# Iraq, a Total Waste of time and American Lives



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Sunni bloc quits as bombs kill over 70 By Mariam Karouny and Peter Graff 
Wed Aug 1, 2:53 PM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The main Sunni Arab political bloc quit the Iraqi cabinet on Wednesday, plunging the government into crisis on a day when suicide bombers killed more than 70 people with massive strikes in the capital.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Sunni Accordance Front said its five cabinet members and Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zobaie would resign from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government.

"This is probably the most serious political crisis we have faced since the passage of the constitution. If unresolved the implications are grave," the remaining deputy prime minister, Barhim Salih, a Kurd, told Reuters.

Maliki spoke to U.S. President George W. Bush by video link and reassured him "dialogue with our brothers in the Accordance Front will not stop" despite the boycott, Maliki's office said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said after the call:

"The president emphasized that the Iraqi people and the American people need to see action, not just words ... on the political front," Snow told reporters in Washington.

The Iraqi government said 1,653 civilians were killed in July, a third more than the previous month, despite a fall in the number of deaths among U.S. troops.

Fifty of Wednesday's dead were killed when a suicide bomber in a fuel truck packed with explosives targeted motorists at a petrol station, police said. Another suicide bomber killed 20 people outside a popular ice cream shop across town. Another bomber killed three in southern Doura district.

The Accordance Front said it was quitting Maliki's coalition because he had failed to meet about a dozen demands, including granting the Sunni bloc a greater say in security matters. Those standing down include the ministers of culture, women, planning, and higher education, and the junior foreign affairs minister.

Their withdrawal may have little practical effect on a government already paralyzed by infighting. The Shi'ite bloc of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr withdrew in April.

But the withdrawal was a blow to reconciliation efforts: luring the large Sunni bloc into government had been hailed as a major achievement when Maliki took power last year.

The United States had hoped the inclusion of Sunni Arabs in the Shi'ite-dominated government would reduce sectarian violence. But laws aimed at reconciliation have not been passed.

Washington acknowledged the setback. "Democracy is hard," said U.S. embassy spokesman Phil Reeker. "Is it frustrating? Yes. It's frustrating for us, it's frustrating for them, it's frustrating for the Iraqi people."

Haidar al-Ibadi, a parliamentarian close to Maliki, told Reuters the Front was trying to persuade the Americans to withdraw support for the prime minister.

"They are sending a message to Washington that Nuri al-Maliki is no longer accepted, and trying to bring the political process to square one. They will not be successful."

The Sunni Front's deputy president, Tareq al-Hashemi, will remain in office for now, as will Sunni Arab Defence Minister Abdel Qader Jassim. The Front's 44 members also remain in the 275-seat parliament, which is on recess until September.

time to leave and let them get on with the business of killing each other.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> time to leave and let them get on with the business of killing each other.


And, and ????? And then Iran will support the radicals who will take over Iraq. A radical Islamic leader who will hate the west. Then they can get on with supporting terrorism financially and idealistically. What then? Do we go back, or fight them in the streets here? Wouldn't it be nice if the world was so simply we could just leave? But that's the nature of survival of the fittest. The strong survive while the weak, and those who see the world so simply, die.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

and you don't think that will happen eventually? how long do you think we should stay there and have our guys blown up during their goddamn civil war?

this is an endless slaughter. besides there are 17 million Muslims in America now. Obama is one of them, like it or not and he has support to run for president, can you imagine that ****?! people had better wake up!

We better keep a damn good eye on all the sleepers in this country before we worry about any imports. don't worry, no matter what happens "over there" we will have to deal with the damn radical Muslims already in our midst!


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

I'm ready....

Are you?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> and you don't think that will happen eventually? how long do you think we should stay there and have our guys blown up during their goddamn civil war?


Our media says it's a civil war, but I'm not sure about that. I think eventually we will have to deal with them here. The harder we pound them now the more years we have before it gets bad. Leave now and it will only be a couple years.



> this is an endless slaughter. besides there are 17 million Muslims in America now. Obama is one of them, like it or not and he has support to run for president, can you imagine that &$#*?! people had better wake up!


