler ?

How do you ****ounce this word? :-D

It's a Bushism, much like "I'm the decider"

Listen you bastages - my Civil War comparison wasn't a comparison of the mechanics or motivations of the two wars - it's a commentary on the fact that what troops lives buy is in the eye of the beholder.

There were those during the Civil War who believed their lives were worth far more than the elimination of slavery, or the preservation of the Union. Thus, when they were killed, they believed their lives wasted, even if it did preserve the Union and abolish slavery.

When assessing whether or not to continue to bomb German cities, even after Germany was beaten, Churchill said "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier" - in other words - bomb the **** out of them while we can, if it will save one British life. This was a riff on a similar statement Bismarck made about the Balkans.

The sad fact is that our political system seems determined to allow some politicians to alternately sell us war, then peace, all as little more than a means to an end. That end not being the achievement of anything material - but rather just their ascension to power.

Mr. Obama's ill conceived statement can be very broadly applied. Was the elimination of the WMD question worth all the money and blood? I think it was. I think it has to be. Because this will be repeated over and over again. And if our national sacrifice - which, let's be honest, barely rises above a vague feeling of ickyness when we turn on the TV - is too great too great a sacrifice in regards to WMD, then we're in deep trouble moving forward. If he's referring to our commitment to stabilizing Iraq after the fact - well, that's more debatable.

I agree that these people are largely deserving of what they get. We can't impose upon them something they don't want. There are several million of them, and only a couple hundred thousand of us. It may be that ultimately the smart way to address the situation will be to let them butcher each other, and occasionally lob JDAMs when things get out of hand. I dunno.

But the stabilization phase is part and parcel of any responsible military action - and we owed it to the people of the region to do our best to restore order. If they don't want it, that's their call. But for Obama to declare that our lives have been wasted in fulfilling that responsibility, I think, reveals that he is not yet ready for prime time.

[XASA]

Iraq was an unnecessary war. Saddam was not a threat to our national interest. The world's best military has been worn out. The electorate and popular opinion has come out strongly against the war and you can not win a war without the support of the people (see Vietnam). But we continue to send our troops out as IED magnets to prove a discredited neocon idealistic, pie-in-the-sky vision of democracy in the Middle East.

If Democracy was so cool to these warring Iraqi factions we wouldn't have to convince them at the point of a gun. I'd be interested in hearing what the mp.net chairborne Rangers, who seem to spend most of their day posting blood and guts rhetoric on the Internet, have contribute to the war effort.

Obama stuck his foot in his mouth by saying it was a waste of lives and then apologized, which doesn't let him off the hook for being insensitive, but can someone please tell me what those young men and women died for? And what about the thousands of maimed youngsters who will spend the rest of their lives wondering if their loss was worth it?

Iraq is a clusterfcuk. We should get out ASAP and let the chips fall as they may. Let them form a circular firing squad and have at it. By the time the warring factions kill each other off, Iraq won't be a threat to anyone.

[sir-chimp]

This guy is so much the novice. Doesnt know how to play the game yet, but he's apparently thick enough to go for the top dog office.

This is precisely why he is being promoted so heavily - he has no real track record in US congress - there for much less ammunition for the opposition to use against him. He has a track record as a Illinois congressman though. That and he is half black - so the race card will be played heavily against any opposition in true democrat tradition. Thats still a heavy card in US society and no one wants to be labeled a "racist".

Right now he is the medias darling and "Rock Star". All the political opposition has to do is sit back and let him put his foot in his mouth like this a few more times to gain the ammunition they need to attack him politically and show him for the unaccomplished asshat he is.

[Mr. JOSHUA]

It's a Bushism, much like "I'm the decider"

Listen you bastages - my Civil War comparison wasn't a comparison of the mechanics or motivations of the two wars - it's a commentary on the fact that what troops lives buy is in the eye of the beholder.

There were those during the Civil War who believed their lives were worth far more than the elimination of slavery, or the preservation of the Union. Thus, when they were killed, they believed their lives wasted, even if it did preserve the Union and abolish slavery.

