| Author | Message | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Intermediate Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 1120 Registered: 2-2003 |
MFZ, its not a change in stance. At least I don't think. I call it seperating military matters from political ones, as the two try to agree on what should be done, the ones in D.C. are not in the hot seat, are they? I was being sarcastic, but that was more frustration aimed at our current administration then anyone posting on this thread. I believe what we did was a good thing, the time, the place, and the methods we used are going to be open to debate for years if not decades to come as we experience the political/international backlash. What else is new. The military did their job, and if politics dictate that we have to stay and shed more blood and give up some lives for Iraq to form a stable government of their own, then its our job (being a former grunt) to suck it up and do that. Being in the military means doing plenty of things you don't agree with even if it means risking your life  As far as politics go, I will always vote for who I believe is the strongest candidate who will do the best job. I voted for Bush. Hindsight is 20/20. I'm a registered Republican, but what that means to me is, I choose X over Y. That has NOTHING to do with voting for who I believe will do the best job in the White House. I believe this is Clark, I'm not concerned with what party he is from until I see who he elects under him.. and that might swing the vote. The military does the dirty job. When are they EVER welcome if its not on a humanitarian mission? Art and I agree around half the time. This is one situation where I have to definitely agree. As long as this doesn't explode into a big debate that goes beyond what the subject line states right up there, there is without a doubt post-Iraq is nothing like post-Japan after WWII! As a veteran, I enjoy the luxury of supporting the troops and can bash our political leaders at the same time. Sunny | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 397 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art.... I read more than just US news sources. I had ArabNews.com, for instance, bookmarked about a year ago. After daily review of about 10-15 foreign sources, and then the major US sources, and about 5-10 independant blogs, I analyze and make up my own mind. I would also suggest, like you did, that few people do this, so you were correct in your assumption, but not directly about me. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 369 Registered: 2-2003 |
BTW Sunny, was your comment sarcastic? What's with the change of stance? Anyway, I agree with almost all of Art's opinion. Basically, Iraq post-Saddam is not like Japan post-WWII. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3460 Registered: 2-2001 |
Biggest difference is that Iraq has no superpower to fall back on like Vietnam had with China. But Iraq has crazy camel humper teerrrorist wanna be martyyrs by the 1,000s. I think Iraq will soon be like Jerusalem with bombings every week, It is a mess & its only going to get worse. The US desperately needs to find alternate oil sources ffrom Canada, S America, deep sea, & Russia. Helll the world needs the US to get off its Mideast oil addiction to have a lot more peace | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Intermediate Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 1113 Registered: 2-2003 |
It doesn't matter which party takes office if we're voting for whom will do the best job and we remove party blinders. Right? I think the law was passed a few years ago to be able to vote for a presidential candidate regardless of your political affiliation. Or was that in CA state elections? I'm not sure. I would change my affiliation as necessary just like in the article below to vote in what or whom I believe in. It doesn't matter if its the international community or the Iraqi people don't want us there, we are not welcome there period. The military did their job, right or wrong is for our history books and those in the international community to decide. Mess or no mess, they have to decide amongst themselves who they want to elect or if they want another dictator. They don't need the US military to do that (now). If this were chess, I think we should pull out ASAP and let Iraq take control of the center. Its back to a political game. It doesn't mean that we're out of it, far from it. The future threat of violence will not let Iraq slip back into the state of affairs it was in before, agreed? We can do that from the safety of our ships and our shores. Come home, boys and girls! We may never never be welcome. We may never expect reimbursement or thanks from the Iraqi people for giving them a chance to elect their own leaders. A chance bought with blood. No matter how right or wrong it was, you don't setup a spirit of cooperation like we have with the UK and in Germany, for example, after you just bombed them relentlessly. Give it time... a LONG time! Sunny P.S. If your a current military officer, I hope you know to keep your trap shut! That letter to the media still gets me furious. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2846 Registered: 6-2001 |
kds: Read news sources other than the US media. There seems to be a different logic in the foreign press than ours. Couple that with the increased violence, in all areas of Iraq, with the failure to find Saddam, and you can only come to one conclusion: they want us out. I remember, when I was in the Army (60s) how we were told to make things appear different than they were. An example: were these polls taken at food distribution sites from people begging for food? I'd want to see how the polls were validated, but from looking at the demonstrations in all parts of Iraq, it seems that they want us out, or our their signs at those demonstrations not to be believed? Art Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2845 Registered: 6-2001 |
