Lion's Weekend Blurb - April 28-29

[Lion]

I was watching the news Friday, and the news folks were interviewing the US Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. The topic of discussion of course was Iraq. During the conversation, he stated basically that he had all of the military equipment, men, etc., that was needed to do the job in Iraq, but that fighting the war could take 8-10 years to resolve due to the complications with insurgents and the aid they are getting from other Arab countries. That timetable doesn't sit well with the Democratic party in Washington. They want to start withdrawing troops on October 12th of this year. That won't happen because President Bush will veto any order passed by congress for a set timetable. I can't speak for everyone, but I do know that many folks in my area, which is considered very conservative, fully support our troops, but feel we've done all we can, and are stuck in a quagmire. I overheard one local redneck put it this way..."lets just leave, then nuke em when they get cocky with us." There were a few colorful words thrown in as well, but you get the picture. Obviously were stuck between a rock and a hard place. I've yet to hear one person in the entire world come up with a solution to the Iraqi turmoil, other than turning tail and running.

PS: If this discussion turns political, it's ok. I realize when I open up discussions like this, I open a can of worms as well. Please be mature in your posts and do not flame anyone.

[Ariss(DJ)]

I think that US army will have to withdraw from Iraq, you can't make democracy to work in such country. It will take much more than 8-10 years.
And one more thing, you will need all your power for fight that is sure to come in future ,Iran ?

[Ace]

cant they put in Ir choppers like the police has in Cops that can see people at night with IR scanners and maybe even see if they got weapons? But the question is of course would the heat scanners work when Iraq is such a hot country? :p but it just a idea. Man if we had some of the stuff in star trek :D
satelite scanning a city and see where explosives and weapons are located ect :D

[Probowler]

We can't just abandon Iraq. At the very least we need to wait and see if the troop surge works. It's not even complete, and people are jumping the gun calling it a failure. There's only something like 2 of the 5 brigades in Baghdad right now. We need to give our troops time to makes things happen.

Of some good news, since the begining of the surge Sectarian murders have been reduced.

[HawkEye1102002]

Bit drunk here so if you see my spelling is bad, you know why

In my oppinion, NATO and the UN should assist a lot more in Iraq than they currently do (if any), to take some pressure off the Americans and the British. Umbrella organisations like Amnesty International are not intrested in human rights at all, all they are concerned is smearing Allied efforts in Iraq that they can put under the catagory of "human rights abuses", and I see that to be used by the enamies of the new Iraq and the west as a justification of doing more bombings.

If we want to solve this problem sooner rather than 8-10 years, then the new Iraq should counter Amnesty International by explaining that those terrorists (known as insergance by the BBC and other anti-western liberals) are violating regular Iraqis of their human rights - I just cannot see why if Amnesty International really cares *ahem* about human rights, then they should slam the terrorists who bomb, kidnap and behead their captors, not moan about a few renegades in the US army who do war crimes and make it sound worse than it really is - I see organisations like Amnisty International as fifth columnists, who only care about the terrorists, not the terrorists victims - it is they who are part of the problem.

[General Kane Nash]

Withdraw from Iraq? yeah sure, that would help everyone, what we know by historic experience is that everytime west countries decided to retreat from a conflict the country in question ends controlled by an opressive regiment, It happened in Russia at the early 20th century, also in Germany (the pacifist politics of the Nation Society was all what Hitler need to conquer most of Europe) and in Chine, just consider the amount of people killed during the cultural revolution, obviously to retreat from a country like Iraq would ensure this zone of the world will get unstable and dangerous for its human population for long centuries, and all bcs of what? Bcs the people of one country with all the necesary power to change the tide of the history hadnt enough balls to do what was right.

[ozwally]

Was a bad idea in the first place tbh, lets just hope the lesson is learned for both UK/USA, afterall was Sadam threatening to nuke us, no. It's created alot more trouble than we had before. As for terroists, wheres the evidence Irag was harbouring them?

[General Kane Nash]

Was a bad idea in the first place tbh, lets just hope the lesson is learned for both UK/USA, afterall was Sadam threatening to nuke us, no. It's created alot more trouble than we had before. As for terroists, wheres the evidence Irag was harbouring them?
Well, dont know about the past, but you just have to watch the news to see that actually there is a lot of terrorist activity on Iraq...

[KrasnyOktyabr]

Let me just clarifty before I start throwing my opinions out there, I have not been to Iraq yet, so I do not feel I can give a good assessment of how things are 'over there'. However I am stuck here with the 1st Signal Brigade in Korea, and I can see the effects of the war quite clearly. We've got a lot of crombat veterans in the unit, and I've not heard one say we should pull out. I've heard them talk both negatively and positively of their time there. I've heard a lot said of the Iraqi people. They however really tend to avoid giving their opinions of the war itself. You're more likely to hear a soldier say that he thinks we should pull out of Korea than you are Iraq. Does it necessarily mean he thinks we should stay in Iraq? Does he think we should pull out? No, it's just how soldiers traditionally are. We do our jobs and we keep the bitching to ourselves. However, units not in Iraq are noticeably not getting the same funding they were two years ago, though that I would say is a given- it happens during wartime. The real problem we're having is the troop rotations. There are soldiers who go from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to Korea and won't see home in three years. I know people in those situations. I know people that go to Iraq with one unit, go to a new duty station, and Bam! back in Iraq. It's wearing soldiers down. I wouldn't be surprised if they started pulling 'non-deployable*' OCONUS units and sending them to Iraq to relieve pressure from the stateside units. This will sure kick some of those who pull multiple tours in those places to avoid the war right in the ass. However, you still have to rotate them out, and replace them with who? The same people that just left Iraq.