I don't know how radical Obama is, but I don't buy his finding Jesus. I would say he is still Muslim through and through. He was educated by a very radical sect, and that doesn't just go away.



> We better keep a damn good eye on all the sleepers in this country before we worry about any imports. don't worry, no matter what happens "over there" we will have to deal with the damn radical Muslims already in our midst!


Agree, but without the radicals surviving over there (mid east) the home grown nut jobs will loose some hope. Even better yet would be one, two, or even three countries going to a democracy. If we accomplish that or not in Iraq, I will be satisfied if we kill a lot more insurgents (terrorists if your not main stream media) in that country.

Our biggest problem is we are fighting this war like pansies. Blow the livin he!! out of them and maybe they will get the message. I would stop killing when they do, otherwise kill them by the train load.


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

Plainsman: Agreed, Agreed


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

:beer: :beer: :beer:

or get the hell out and prepare...........


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Six Members of Sunni Bloc Quit Iraq Cabinet in Protest

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, June 30, 2007; Page A14

BAGHDAD, June 29 -- Members of the leading Sunni coalition in the Iraqi government said Friday that six of its ministers would withdraw from the Cabinet because of criminal accusations against one minister and their sense of alienation within the Shiite-dominated government.

The decision by the Iraqi Accordance Front is a blow to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose administration has been weakened in recent weeks by tensions among rival Shiite blocs and the threatened resignation of Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi. The lack of progress on important legislation, coupled with the failure to reconcile with minority Sunnis, ranks among the greatest obstacles to stability in Iraq.

Ministers from the Accordance Front will not participate in the government until a committee is formed to investigate the charges against Culture Minister Asad Kamal al-Hashimi, and until there is reform of the detainee system in which thousands of people are held for extended periods without trial, said Alaa Makki, a senior legislator in the coalition.

"We represent an important component of the Iraqi people and we are feeling, inside the government, that we are severely marginalized, we are not respected," Makki said.

The Accordance Front last week suspended its participation in parliament to protest the dismissal of Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who is also a Sunni.

Earlier this year, the six cabinet members loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr withdrew over the lack of a timetable for the departure of U.S. troops, and the justice minister resigned, meaning that 13 of 34 cabinet positions are now unfilled.

Seems to be conflicting stories to me. The first article seems to be attempting to tie in suicide bombings with the incident where this one simply explains what why they are boycotting. Notice I didn't say quit as the first article said because they didn't quit, they withdrew in boycott. Which one do you think is true.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Plainsman, I think you are exactly right on this issue and I am with you!!! :beer:

Anyone who thinks war isn't going to get worse before it gets better has their head up their butt!


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Why don't we just drop a nuke on Baghdad. We sure have enough
in stockpile.

It definately worked on Japan!


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Iraqi power grid nearing collapse By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer 
35 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - Iraq's power grid is on the brink of collapse because of insurgent sabotage, rising demand, fuel shortages and provinces that are unplugging local power stations from the national grid, officials said Saturday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Electricity Ministry spokesman Aziz al-Shimari said power generation nationally is only meeting half the demand, and there had been four nationwide blackouts over the past two days. The shortages across the country are the worst since the summer of 2003, shortly after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, he said.

Power supplies in Baghdad have been sporadic all summer and now are down to just a few hours a day, if that. The water supply in the capital has also been severely curtailed by power blackouts and cuts that have affected pumping and filtration stations.

Karbala province south of Baghdad has been without power for three days, causing water mains to go dry in the provincial capital, the Shiite holy city of Karbala.

"We no longer need television documentaries about the Stone Age. We are actually living in it. We are in constant danger because of the filthy water and rotten food we are having," said Hazim Obeid, who sells clothing at a stall in the Karbala market.

Electricity shortages are a perennial problem in Iraq, even though it sits atop one of the world's largest crude oil reserves. The national power grid became decrepit under Saddam Hussein because his regime was under U.N. sanctions after the Gulf War and had trouble buying spare parts or equipment to upgrade the system.