When assessing whether or not to continue to bomb German cities, even after Germany was beaten, Churchill said "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier" - in other words - bomb the **** out of them while we can, if it will save one British life. This was a riff on a similar statement Bismarck made about the Balkans.

The sad fact is that our political system seems determined to allow some politicians to alternately sell us war, then peace, all as little more than a means to an end. That end not being the achievement of anything material - but rather just their ascension to power.

Mr. Obama's ill conceived statement can be very broadly applied. Was the elimination of the WMD question worth all the money and blood? I think it was. I think it has to be. Because this will be repeated over and over again. And if our national sacrifice - which, let's be honest, barely rises above a vague feeling of ickyness when we turn on the TV - is too great too great a sacrifice in regards to WMD, then we're in deep trouble moving forward. If he's referring to our commitment to stabilizing Iraq after the fact - well, that's more debatable.

I agree that these people are largely deserving of what they get. We can't impose upon them something they don't want. There are several million of them, and only a couple hundred thousand of us. It may be that ultimately the smart way to address the situation will be to let them butcher each other, and occasionally lob JDAMs when things get out of hand. I dunno.

But the stabilization phase is part and parcel of any responsible military action - and we owed it to the people of the region to do our best to restore order. If they don't want it, that's their call. But for Obama to declare that our lives have been wasted in fulfilling that responsibility, I think, reveals that he is not yet ready for prime time.

So stragery is a Bushism? :-D

Thats a well put assesment of Obama's inability to charm America and take a pot shot at Bush at the same time, you think he would've learned from Kerry, you may be thinking this, only for it to come out sounding like that, very good observation of Iraq aswell.

[Erik2a4]

Iraq was an unnecessary war. Saddam was not a threat to our national interest. The world's best military has been worn out. The electorate and popular opinion has come out strongly against the war and you can not win a war without the support of the people (see Vietnam). But we continue to send our troops out as IED magnets to prove a discredited neocon idealistic, pie-in-the-sky vision of democracy in the Middle East.

If Democracy was so cool to these warring Iraqi factions we wouldn't have to convince them at the point of a gun. I'd be interested in hearing what the mp.net chairborne Rangers, who seem to spend most of their day posting blood and guts rhetoric on the Internet, have contribute to the war effort.

Obama stuck his foot in his mouth by saying it was a waste of lives and then apologized, which doesn't let him off the hook for being insensitive, but can someone please tell me what those young men and women died for? And what about the thousands of maimed youngsters who will spend the rest of their lives wondering if their loss was worth it?

Iraq is a clusterfcuk. We should get out ASAP and let the chips fall as they may. Let them form a circular firing squad and have at it. By the time the warring factions kill each other off, Iraq won't be a threat to anyone.

Iraq more than once and A-stan.

They died for their country and their fellow soldiers.

You cannot come into this business with your eyes shut. This is not a "pass" for the Administration. However, it is a belief that once you start a fight, you do whatever it takes to win it.

If only politicians had the same conviction.

[bugkill]

Iraq was an unnecessary war. Saddam was not a threat to our national interest. The world's best military has been worn out. The electorate and popular opinion has come out strongly against the war and you can not win a war without the support of the people (see Vietnam). But we continue to send our troops out as IED magnets to prove a discredited neocon idealistic, pie-in-the-sky vision of democracy in the Middle East.

If Democracy was so cool to these warring Iraqi factions we wouldn't have to convince them at the point of a gun. I'd be interested in hearing what the mp.net chairborne Rangers, who seem to spend most of their day posting blood and guts rhetoric on the Internet, have contribute to the war effort.

Obama stuck his foot in his mouth by saying it was a waste of lives and then apologized, which doesn't let him off the hook for being insensitive, but can someone please tell me what those young men and women died for? And what about the thousands of maimed youngsters who will spend the rest of their lives wondering if their loss was worth it?

