McCain:I will win the Iraq war by the end of my first term

Shady · May 22, 2008

Its attitudes like these that make people want to fly airplanes into office buildings.

Yes of course, it's "attitudes" that "make" people want to fly airplanes into buildings. Don't put blame on the individuals who fly the planes, put the blame on other people's attitudes. For if one expresses an attitude or opinion that offends, then airplanes may fly into buildings. Well, this argument/attitude expressed by Moonlight Graham is definitely offensive, as well as ignorant, but I can promise no planes, trains or automobiles will be plunging themselves in his residence.

It's not attitudes that cause planes flying into office buildings. It's radical religious/political ideology, in addition to political instability and in some cases poverty.

BTW, I've yet to hear the same apologists for Islamic terrorism, explain to us the attitudes that may lead people to commit violence against homosexuals, or bomb abortion clinics.

bush_cheney2004 · May 22, 2008

No and neither are they similar to the bungle in Iraq.
1) The invasions of Germany and Japan were logical conclusion to end a war of agression started by Germany and Japan.

Yes, but the logical extension to Iraq for purposes of criticism would have the Allies stop at the German and Japanese borders.

2) The occupations weren't a litany of cock ups, boondoogle and political incompetance.

So absent these, the occupation makes sense and meets with your approval...for 100 years?

3) There was no asymetrical warfare, insurgency or a complete breakdown of order in Japan or Germany.

No, since there remained an authority to unconditionally surrender. Not so in Iraq, which had these issues even before the invasion.

Korea
You could argue by failing to win the war America has been forced to stay....so yes, 50 years because of an error...

I never said btw that being in Iraq is an error....I believe america should be there, to fix what they broke.....the error was invading in the first place.

What's the 1st rule? Never get involved in a land war in Asia.....

Korea was a UN mission, so the "error" is hardly owned by America.

M.Dancer · May 22, 2008

Yes, but the logical extension to Iraq for purposes of criticism would have the Allies stop at the German and Japanese borders.

Okay, like Korea then?

So absent these, the occupation makes sense and meets with your approval...for 100 years?

The occupation already meets my approval precisely because of the chaos, it was the invasion that was ill advised.

No, since there remained an authority to unconditionally surrender. Not so in Iraq, which had these issues even before the invasion.

Not quite. 1) They US made it clear that there would be a regime change (which is fine but that could have been left till later) and once the attacks began no effort was made for a surrender.

2)Once they had achieved total victory the first thing they did was dismantle the government, armed forces and police, leaving 10s of 1000s of trained unemployed men free to cause trouble. Even in Germany and Japan, there was a semblance of order precisely because the infrastructure was maintained. Iraq is a lesson learned on how not to conquer and occupy a country.

Korea was a UN mission, so the "error" is hardly owned by America.

Of course, The US was simply doing the bidding of the UN.

Edited May 22, 2008 by M.Dancer

bush_cheney2004 · May 22, 2008

Okay, like Korea then?

Yes, a border is a border. Logical (absurdity) would have the Allies stop at the borders if this is the standard for Iraq.

The occupation already meets my approval precisely because of the chaos, it was the invasion that was ill advised.

The invasion achieved its objective, notably long sought regime change in Iraq (among other things). A peaceful occupation is optional.

Not quite. 1) They US made it clear that there would be a regime change (which is fine but that could have been left till later) and once the attacks began no effort was made for a surrender. Once they had achieved total victory the first thing they did was dismantle the government, armed forces and police, leaving 10s of 1000s of trained unemployed men free 6to cause trouble.

Not entirely true...efforts for a relatively peaceful transition were made before the invasion, notably Saddam's resignation and exile with his crew. The men were free to cause trouble no matter what, and had done so in "Kurdistan" with full US support.

Even in Germany and Japan, there was a semblance of order precisely because the infrastructure was maintained. Iraq is a lesson learned on how not to conquer and occupy a country.

Really? I recall that there wasn't much infrstructure left, if you mean buildings, transportation, communications, etc., at least in the large metropolitan areas.

Of course, The US was simply doing the bidding of the UN.

Indeed....as was Canada, but any "errors" belong solely to the US of A.

M.Dancer · May 22, 2008

Not entirely true...efforts for a relatively peaceful transition were made before the invasion, notably Saddam's resignation and exile with his crew. The men were free to cause trouble no matter what, and had done so in "Kurdistan" with full US support.

Yes and everyone tried to have peace with germany prior to 39. That being said we still entertained the inevitability of a formal surrender. To y knowledge there has bee no formal surrender in Iraq, which is another folly. While it is true that a formal surrender and maintaining the Iraqi army would not have guarenteed a (relatively) peaceful transition, it would have been a prudent move.