The power problems are only adding to the misery of Iraqis, already suffering from the effects of more than four years of war and sectarian violence. Outages make life almost unbearable in the summer months, when average daily temperatures reach between 110 and 120 degrees.

One of the biggest problems facing the national grid is the move by provinces to disconnect their power plants from the system, reducing the overall amount of electricity being generated for the entire country. Provinces say they have no choice because they are not getting as much electricity in return for what they produce, mainly because the capital requires so much power.

"Many southern provinces such as Basra, Diwaniyah, Nassiriyah, Babil have disconnected their power plants from the national grid. Northern provinces, including Kurdistan, are doing the same," al-Shimari said. "We have absolutely no control over some areas in the south," he added.

"The national grid will collapse if the provinces do not abide by rules regarding their share of electricity. Everybody will lose and there will be no electricity winner," al-Shimari said

there is more of the article, but again, we are in the middle of a **** hole and it is beginning to stink!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

If half of it were true I would be shocked. Before the fall of Saddam the majority of Iraq didn't even half electricity and those that did only had it for a few hours a day except for Baghdad where Saddam and his boys played.

Just three days ago these same news sources had head lines that read were the Iraqi government was collapsing because key members quit after car bombs killed dozens. Turns out they didn't quit, they boycotted and it had nothing to do with car bombs. that's what started this thread and it was all bs from the word go. Now tell me why didn't I see headlines a couple days ago that read America plunged into crises as House of representatives in chaos and collapsing after entire Republican party walks out on gaveled session when bridge collapses and traps civilians with dozens missing. Now every one knows thats a bull**** story but both incidents did happen just a couple days ago so why not the same propaganda from the lets make things look the worst possible way we can media.

It's a war war zone for Christs sakes......... what do you expect, tea and cookies before the shooting starts each day.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

of course not, but the place is such a **** hole and we have ****** away millions of dollars and have not one goddamn thing to show for it! we can't help these people, they are too corrupt and fractionalized.

this nation building exercise is a goddamn joke! we look so stupid pissing away time, lives and money. this is a civil war for Christ's sake, wake up man, our guys are standing in the middle of it and being shot at by all factions. we stand to gain nothing here. it's not Al qaeda, its the whole bunch of tribes we have now managed to piss off. and the Iraqis themselves can't govern themselves, we can't impose our will on these heathens, they just live to kill and die.

if you want to take the fight to Afghanistan, fine, we need to kill all the radical Taliban ********! the next 911 style attack will come from this region, not Iraq.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

You think the Taliban attacked us on 911? The Taliban fighting the Afghanistan government is a civil war. The Afghanistan government seem quite capable of taking care of the Taliban. The last thing the Taliban wants is to start a personal war with the US.

The insurgents killing people in Iraq is not a civil war despite it being called that. They are two religious factions fighting each other. A civil war occurs when two powers are fighting over control of government. Hell, even our own so called civil war was not a civil war. The South was not fighting to control the Union, the South just wanted out. The only group attempting that in Iraq is Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is our enemy.

Doesn't really matter if Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before or not, they are there now and that does matter. Fight them there or fight them here. If you don't think we are accomplishing something in Iraq then you need to remove the blinders and take a good hard look around. I find it very troubling that it seems it will take the death of thousands of Americans on our own soil before some people wake up to whats going on around them in the world.

This is not just the US fighting Al-Qaeda even if we are carrying the load at the moment. This is Al-Qaeda's attack on the world and sooner or later everyone is going to come to realize that. Better hope it is not in your living room when you do realize it.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

surely you are not naive enough to think all the fight is with Al Qaeda in Iraq now, do you? suddenly there are thousands, upon thousands of them in Iraq? boy the repubs have blown a lot of smoke if you believe that crap. sure there are some there, but by and large that is not the problem.

the fact is, the Afghanistan and Pakistan border areas are where the **** is building and recruiting and planning. as long as we dick around in Iraq, the real terrorists have a cover and can keep working undisturbed, funding their cause through the opium trade.