Iraq is a clusterfcuk. We should get out ASAP and let the chips fall as they may. Let them form a circular firing squad and have at it. By the time the warring factions kill each other off, Iraq won't be a threat to anyone.

the only people worn out is you and those that have not even set foot in iraq. those young men and women died for their fellow soldiers, like myself, in the perfomance of our duties! it does not matter if it is in iraq, bosnia, afghanistan, etc., a mission is a goddamn mission and when a soldier dies, it will ALWAYS be for a goddamn reason!!!!

you f**kin' civilians really make me sick with all this talk about how you feel on the subject of our lives. you did not accept our way of life, but that makes you a damn expert to talk about how or when we should die in combat? go back to talking about what size brittney spears panties are and don't share your bleeding heart when it concerns soldiers.

yes, we got some clowns in our ranks that joined for the wrong reasons, but i for one completely understand that i work for the united states government and that i may go into operations that may end my life. it does not matter what the mission is or what the public thinks about it. i'm a paid employee and it is my damn job to succeed in the mission or die trying, simple as that. it does not matter if a republican or democrat is calling the shots, it is strictly business.

funny how the people that never did a damn thing in this war are the main ones talking s**t about stuff they never experienced or understand!!! do us a favor and shut the hell up!!!! stick to talking about crap that does not matter, but don't act like you want to "save" us from getting killed in combat because we do not share in your weakness.

[Erik2a4]

the only people worn out is you and those that have not even set foot in iraq. those young men and women died for their fellow soldiers, like myself, in the perfomance of our duties! it does not matter if it is in iraq, bosnia, afghanistan, etc., a mission is a goddamn mission and when a soldier dies, it will ALWAYS be for a goddamn reason!!!!

you f**kin' civilians really make me sick with all this talk about how you feel on the subject of our lives. you did not accept our way of life, but that makes you a damn expert to talk about how or when we should die in combat? go back to talking about what size brittney spears panties are and don't share your bleeding heart when it concerns soldiers.

yes, we got some clowns in our ranks that joined for the wrong reasons, but i for one completely understand that i work for the united states government and that i may go into operations that may end my life. it does not matter what the mission is or what the public thinks about it. i'm a paid employee and it is my damn job to succeed in the mission or die trying, simple as that. it does not matter if a republican or democrat is calling the shots, it is strictly business.

funny how the people that never did a damn thing in this war are the main ones talking s**t about stuff they never experienced or understand!!! do us a favor and shut the hell up!!!! stick to talking about crap that does not matter, but don't act like you want to "save" us from getting killed in combat because we do not share in your weakness.

I think I was a bit more polite than you were... :)

But then again I always was a sensitive soul...

[D-gin]

the only people worn out is you and those that have not even set foot in iraq. those young men and women died for their fellow soldiers, like myself, in the perfomance of our duties! it does not matter if it is in iraq, bosnia, afghanistan, etc., a mission is a goddamn mission and when a soldier dies, it will ALWAYS be for a goddamn reason!!!!

you f**kin' civilians really make me sick with all this talk about how you feel on the subject of our lives. you did not accept our way of life, but that makes you a damn expert to talk about how or when we should die in combat? go back to talking about what size brittney spears panties are and don't share your bleeding heart when it concerns soldiers.

yes, we got some clowns in our ranks that joined for the wrong reasons, but i for one completely understand that i work for the united states government and that i may go into operations that may end my life. it does not matter what the mission is or what the public thinks about it. i'm a paid employee and it is my damn job to succeed in the mission or die trying, simple as that. it does not matter if a republican or democrat is calling the shots, it is strictly business.

funny how the people that never did a damn thing in this war are the main ones talking s**t about stuff they never experienced or understand!!! do us a favor and shut the hell up!!!! stick to talking about crap that does not matter, but don't act like you want to "save" us from getting killed in combat because we do not share in your weakness.


Well put.....