Rob: We were attacked by Japan, and reacted against them most violently. When they finally surrendered, they realized they were totally destroyed. Using two nukes against them helped form that opinion. Not that I object to the use of the Nukes, it was the only thing they udnerstood at that time. Remember that their military continued to fight, unwilling to accept the defeat, fo rsome time after the war, but their civilians were completely demoralized, AND we kept the emporer, allowed him to maintain his position. In that instance, we had no choice about going to war, they attacked us, bombed the US, fought a long and hard war against us. The will, and the ecomonics to totally dominate them were present. That was due to our fear of being attacked, our anger at losing our young men, etc. We don't have that here. Iraq never attacked us, never really threatened us. Everyone, or almost everyone will fight to save himself, or his family. Few will fight over nothing (those that do, are called sociopaths). What got us angered against Saddam was the immenent threat of him attacking us, with those WMDs. Bush got everyone riled up, scared, and he had his support for the war. We now find that it was a lie, no threat. Because there was no threat, we don't have the will to fight this as we did with Japan, because the stakes areen't as high. That is a major problem with fabricating reasons for war, if they are discovered before the war ends, there's hell to pay. Other factors are this: Japan had not been occupied by a foreign nation in its recent history, their people were totally demoralized by losing the war, and the damage we inflicted with our bombing of their homes, factories, and public places. Iraq had recently thrown off the British occupation (1960). The Baath party was formed to get the Brits out of Iraq after the second world war. In short the Japanese were and probably still are more maleable than the Iraqis. Sorry to have taken so much space, but the above is my thumbnail sketch of how we got were we are. Art | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 396 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art... How do you know that the Iraqi's don't want the US there..........now ? Polls seem to indicate otherwise. I can assure you that they would not prefer Saddam back in power....do you dare to disagree with that statement ? People all want their own liberty and not to be oppressed, they are no different that us in that respect. There is no question in my mind that the Saddam loyalists that remain fighting in the Sunni triangle and the imported Arab jihadist's (if there is such a word) want to kill Americans.....as for the rest of the country, I won't believe anything at this stage. Yes...it is a lesson to be learned...but I do not believe that it is one that is playing itself out in Iraq right now. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 6785 Registered: 12-2000 |
Seems like we did things right in Japan. Look at that country now. What did we do there? I'm too young to remember. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2844 Registered: 6-2001 |
kds: Read McNamara's book about this. You can't liberate a people who don't want you in their country was something that we had to learn. Why repeat the lesson? We killed about 1,000,000 vietanese in that war, and got them so pissed off at us by the end, we had no friends there. If the people in the country don't want you there, you've got to leave. If you think we can stay the course, take a long hard look at the West Bank. The Israelis are a lot more willing to act harshly towards those they occupy than we ever would, and it sure hasn't stopped the carnage. Even today the military in Israel is trying to convince the government to stop the carnage. This is a lesson that have to learn over and over again. Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2843 Registered: 6-2001 |
Jim: Who knows what they'll do. It's a big mess, and I don't think its going to end well. They don't want us there, and are willing to kill us if we attempt to stay. Bottom line, how many dead before we understand we're not welcome, and must leave. The mess then sorts itself out, probably to our detriment. Been there, done that on staying the course. I've got about 5 - 10 friends of mine who are on the wall in Washington, that 5 - 10 too many in my book, and I don't think its worth it to see that happen to a new generation. The good that comes from this, is that we will be more careful about trying to impose our will upon other countries by use of force. It use to be, that we would elect people with prior military (not always, but a good %, Kennedy was a vet, George Bush, Sr. was a vet, Eisenhower, etc.) Maybe, we'll go back to this. Art | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 395 Registered: 5-2003 |
When there are 60K dead American servicemen and women, dead due to political mismanagement of a combat situation over approximately 8-10 years, it may be a valid comparison. But for now...it is just politicking and fearmongering. Nixon ended Vietnam in 2 weeks in 12/72......GWB took over Iraq in 30 days. It'll take time to get rid of the Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters.....can anyone suggest it would have been any different, except for doing nothing ? | ||
| Jim Schad (Jim_schad)
Intermediate Member Username: Jim_schad Post Number: 2055 Registered: 7-2002 |
Not looking for an argument, but say Bush totally fails and the mideast is a disaster so he loses the election. The Dems get in office and do what? Do they recind the $87BB to Iraq? Do they spend it and blame Bush? What is their mideast policy/stance at this point? Now that it is a visible mess what do they do? Do they just tout the UN and Peace Talks for 15 years? What "action" do they take? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2841 Registered: 6-2001 |
Don't take my word for it: http://www.msnbc.com/news/985284.asp?cp1=1#BODY Art |