in Iraq it is the Shiites and Sunnis that are shooting and killing and bombing the piss out of each other (and us) and there is no sense sitting in the middle of that hopeless situation. it is what it is, a goddamn civil war among tribes, period.

fight them there or here is a line of crap too, when it comes to Iraq. we are simply in the wrong place and should be concentrating our efforts to fight terrorists, not referee a goddamn civil/religious war, when NO ONE wants us there and there is zero chance we can influence how they govern themselves or help bring peace to the region.

why do you think old man Bush never went to Baghdad? simple, there was no viable exit strategy and he knew there would be no good out come by doing just that.

too bad the "kid" didn't listen to the old man, because he knew what he was talking about. dubya just keeps holding on to his dumb *** dream and thinks God is on his side. sad, sad guy for a President, so far out of touch from reality and even his own political base has abandoned him on this very issue! it is quite simply a mess and our guys are dying over there and for what? no one knows the answer.

and by the way, the religious fanatics ARE fighting for control of the government, so YES it is a goddamn civil war, what else would it be??


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> surely you are not naive enough to think all the fight is with Al Qaeda in Iraq now, do you?


I don't. There are other terrorists besides Al Qaeda. I would guess some are the remains of Saddam Fatah. Others just hate the Western Civilization. It isn't as much a clash of religion, culture, or values as it is a clash of 21st century vs. 12th century.



> the fact is, the Afghanistan and Pakistan border areas are where the &$#* is building and recruiting and planning.


Do you, like Obama, favor invading a supportive and sovereign Pakistan?
What pretense would you use for the attack?



> in Iraq it is the Shiites and Sunnis that are shooting and killing and bombing the piss out of each other (and us)


I don't know if the (and us) is a large part of it. They are killing each other, but who is it that is killing our soldiers. Some of them are Shiite and some are Sunnis, but if they have a bone to chew with us they are also something besides Shiite and Sunni.



> a goddamn civil war among tribes


These are religious factions not tribes. They are uncivilized, but Shiite and Sunni surpass tribal affiliation. At this point it's hard to know if it is a civil war. It looks to be more of the thousands of years of revenge and retribution than a struggle to control national government. The struggle is two fold in that it is a struggle to control the direction of the Muslim religion itself (not civil war) and to bring the entire world under Islamic dominance (again not civil war).



> fight them there or here is a line of crap too


I would guess they are trying to get here, and perhaps have but have been unable to commit further acts of violence as they did on 9/11. The war in Iraq although it will not stop incidental attempts on our soil is enough of a distraction to hold a much larger attempt at bay.



> NO ONE wants us there


Absolutely not true.



> there was no viable exit strategy


That's just partisan gibberish. There are many options, but currently without the Iraq government capable of controlling it's own people those options range from bad to worse. An exit strategy before a war is fine, but how many times do they work? Did we have one for WWI, WWII, Korea, or Viet Nam? I'm not sure, but I'll bet they changed often. War is so dynamic that an exit strategy a year or two ahead of time is foolishness. Planning is the most important part of war, but lets not forget the other side is planning also. We can not control what their next strategy will be so an exit strategy today is worthless tomorrow.



> even his own political base has abandoned him on this very issue!


Are they abandoning him because he is wrong, or because the media has successfully made the war so unfavorable that it is political suicide to support it?

Have you noticed that support for Bush and the war has risen lately? Even as low as Bush's approval rating is it is higher than congress by a long shot.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> in Iraq it is the Shiites and Sunnis that are shooting and killing and bombing the piss out of each other (and us) and there is no sense sitting in the middle of that hopeless situation. it is what it is, a goddamn civil war among tribes, period.


No, it is not a civil war in the true terms of a civil war but I guess if continuing to call it that makes you feel better then what the hell. You know what they say about ignorance....



> fight them there or here is a line of crap too, when it comes to Iraq. we are simply in the wrong place and should be concentrating our efforts to fight terrorists,


Oh please enlighten us all with your plan as to where and how our efforts to fight terrorist should be. I hear that same line regurgitated from your pals Nancy, Harry, Hillary and Obama but like you they never tell us what that plan is. Oh, wait a minute..... I was wrong...... one of them did say we should attack Pakistan and I believe the rest want to just come home and pretend the bad guys aren't out there or will leave us alone. That'll do it.