[JKD]

the only people worn out is you and those that have not even set foot in iraq. those young men and women died for their fellow soldiers, like myself, in the perfomance of our duties! it does not matter if it is in iraq, bosnia, afghanistan, etc., a mission is a goddamn mission and when a soldier dies, it will ALWAYS be for a goddamn reason!!!!

you f**kin' civilians really make me sick with all this talk about how you feel on the subject of our lives. you did not accept our way of life, but that makes you a damn expert to talk about how or when we should die in combat? go back to talking about what size brittney spears panties are and don't share your bleeding heart when it concerns soldiers.

yes, we got some clowns in our ranks that joined for the wrong reasons, but i for one completely understand that i work for the united states government and that i may go into operations that may end my life. it does not matter what the mission is or what the public thinks about it. i'm a paid employee and it is my damn job to succeed in the mission or die trying, simple as that. it does not matter if a republican or democrat is calling the shots, it is strictly business.

funny how the people that never did a damn thing in this war are the main ones talking s**t about stuff they never experienced or understand!!! do us a favor and shut the hell up!!!! stick to talking about crap that does not matter, but don't act like you want to "save" us from getting killed in combat because we do not share in your weakness.

Uh...XASA's a veteran, dude.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Iraq was an unnecessary war.

All wars are unnecessary. It just depends on what a nation is willing to endure to avoid them. The US simply decided that it was unwilling to endure continuing violations of the agreement that ended GW1. I find nothing wrong with that. If situations become so dire as to require war, then the agreements drafted to end them deserve exactly as much enforcement.

[RED33wspc]

We are a point in the war in Iraq where we must ether continue to victory or resign in defeat. The Liberal forces in the USA are correct; this is very similar to Vietnam. In that war we were winning on the ground (i.e. The TET offensive was a huge cost of men and materials to the North Vietnamese) but yet we still gave up and came home in defeat. Why, because the Liberals in our country fought a very successful campaign to show our failures (weather real or make believe) in that war causing popular support to fall. In doing this they were able to make the President stop the war. People they are doing the same thing today. The major difference is the North Vietnamese did not attack the USA on our home soil. We are fighting a war that will decide the fate of the world. If Obama thinks that we have wasted 3000 lives he is an idiot. I understand that the war in Iraq has not gone to plan but what war has. Just so everyone knows I have members of my family in that hell hole. I have worked in the Middle East (Afghanistan) for over 2 ½ years. I have lost several friends that have been killed or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am one who is ready and will to go to Iraq to help the Iraqis and fight those that want to take our way of life away from us. If we do not fight this fight here and now we will fight it on the streets of every free country in the world. Even if we do not see the current conflict as a holy war our enemy does. I do not look down on any religion or race but I will fight those that seek my destruction simply because I do not believe in Islam (substute any religion here). I will not be told what I have to believe in. As an American I feel that the closest you will come to God is to find him for yourself. I will choose my path come hell or high water. I will fight those that try to force there will upon me. Sorry for the long rant but it burn my ass when we elect people that are not smart enough to pour piss out of a boot.

[nullterm]

The American roles in the American Civil War and Iraqi Civil War has very little todo with each other. Both sides in the American Civil War were fighting for control of their own nation. In Iraq, America is one 3rd party trying to stop the violence between the factions and look out for its remote interests.

If you wanted a more accurate comparison between the wars, you'd have to go really hypothetical...

Say if a world power at the time, like France, had a military presence in America and was trying to keep the two factions from killing each other. They were there looking for their own economic interests in the area and to establish a American government friendly to their own. The war is unpopular amongst the French people at home because their soldiers are dying and people question what the French goal is for the region.

What's more likely, they keep shedding their own blood in a war that isn't their own or they eventually realize the Americans need to settle it for themselves?

[Klatuu]

..The only reason why Osama attacked was because he thought all Americans are weak, fat, lazy cowards.

Don't look now, but everyone who supported the war when they thought there was little or no cost only to change their minds when things got tough, along with pretty much the entire Democratic party, are proving him right. Our soldiers have to fight, bleed, and suffer, and and they keep on doing so, while all we at home have to do is not give in, but we can't even do that.