Really? I recall that there wasn't much infrstructure left, if you mean buildings, transportation, communications, etc., at least in the large metropolitan areas.

I mean security and government infrastructure. Burgermeisters, chiefs of police etc ...etc...denazification was not immediate while they were useful.

bush_cheney2004 · May 22, 2008

Yes and everyone tried to have peace with germany prior to 39. That being said we still entertained the inevitability of a formal surrender. To y knowledge there has bee no formal surrender in Iraq, which is another folly.

A formal surrender would have been problematic with the head of state hiding in a spider hole. What actually happened was the usual window dressing for UN sanctioned occupation and stand-up for a new government, constitution, etc., etc.

While it is true that a formal surrender and maintaining the Iraqi army would not have guarenteed a (relatively) peaceful transition, it would have been a prudent move.

Prudent yes...practical under the circumstances, no. The Iraqis did not ground arms like General O'Hara at Yorktown.

I mean security and government infrastructure. Burgermeisters, chiefs of police etc ...etc...denazification was not immediate while they were useful.

Command and control elements were easily transitioned regardless of retaining the old guard, since they were not repressing an overwelming desire for a sectarian civil war.

GostHacked · May 22, 2008

Shady

BTW, I've yet to hear the same apologists for Islamic terrorism, explain to us the attitudes that may lead people to commit violence against homosexuals, or bomb abortion clinics.

Violence against homosexuals and bombed abortion clinics were happening long before the so called Islamofacism terrors. There were many abortion clinics in the US and Canada that were bombed, trashed, targeted in some way. Muslims had nothing to do with it. It was the Fundamentalist Catholics/Christians that were against homos and abortions. Claiming Family Values as their reason and justification.

So this is why you don't hear it.

M.Dancer · May 22, 2008

Command and control elements were easily transitioned regardless of retaining the old guard, since they were not repressing an overwelming desire for a sectarian civil war.

By easily you mean the years it took to reform, retrain and (yet to) retake control?

It satnds out as one of the biggest failures of the occupation and the chief source of insurgents, unemployed men with little hope for gainful occupation other than planting bombs for cash.

Shady · May 22, 2008

Violence against homosexuals and bombed abortion clinics were happening long before the so called Islamofacism terrors. There were many abortion clinics in the US and Canada that were bombed, trashed, targeted in some way. Muslims had nothing to do with it. It was the Fundamentalist Catholics/Christians that were against homos and abortions. Claiming Family Values as their reason and justification.
So this is why you don't hear it.

I think you're completely missing my point. I know Muslims had nothing to do with North American violence against homosexuals and bombed abortion clinics. My point is, that the apologists for Islamic terrorism, seem to have no problem finding reasons or issues that justify such behavior, but at the same time, cannot find any justification for similar behavior directed toward their sacred liberal institutions. Terrorism, should always be condemned, and no reason/issue should ever be used to justify that type of behavior. However, I can't help but think that, if only abortion bombers thought on a higher scale, and flew planes into clinics, maybe the same people who long for such understanding of Islamic terrorists, would apply the same standard to domestic ones.

HisSelf · May 22, 2008

It's sad to read but over on Yahoo.com news, they are reporting that a US soldier put 10 bullet holes in the Koran and the military are sending him out. If the US keeps pushing its soldiers, they are going to snap and most of them are on anti-depression medication so what does the military expect and how many have to die and coming home half a person?

So what? This is bupkis. A bullet in the Quaran versus a billion in the budget. This is the kind of crap the media likes to get all bothered about. I mean really, people.

HisSelf · May 22, 2008

Shady
Violence against homosexuals and bombed abortion clinics were happening long before the so called Islamofacism terrors.

Try to focus will you? Get your own friggin thread.

GostHacked · May 22, 2008

Try to focus will you? Get your own friggin thread.

You can try the ignore feature on me. I hear it works well. I have used it before. I hope you keep close focus on the threads you participate in. At least your post here of pointing me out shows that you are not carrying this thread by actually talking about it to further the conversation. You chose to just point me out.

What people choose to ignore, and what people choose to focus on, sometimes is frightening. Like saying that Islam is dangerous when they support another religion like Chritianity, which can be just as dangerous.

But anyways, it was a reletive post because of Shady's question. Mind you I did not get the real meaning at first.

But I accept your apology.

HisSelf · May 22, 2008

You can try the ignore feature on me. I hear it works well. I have used it before. I hope you keep close focus on the threads you participate in. At least your post here of pointing me out shows that you are not carrying this thread by actually talking about it to further the conversation. You chose to just point me out.
What people choose to ignore, and what people choose to focus on, sometimes is frightening. Like saying that Islam is dangerous when they support another religion like Chritianity, which can be just as dangerous.