> why do you think old man Bush never went to Baghdad? simple, there was no viable exit strategy and he knew there would be no good out come by doing just that.


We didn't go into Baghdad because we had a agreement with the Arab coalition not to overthrow Saddam and create a vacuum in that area. The removal of the Iraqi army from Kuwait was the only objective agreed to and the senior Bush honored that agreement. Agreeing to these conditions gave us the use of the Saudi air bases and support of several Arab nations. Hell, even my granddaughter in the ninth grade learned that in middle school.

All your doing is repeating what the media plasters on the news each and every day with no factual support or solutions. If you feel that regurgitation the news here in a forum somehow accomplishes something in your mind then I guess more power to you. Don't be surprised to learn there are people on the forum that do more than just read headlines and obligingly swallow the spoon fed media crap you seem to relish. Even your attempt to guide the topic into a Bush bashing hatred debate failed. Have a nice peaceful evening. The troops are working hard to see that you do.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

gee gohon, you are such an expert concerning foreign policy and what is actually going on over there, maybe you can help old dubya out a little bit? :eyeroll:

and i didn't suggest we invade Pakistan, so you can stop with the false accusations, you really have trouble reading or have trouble making a valid argument. either way, your arguments are really silly and i sure don't support the dems either, just can't stand the the stupidity shown by the worst president in history, dubya.

you might also want to look up the definition of a civil war as well, as you must have failed in your high school history class.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> gee gohon, you are such an expert concerning foreign policy and what is actually going on over there,


No I'm not an expert but I know garbage when I read it and I can easily recognize when someone doesn't know a thing about what they are talking about. Kind of strange and actually humorous when every time someone points out false information you have put out, and there are a lot of that, you simply ignore that particular point and try to run away from it as if no one is paying attention. Why do you do that? Why don't you address issues where you are shown to be wrong? Aw... never mind. No one expects you to anyway.



> you might also want to look up the definition of a civil war as well, as you must have failed in your high school history class.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see civil war (disambiguation). See list of civil wars for individual examples.

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power.

The U.S. military has adopted the principles set by the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva for their definition of civil war. However, it does include an additional requirement for identifiable armed forces. The December 1990 version of FM 100-20 (Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict) defines a civil war as:

"A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations."


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998): While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.


Seems the old man was probably 150 points higher on the IQ chart than junior was.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Seems the old man was probably 150 points higher on the IQ chart than junior was.


You will have to explain that to me, because it would appear you have to ignore much of the facts, and make a lot of assumptions to come to that conclusion. The early 1990's and the early 2000's changed the world a lot. Enough to produce two entirely different scenarios. That makes judging one in comparison to the other beyond comprehension with the information any of us have.
As ticked as I am with Bush on other matters you must realize I do not say this in his defense, but in the defense of logic.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 920-8.html

Its a long read but it would seem some need a refresher on al'quaida and the taliban.

Also mentions those harboring terrorists, ie pakistan


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

And a year later. Hard to disagree with the reasoning for Iraq, if nothing else we know for sure Saddam was sponsoring terrorism directed at Isreal. In violation of the '91 cease fire. I dont think anyone could have known for sure the extent of the sectarian violence that is going on now. A presence in Iraq will be required for a long time, undoughtably more soldiers will die, thats just the cold hard fact of war and the price of keeping them busy somewhere other than here while we revise strategy.

http://www.narsil.org/war_on_iraq/bush_ ... _2002.html

Iraqis shooting at Iraqis, different religious factions of the same religion in the same country and you think you are going to fool anybody by saying it is not a civil war? Lame :roll: Maybe you should petition Washington to rename the Civil War in all the history books here in the US.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Iraqis shooting at Iraqis, different religious factions to the same religion in the same country and you think you are going to fool anybody by saying it is not a civil war?