Everytime someone says "we have to leave because people are getting killed", the incentive to kill more people just gets higher. Our enemy is totally out-classed militarily, can't win a battle even when he's got numbers and initiative. All he can do is kill. It's a lot easier to kill people than it is to win battles. All he needs is patience, and since he can't move around without us killing him, he's staying put. We've got soldiers willing to match his fortitude, but the people at home are going soft.

Every goal in Iraq has been accomplished save the final one-stability/law and order, but we've got a media and an opposition party that have continualy lowered our our enemy's winning conditions until it is so low he can meet it, and we might just bow out so he can.

There was little or no public outcry over our involvement in Bosnia/Kosovo, despite the fact that it was not even one little bit in our security interest to make war there. There was no cost. It's disgusting.

I am as ashamed of most of the civilian population as I am proud of our military and the job they have done.

[California Joe]

the only people worn out is you and those that have not even set foot in iraq. those young men and women died for their fellow soldiers, like myself, in the perfomance of our duties! it does not matter if it is in iraq, bosnia, afghanistan, etc., a mission is a goddamn mission and when a soldier dies, it will ALWAYS be for a goddamn reason!!!!

you f**kin' civilians really make me sick with all this talk about how you feel on the subject of our lives. you did not accept our way of life, but that makes you a damn expert to talk about how or when we should die in combat? go back to talking about what size brittney spears panties are and don't share your bleeding heart when it concerns soldiers

He didn't have to go to Iraq to gain an opinion ****fingers, he formulated it in Vietnam while you were in diapers. Nice situational awareness though.

Now, tell me another story about the Civil War Uncle 2Sheds.....;)

[bugkill]

Uh...XASA's a veteran, dude.

then he should have known better!

but i do apologize for my tone and i'm sorry for snappin on you guys. i'm just getting sick and tired of all this talking about this damn "conflict". people just need to shut the hell up, and we either get it done no matter what or just quit.

[toki]

Looking at the state of Iraq, it does seem that the writing is on the wall...however as we all know, it takes more than 4 years to defeat an insurgency, and possibly longer due to the complex nature of this conflict.

The problem w/ pulling out is the simple fact that we have alllies in the region that would be in grave danger if we did pull out...IE Israel, Saudi Arabia, the shaky government in Lebanon, Jordan, and more I'm sure.

It's all well and good to talk about pulling out and taking all those war monies and focus on alternative fuels, etc, but the problem is that these plans take a long time to come in being. How long has alternative fuels been talked about? And how much has been done? What do you do in the meantime when gas prices go thru the roof b/c we all pulled out of Iraq...

The prospect of an Iraq dominated by a Iranian run Shi‘ite goverment doesn't sound too good. Imagine Iran then launching attacks from Iraq on Israel and taking over major oil resources in the region...And that's only one possible outcome...

I don't believe we did a real great job planning the war and anticipating such a complex insurgency that we face now, but we are in now, and the prospective of pull out doesn't really seem to have any good outcomes.

Do you really think there are two sides? Insurgency vs. Americans? It seems the american presence is now just one among many parties. The country is fighting itself. Who do you want to defeat? You can't even pick one side, since they all function the same: Sectarian hate is the motor. Do you want to defeat that hate? In all honesty i'm not ironic or sarcastic, nor pompous: There is no way to gain a moral highground by defeating a group of people inside iraq. Because another group will just take advantage of it. Whatever they might act - rebel tactics are just that - rebel tactics. I wonder why people define the enemy by the tactic ("insurgent") and do not comprehend that they are just numerous groups with tons of different tribal/poltical/religious interests.
It's not a complex insurgency, it's just not only directed at you, but following a local logic. Al Sadr anybody? You can't win a war, when you pick sides in an deeply undemocratic society. Since the side you would support uses the same methods of the side you fight. You're not longer the "alien" invader, but integrated in it. It's not America vs. Iraq. It's interests vs. Interests. And the front is so soft and flexible, that it turns 180° when you push it hard enough. Maybe i sound too philosophic, it's getting late and english is still my second language (> lack of prescision) but i hope some get my point. America cannot define itself as an outside force, it is too deeply webbed and loses it's strict definition (american values) by just participating in iraqs politics. You become part of iraq and that way the definition of victory will remain fishy.