But anyways, it was a reletive post because of Shady's question. Mind you I did not get the real meaning at first.

But I accept your apology.

First of all, I only resort to the ignore feature for members who are consistebntly illogical or consistently ideological.

If you are going to persist in skewing this thread to bring gays into the mix, then YOU ARE OFF TOPIC and I just might ignore you too.

GET YOUR OWN THREAD!

Shady · May 22, 2008

First of all, I only resort to the ignore feature for members who are consistebntly illogical or consistently ideological.
If you are going to persist in skewing this thread to bring gays into the mix, then YOU ARE OFF TOPIC and I just might ignore you too.

GET YOUR OWN THREAD!

It's not your job to tell people whether or not to post in certain threads. If you have a problem, take it up with a moderator.

bush_cheney2004 · May 22, 2008

By easily you mean the years it took to reform, retrain and (yet to) retake control?

No, I mean the absence of those things in post war Germany or Japan, where a full blown civil war was not under the covers.

It satnds out as one of the biggest failures of the occupation and the chief source of insurgents, unemployed men with little hope for gainful occupation other than planting bombs for cash.

No, occupation was never intended as an employment pogram for Iraq. Not that it was great there before the invasion either.

HisSelf · May 22, 2008

It's not your job to tell people whether or not to post in certain threads. If you have a problem, take it up with a moderator.

You didn't read my post. Why bother the mod when you have the ignore feature? Why would I want to debate issues with people who are rude, consistently ideological, bizarre, etc ? I am always open to debate with people who have the wit to build a base for the debate and stick to the topic. Why waste time on those who think that because they have a hammer everything looks like a nail?

HisSelf · May 22, 2008

Case in point....

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: bush_cheney2004.

· View this post

· Un-ignore bush_cheney2004

M.Dancer · May 22, 2008

No, I mean the absence of those things in post war Germany or Japan, where a full blown civil war was not under the covers.
No, occupation was never intended as an employment pogram for Iraq. Not that it was great there before the invasion either.

Are you saying it was intended as an de employment programme? Had to be a logical reason to fire a few million men only to rehire them a few years later.....or more likely, they goofed.

Shady · May 22, 2008

You didn't read my post. Why bother the mod when you have the ignore feature? Why would I want to debate issues with people who are rude, consistently ideological, bizarre, etc ? I am always open to debate with people who have the wit to build a base for the debate and stick to the topic. Why waste time on those who think that because they have a hammer everything looks like a nail?

I don't know, why did you bother to waste time with him then?

bush_cheney2004 · May 22, 2008

Case in point....

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: bush_cheney2004.

· View this post

· Un-ignore bush_cheney2004

If a tree falls in the forest......

bush_cheney2004 · May 22, 2008

Are you saying it was intended as an de employment programme? Had to be a logical reason to fire a few million men only to rehire them a few years later.....or more likely, they goofed.

No, I'm saying that your initial premise is flawed....Iraq was not an employment paradise before invasion, nor was it intended to be as an invasion objective. Do you feel the same about unemployed Germans or Italians after VE Day? Did the Allies "goof"?

HisSelf · May 22, 2008

I don't know, why did you bother to waste time with him then?

Are you saying he is someone who is open to debate and builds a position? On what basis are you proposing to vouch for this member?

M.Dancer · May 22, 2008

No, I'm saying that your initial premise is flawed....Iraq was not an employment paradise before invasion, nor was it intended to be as an invasion objective. Do you feel the same about unemployed Germans or Italians after VE Day? Did the Allies "goof"?

That isn't my premise. It was a mistake to de-mob the army and police, to dismember the civil service. The unemployment it created furthered the insurgency. Is this something you deny?

Comparisons to the Second world war are as apt as comparisons to the Second Punic war.

HisSelf · May 22, 2008

Back to the thread topic...

Can John McCain bring peace and democracy to Iraq by the end of his first term - 2013? He says he can. What do you think?

bush_cheney2004 · May 22, 2008

That isn't my premise. It was a mistake to de-mob the army and police, to dismember the civil service. The unemployment it created furthered the insurgency. Is this something you deny?

I'm not sure it was a mistake, or purposeful objective. What better way to destabilize Iraq? The only goof that I can see was underestimating the sectarian enmity and civil war.

Comparisons to the Second world war are as apt as comparisons to the Second Punic war.

Perhaps, but that is/was part of the collective UK/US experience in nation building. To the larger issue, I don't know why the invasion of Iraq is held to a different/higher standard, oher than some whining about it being a "war of aggression"....so what....a war is a war...as are occupations.