I would refer you back to Gohon's post above. If we are going to go by the dictionary definition then this is not a civil war. There are a number of variables that keep this conflict from qualifying as a civil war. The media wants everyone to think we are in the midst of a civil war, but that is simply to discourage us. 
I'm not trying to fool anyone. I am also not letting the media fool me. The liberals would like you to believe it, but if you think for yourself there is only one conclusion you can come to. However, do you think labeling it changes anything?


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

I will refer you to this:

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



> The Intelligence Community judges that the term "civil war" does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term "civil war" accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.[27]


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I would remind you that many history scholars refer to the war between the North and South as the war between the states and not the civil war. I've even see that term used in history books. Even Revolutions and Coups are often mis-tagged with a civil war title. It is a little more complicated than to just tag it with a name. Even your third post on "civil war in Iraq" supports the fact it cannot be called a civil war despite having some elements of a civil war. Maybe not your intention but certainly a blunder. Call it what you wish, believe whom you wish, it doesn't change anything. I did however give your suggestion to petition Washington all the thought it truly deserved. :roll:

I did enjoy your cite on the Presidents speech of September 2001. It reminded me that even then the President told all Americans what today, six years later would look like when he said .........

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

" This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat."

"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen." 

I guess most Americans simply didn't pay attention then and they certainly aren't paying attention now.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Lot more use the term Civil War. I was going to cut and paste a bunch of individual sites but decided to just paste two. The first one is a portal to a bunch of sites that reference the words "civil war" to describe the war of northern aggression. The second is a Harvard site referencing the term "civil war to reference the same war mentioned above.

http://www.besthistorysites.net/USHisto ... lWar.shtml

http://hul.harvard.edu/huarc/civil_war.shtml


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think many liberal sites and our media use the term civil war to subconsciously suggest that we have no business there. After all they are not looking to be objective, they simply want to detract from president Bush. It is a battle of retaliation against Bush not so much for winning the election, but for taking it away from the democrats.
I think it is silly to waste time on what to call this conflict. What we call it changes nothing. We are there and we would be stupid to leave at this time. The democrats want to pull out as soon as possible because they don't want Iraq to be a success. We must fail for them to have a good chance at the presidency in 2008 and they are doing everything in their power to make sure that happens. One way to do it is call this a civil war in which we have no business. Get out at any cost before something good happens and Bush doesn't look totally inept in 2008. No guts, no glory.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Gohon said:


> I guess most Americans simply didn't pay attention then and they certainly aren't paying attention now.


Alright Plainsman and Gohon, Im done arguing the definition of a civil war, it really doesnt matter to me.

What bothers me the most is that the Prez, like Gohon said, laid out the war in September of 2001. We deployed soldiers knowing what was in store for us, now, many of the people that were jumping up and down with war fever then are starting to support the withdrawal plan. I have one friend in particular that was all about kickin' azz and takin names.....then, now he thinks we should be out (cut, run, and hide theory). At the time I had not been out of the Army long so I explained to him what the presidents speech really meant for the military, I figured 10 or 12 years before we could establish firm military control over terrorist states (Pakistan, Iran, Palistinians, whoever-I really dont care) then we could scale back and and use more special operations and airstrikes to exterminate the bastages. I call it my termite theory: Easy to control if you are vigilant and dont let them infest you. Once infested you are in for a looong fight just to get rid of them then the real expense starts ie: repairing the damage to the infra-structure they have done. Well, we turned a blind eye to terrorist states and organizations for 30 years (was it '72 when the isreali olympic team was murdered by palistinian terrorists? IMHO that is when we really should have started putting the screwws to em) Now we are infested and they are all over the house. We have no choice but to go to every damm room and kill them, sometimes you have to kick the door in an unkept house, eventually it will get to the point where a quick op here and there will control the situation. Until then I think there should be maximum effort such as kicking in doors and clubbing combatants with bats to conserve bullets for when we really need them (Iran is lucky Im not in charge). Instead, we the people, have ground our military to a halt by debating every move thay make and sacrificing our Generals and Commanders as scapegoats for not having group hugs before a gunfight.