And "Terrosist" is also an overstretched word. What have semi-criminal-loyal?/corrupt? - religious?, battle hardened insurgents/rebels/militia to do with egypt students who maybe studied aeronautics or city planning in Germany, liked their host family and even drank a beer or two on Uni parties, living a comfy live and joining a group with unbelievable evil goals? Don't want to offend anybody, but the word is going to lose it's value if you cover any muslim capable of holding an AK47 with it. Just saying the ones with a comfy live, still have a comfy live and are not located in iraq. *cough* Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. etc.*cough* Rough environments create ruthless people. And it's no wonder iraqis especially the young ones around (now - do the math) 16 are going to be one hell of a ruhtless generation. But they're not exactly what this is all about.

[SoliDeoGloria]

All wars are a waste.

So nothing is worth fighting for? If this nation is good enough to live in, Its good enough to fight for.

[Durandal]

I'm attempting to seperate what I see as two different arguements. One far more emotional than the other.

I don't think you can separate the two.

If you do not win the conflict, were the lives lost, Coalition forces and Iraqi lives, worth what ever mess we got?

If you are not winning now (call a spade a spade) do we simply run up the casualties to 15 thousand killed, and 120K wounded and five million Iraqis killed?

[XASA]

then he should have known better!

but i do apologize for my tone and i'm sorry for snappin on you guys. i'm just getting sick and tired of all this talking about this damn "conflict". people just need to shut the hell up, and we either get it done no matter what or just quit.

...and what should I have known better?

I've lost many friends and acquintances to war and do not feel their lives were "wasted". I know what it's like to fight a war without public support. When I join my vet buddies at reunions, we don't talk about the bad times but revel in the good times; yet, forty years later, we are still pissed off at the politicians who put us in harm's way without a plan for victory. Can you define what "victory" in Iraq would be?

But this ain't about me or about you bugkill, so don't take it personal.

The military isn't to blame for what is happening in Iraq, and if we had followed the Powell doctrine in 2003, didn't disband the Iraqi Army, stopped the looting after the liberation and provided the troops with the proper training-- soldiers should never have to be policemen-- and equipment we wouldn't be having this discussion. If you want to get pissed off at someone, get angry at Bush, Tenet, Franks and Bremer for fcuking up the mission.

[Firetxmi]

If you want to get pissed off at someone, get angry at Bush, Tenet, Franks and Bremer for fcuking up the mission.

Which I believe is the very statement that he was trying to make.

[Lokos]

The big problem with the Iraq adventure, as I see it, is fourfold:

1) Sensitivity to casualties (at home)

and

2) Sensitivity to 'dirty' warfare (in the military and at home)

and

3) No clear direction for the campaign/no clear goal

and

4) An inherently unstable situation that, within the scope of the context and feasible timeframes, cannot be 'fixed'

Insurgencies cannot help but thrive in an environment such as the current one in Iraq. The occupying forces are not strong enough to ensure round the clock control of the built up areas, nor is there willpower present to contain the insurgency by attacking its support base directly. The Coalition continues to confront the symptoms, rather than the disease. In the meantime, the unfortunate mistakes of the Bush administration in creating a cause for war - and the motivation to 'stay the course' - has resulted in a conflict with no real end point, per se.

At this time, it seems as if the goal is to 'stabilize' Iraq and to assist the ascension of 'democratic processes'. This is not going to happen. Schools are being rebuilt? Fabulous. They will be destroyed again, shortly. Businesses are re-opening? Just in time for their imminent renewed shutdown. More and more are voting? Yes, but their idea of government and governing has never quite been the same as the American notion thereof.