BTW the forementioned friend of mine considers himself a rock-ribbed conservative and he is not the only "conservative" Ive argued the war and immigration with. It looks like some here that consider themselves "brave-republicans" are starting to waver and reconsider the total war we are fighting, reference the "Obama wants to invade Pakistan" thread. My point with the last is that nowadays there are just as many puzzy republicans as there are mamby-pamby democrats, be careful when you try to elevate your group above another group on the brave meter. Sometimes your gonna come up short. Moore and pelosi dont speak for me nor do they for many others.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> My point with the last is that nowadays there are just as many puzzy republicans as there are mamby-pamby democrats, be careful when you try to elevate your group above another group on the brave meter.


I don't consider either my group. I do think that when it comes to war with enemies of this nation that the democrats are much weaker than the republicans. When it comes to backstabbing your own the republicans are much weaker than the democrats. On just about everything else I agree with you. I also don't care if they are having a civil war or not.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

jdpete,

lots of good points...anyone who thought this was gonna be quick doesn't have a clue. Maybe a factor in that is that so little of population and virtually none of our leaders has spent any time in the military.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Dak said:


> jdpete,
> 
> lots of good points...anyone who thought this was gonna be quick doesn't have a clue. Maybe a factor in that is that so little of population and virtually none of our leaders has spent any time in the military.


Very well put...........virtually none of our leaders has spent any time in the military]


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

> Very well put...........virtually none of our leaders has spent any time in the military]


one of the reasons i feel mccain(sp?), or powell would have been better candidates for president. just a personal oppinion, btw, not trying to start an argument over who should be in office, just saying personal experience might have incurred some different decisions, and strategies, and things might be going a little better.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

neb_bo said:


> > Very well put...........virtually none of our leaders has spent any time in the military]
> 
> 
> one of the reasons i feel mccain(sp?), or powell would have been better candidates for president. just a personal oppinion, btw, not trying to start an argument over who should be in office, just saying personal experience might have incurred some different decisions, and strategies, and things might be going a little better.


Once the decision is made to go ahead I wonder how much of the planning the president is in on? His generals have more experience than nearly any president would have. I would bet unless the guy is a micromanager that the Pentagon takes over.
I don't know about McCain. How good an experience is being a prisoner? Not being a smart a$$, just looking at this from a realistic point of view. Anybody can get caught, and it doesn't make them more or less qualified. Unless they did something really stupid of course.


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

> Once the decision is made to go ahead I wonder how much of the planning the president is in on?


thats what i mean, i think a president with a military background would be a little better at understanding what his advisers are laying out. i think one of george bush jr. (yes, he still has a name, and a title, its Mr. President to some of you who forget that)problems was he was getting advise from generals who were involved in the gulf war(see my powell statement), and didnt realize he was looking at an unrealistic goal for the timeline. perhaps with more knowledge of military strategies, and warfighting technique, he could have realized what we were really getting into. i myself am only now starting to understand the full aspect of what we are really involved in.

in example to the advise he was getting, say you are on a guided fishing trip, and the guide says "tie on this lure, cast it right there, and retreive it this way, and it will work for this reason", you are going to do it, and believe him, because that is his skillset. he says it with the best of intentions, but maybe conditions are different than he originaly thought, and it doesnt work as planned. now if you had some knowledge of what you are doing, and you notice something wrong, or realize it may not work as well as he says, you can adjust accordingly.

i dont know how much mccains short time in would help, realizing he was in a cage for what, 2 years of it? but i do know that before i was in the military i had absolutely no understanding of how it worked, but the military being what it is, alot of the stuff i learned as a private still apply at the highest levels, and a working knowledge of this goes a long way to sorting through the B.S.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> i myself am only now starting to understand the full aspect of what we are really involved in.


I don't know, what is happening was about my expectations. In the very beginning Bush laid it out and said this would be long and drawn out. I just think that the American people who have become accustomed to news that is 30 second sound bites turn anything of that last three minutes. The same with war, and most Americans today don't have the will to hang in there. That's what the terrorists are counting on, and that perhaps is our greatest weakness. I can't believe these foolish people who think everything should be over by now. I am dumbfounded that people are so naive as to think an exit strategy when this war begin would be viable today. I think the Pentagon plans each day, and perhaps every couple of weeks new strategies are forged. I would guess with both sides planning on how they are going to win it is check and countercheck. War is so dynamic that at any one time I would bet the Pentagon has a half dozen exit strategies for a half dozen different scenarios. We just don't know what they are, and are so full of ourselves that we think they don't know what they are doing. 
Just look at the posts on here and how people jump to conclusions, and make assumptions. Someone asks about a 50 caliber and someone else will ask why would you want to hunt with that. No one asked about hunting with one, they just want to know about them. Just an example, not a real post. Because the Pentagon will not share an exit strategy we think there is no exit strategy. They would be fools to tell us. Sure put it on the news, and then it will be a big surprise to the terrorists. I can't believe we are stupid enough to expect to know. That would be like announcing D Day (in WWII) a month before we invaded.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Sure put it on the news, and then it will be a big surprise to the terrorists. I can't believe we are stupid enough to expect to know. That would be like announcing D Day (in WWII) a month before we invaded.


You reminded me of something with that statement. Actually we did sort of announce the invasion of D Day. We let it leak out to the public and certain German sources. To no one's surprise the Germans reinforced that location, putting equipment and troops at what they thought was the intended target. Problem was it was false information and not the real intended landing location and the Germans had weakened their strength where we did land. So if anyone foolishly believes the enemy would not take advantage of a know exit strategy to kill more Americans, they need only read their history books.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

That is 100% correct Gohon, Ike was a very good General, He was Rep. also.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon, I get disgusted every time I hear someone say they want to know the exit strategy. Do these people even have a clue. God help us.

It's like old Militant Tiger who was on here at one time. He was book smart, but totally world stupid. He rarely misspelled a word, and got on you if you did, but war, terrorism, etc, and he was at a complete loss of logic. No independent thought process at all, and simply followed the liberal talking points.

I can only hope this exit strategy babble is a liberal talking point, and people are not that naive.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Anyone that thinks any war strategy can be followed is being unrealistic, after the first shot is fired everything the enemy does will have to affect your plan, so the plan is not really all that important.

Whats important is the goal , defeat of Islamic Jihadism.

And Bush has correctly compared it to a timeline like the cold war, which took nearly 50 years.

And totalitarianism was defeated with a show of strength not appeasement.

Its one of a very few things Bush has done right in my opinion.

The appeasers just lenghthen the time line if our country showed unity this war would take a lot less time

The appeasers in our media will be the same people wringing their hands the next time we are hit and that time is coming


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

bobm,

Well put.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I agree very well put Bobm... Knights of Templar. I'm a believer Bob it must be our turn I guess... you know what I mean.


----------



## neb_bo (Feb 3, 2007)

> Knights of Templar. I'm a believer Bob it must be our turn I guess... you know what I mean.


if i understand correctly what you are saying, this is the attitude we are fighting. the islamic jihad is outdated, and we cannot take on the same frame of mind they have. you need to watch the video in the open forum of the interview with the muslim woman, she makes some strong points, and i think she really laid out why we should continue this war.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

In history the Islamic peoples have periodically tried to abolish all other religions.. they have always failed so far so lets knock the crap out of them now. I say Islamic peoples including them all because they don't make their own quit this nonsense so to me they are for it. No fence sitters allowed!


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Buckseye, glad your still around. I agree 100%. Read my new Tag line.
Gear up our military might and lets take it to them. Oh and let's close down the Mexican border tight. Do it with volunters. Give us amnesty and I'll take my turn for no charge, even furnish my own gear. :sniper:


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Check out the post "Too Good Not To Read" it says it all.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

buckseye said:


> I say Islamic peoples including them all because they don't make their own quit this nonsense so to me they are for it. No fence sitters allowed!


Read the post "Too Good Not To Read" It says it all.


----------