Simply speaking, and without belabouring a simple point, the primary challenge to a Coalition 'victory' stems from the fact that tolerance for a conflict with no direction and one with very little import for the majority of the voting public can only ever be sustained by a relative lack of materiel (including human materiel) losses or significant other cost associated with the campaign. This tolerance will also diminish if the campaign takes on a disproportionately brutal nature (i.e. one that seriously harms civilian populations) and this is related by media to the voting public. Ironically, to quell the insurgency by military means just such means are required. In adopting them, however, one begins a very rapid countdown to public and, perhaps, international outcry. The uses of brutality in a more limited scope, however, increase somewhat.

Yet, the key factor in all of this is the coupling of the previously mentioned lack of exit strategy and 'goal' and the inherent instability of Iraq. Multiple factions, no clearly dominant force to partner with and an ongoing sectarian/ethnic struggle are all facets of a conflict that will tear Iraq apart, one way or another. As Coalition forces support the floundering central government against both the 'popular' (amongst Shi'ites) choice, and the other ethno-sectarian groups, it becomes clear that this is a losing battle. One way or the other, even potentially friendly forces (such as the Shi'ites) will target Coalition forces in order to bring about desired ends.

Iraq will not be a capitalist liberal democracy in the American tradition. It cannot. There are too many independent fractures developing on a societal level. 'Stay the course' will produce more casualties, a greater monetary and materiel cost and the enmity of whichever now-hostile group takes power. In all likelihood, no single power will control all of what is currently Iraq. The US would be best served by acknowledging this and formulating policy on this basis.

Lokos

[Killerkai1]

We have to accept that Saddam and the Baath insurgency is the product of years of planning (US plans to undermine the regime gave the Iraqis plenty of time to work on counter measures against them including funding of the insurgency as the Iraqis had developed dummy companies to subvert the UN emabrgo and killing ethnic proxies of the invader) they have used this expirence to mount an insurgency that undermines the building of an effective pro US state. It's tactically brillant.

[Firetxmi]

We have to accept that Saddam and the Baath insurgency is the product of years of planning (US plans to undermine the regime gave the Iraqis plenty of time to work on counter measures against them including funding of the insurgency as the Iraqis had developed dummy companies to subvert the UN emabrgo and killing ethnic proxies of the invader) they have used this expirence to mount an insurgency that undermines the building of an effective pro US state. It's tactically brillant.

So you are trying to tell me that we are simply fighting Saddam's minions and it is a Baath insurgency? Uh, I don't think so.

Get up to speed amigo!

[Killerkai1]

Of course not amigo !
KK

[Firetxmi]

Of course not amigo !
KK

Then what were you trying to say?

[dangerclose]

The big problem with the Iraq adventure, as I see it, is fourfold:

1) Sensitivity to casualties (at home)

and

2) Sensitivity to 'dirty' warfare (in the military and at home)

and

3) No clear direction for the campaign/no clear goal

and

4) An inherently unstable situation that, within the scope of the context and feasible timeframes, cannot be 'fixed'

Insurgencies cannot help but thrive in an environment such as the current one in Iraq. The occupying forces are not strong enough to ensure round the clock control of the built up areas, nor is there willpower present to contain the insurgency by attacking its support base directly. The Coalition continues to confront the symptoms, rather than the disease. In the meantime, the unfortunate mistakes of the Bush administration in creating a cause for war - and the motivation to 'stay the course' - has resulted in a conflict with no real end point, per se.

At this time, it seems as if the goal is to 'stabilize' Iraq and to assist the ascension of 'democratic processes'. This is not going to happen. Schools are being rebuilt? Fabulous. They will be destroyed again, shortly. Businesses are re-opening? Just in time for their imminent renewed shutdown. More and more are voting? Yes, but their idea of government and governing has never quite been the same as the American notion thereof.

Simply speaking, and without belabouring a simple point, the primary challenge to a Coalition 'victory' stems from the fact that tolerance for a conflict with no direction and one with very little import for the majority of the voting public can only ever be sustained by a relative lack of materiel (including human materiel) losses or significant other cost associated with the campaign. This tolerance will also diminish if the campaign takes on a disproportionately brutal nature (i.e. one that seriously harms civilian populations) and this is related by media to the voting public. Ironically, to quell the insurgency by military means just such means are required. In adopting them, however, one begins a very rapid countdown to public and, perhaps, international outcry. The uses of brutality in a more limited scope, however, increase somewhat.

Yet, the key factor in all of this is the coupling of the previously mentioned lack of exit strategy and 'goal' and the inherent instability of Iraq. Multiple factions, no clearly dominant force to partner with and an ongoing sectarian/ethnic struggle are all facets of a conflict that will tear Iraq apart, one way or another. As Coalition forces support the floundering central government against both the 'popular' (amongst Shi'ites) choice, and the other ethno-sectarian groups, it becomes clear that this is a losing battle. One way or the other, even potentially friendly forces (such as the Shi'ites) will target Coalition forces in order to bring about desired ends.

Iraq will not be a capitalist liberal democracy in the American tradition. It cannot. There are too many independent fractures developing on a societal level. 'Stay the course' will produce more casualties, a greater monetary and materiel cost and the enmity of whichever now-hostile group takes power. In all likelihood, no single power will control all of what is currently Iraq. The US would be best served by acknowledging this and formulating policy on this basis.

Lokos

Agreed, the old Soviet Union would've had this wrapped up by now.

[ElHombre]

Agreed, the old Soviet Union would've had this wrapped up by now.

One word: Afghanistan.

[Kant]

So nothing is worth fighting for? If this nation is good enough to live in, Its good enough to fight for.

Certain things are worth fighting for. That doesn't make the lives lost, countries destroyed and money spent any less of a waste.

[Erik2a4]

I don't think you can separate the two.

If you do not win the conflict, were the lives lost, Coalition forces and Iraqi lives, worth what ever mess we got?

If you are not winning now (call a spade a spade) do we simply run up the casualties to 15 thousand killed, and 120K wounded and five million Iraqis killed?

I disagree. I think the ability to seperate the two starts the moment a serviceman or woman realizes that his "self-efficacy" is tied directly to the military culture; which we know is different from the normal "American" culture.

Part is a belief that "duty" is not simply something you avoid in international airports. The other part is a collective memory which honors those who gave their lives in service to their country (I think once upon a time we called them "heros.")

Winning? Hahahahaha...it's not that black and white, and the spades are in the shed, not on the table. I'm in it for the long haul, bud... I'm fully prepared to fight until I cannot any longer. If it's not in Iraq, then it will be someplace else. I can guarantee that.

IIARC, a good deal of the British Opposition was convinced that they were stagnated and at a draw during the Falklands War...

You want it all, you want it now, if we can get it, then we take our toys and go home...
...not the way to fight a counter-insurgency.

The military is a force in the overall fight...it cannot win the fight alone.

[Erik2a4]

...and what should I have known better?

I've lost many friends and acquintances to war and do not feel their lives were "wasted". I know what it's like to fight a war without public support. When I join my vet buddies at reunions, we don't talk about the bad times but revel in the good times; yet, forty years later, we are still pissed off at the politicians who put us in harm's way without a plan for victory. Can you define what "victory" in Iraq would be?

But this ain't about me or about you bugkill, so don't take it personal.

The military isn't to blame for what is happening in Iraq, and if we had followed the Powell doctrine in 2003, didn't disband the Iraqi Army, stopped the looting after the liberation and provided the troops with the proper training-- soldiers should never have to be policemen-- and equipment we wouldn't be having this discussion. If you want to get pissed off at someone, get angry at Bush, Tenet, Franks and Bremer for fcuking up the mission.

Well spoken.

[Erik2a4]

We have to accept that Saddam and the Baath insurgency is the product of years of planning (US plans to undermine the regime gave the Iraqis plenty of time to work on counter measures against them including funding of the insurgency as the Iraqis had developed dummy companies to subvert the UN emabrgo and killing ethnic proxies of the invader) they have used this expirence to mount an insurgency that undermines the building of an effective pro US state. It's tactically brillant.

The tin-foil hat is working.

There are a many groups I would put far above and beyond the FRG.