That is just what the Army is going through, the Reserves and Guard are in a worse spot. I'm not going to give you my opinion on the war, but looking on I don't know if the Army could handle 10 more years of this. We're already dipping into the Air Force and Navy budgets. Wish the Marines would pick up more rotations, they've got a lot of units stateside doing nothing.



*These units, such as the ones in Korea, are not really non-deployable. However they are tasked with holding things down in their respective regions and have yet to be deployed. This has given some soldiers the impression that said units will never be deployed. They'll get one hell of an eye opening within the next two years I'm sure.

[whano123]

Bush will not sign this latest bill with the date of withdrawl included in it. They won't be able to override his veto either. Just watch, they are going crack and get him a clean bill, they know the troops are going to be effected negatively unless they do.

Otherwise, congress has the constitutional authority to use the power of the purse and cut the funding. Which maybe the next step they take.

[SgtRicko]

You need objectives and visible goals in conflicts so as to know what and when something needs to be done. However, in Iraq, we don't have that. There is no clear enemy, no clear objective, nor any visible target or person to capture or eliminate (i.e., Saddam and Al-Zarqawui -- Al-Sadr really doesn't count, cause that guy is just a damn puppet; kill him, and another dumb loudmouth would take his place and call fatwah in a matter of weeks). Even worse, we got politicians running the war, which is essentially the Cardinal Sin of conflicts, since they care more for their own policies than they do the realities of a battlefield. But worst of all is the local populace, who in all honesty seem content to have the s*** beat out of them by a bunch of squabbling sects and organizations who really don't give a damn about what will happen in Iraq, for better or worse.


I honestly think that the Coalition has done the best that they can for a country like this. We have accomplished the original objectives that we came for, which was the elimination of Saddam and his govt., the confirmation of whether or not he had WMDs (which he probably had none), and wiping out any potential for Saddam supporting any terror groups. Therefore in a sense, we have accomplished our mission.

EDIT: Ahhh crap, my message got cut up for some reason or another - I lost a coupla paragraphs there! If it seems sorta cut off, it's cause it is folks: I had few more lines here and there. But still, it seems to get the point across, so no biggie!;)

[hissingnewt]

My question is, do the democrats care if our soldiers actually live or die? Or do they just use the war in Iraq for political leverage? Probably the latter. They don't provide reasonable solutions to it either. Pulling out screws the whole country and puts them at the mercy of the insurgents. Staying in means more good soldiers will die, but they volunteered to go there. I'm sorry for them and their families if they die, but they chose to be there. Most of the Iraqi's did not choose ti be there and can't leave.

[SgtRicko]

Most of the Iraqi's did not choose ti be there and can't leave.

Actually, some do have a choice, and can escape if they wanted to: thing is, they want to stay behind and "try to save their country" out of some sense of cultural pride and all.

[hissingnewt]

Actually, most don't have an option to go anywhere. They don't have the money to leave because if they have a house, who wants to buy one in Iraq?

[KrasnyOktyabr]

Or, you know, they want to stay there- it being their place of origin and all.

Anyhow, I don't really think the Democrats care about the armed forces. I think they want out of Iraq for political gain, yes, and I think they'll end up going to some sad lengths before this is over to get us out. I can honestly see the Democrats, and some Republicans too, slowly killing the funding for this war. Taking money away from the military, only because they want out and they're not getting what they want. I can see the Bush administration doing the most they can to stay in Iraq, even with budget cuts. I see the military, the Army in particular, getting caught between the two sides and basically being screwed over royally.

Personally I feel the government, on all sides, couldn't give two shakes of a stick about the well being of our military or of its servicemembers.

[hissingnewt]

Personally I feel the government, on all sides, couldn't give two shakes of a stick about the well being of our military or of its servicemembers.

I agree. Most of them use the military to gain political appeal with certain groups of people. I'm thinking they're even worse off if Hillary Clinton is elected than any other democrats.

[NuclearDreams]

I'm not sure which party is more likely to support the troops, though historically the Republicans have leaned in that direction. When I was in the Air Force security forces, stationed in Korea from 1983 to 1984, I remember that we still had Vietnam era M-16s, helmets, body armour and armoured vehicles such as the M113.

We were the frontline defense for nuclear and chemical bombs, missles and other high priority weapons systems. Our means of protective defense and recovery offense were laughable at best. When Reagan took office in 1981, generals from the Air Force's SAC saw their opportunity to aquire the equipment needed for the security forces long overdue overhaul. Upon reviewing the appalling condition of the U.S. Air Force's security forces Reagan ordered an immediate injection of extensive training and modern equipment. The security forces changed almost overnight, the training apparatus was already in place just waiting for orders and funds to begin. Modern weapons from the U.S. Army were re-directed to the Air Force, and a steady build up of high tech detection systems dominated the Air Force's priorities for the following 8 years.

[eLDiablo]

Bush will not sign this latest bill with the date of withdrawl included in it. They won't be able to override his veto either. Just watch, they are going crack and get him a clean bill, they know the troops are going to be effected negatively unless they do.


There is plenty left in the coffers, so the bill is not as high a priority as the media and the president are making it out to be. And no they wont crack, all that will happen is that they continue this dance, all while Bush and his team spin it to place the blame on the Democrats, continuing to prove that he really is the worst president we've ever ****ing had.

[nilloC]

There is plenty left in the coffers, so the bill is not as high a priority as the media and the president are making it out to be. And no they wont crack, all that will happen is that they continue this dance, all while Bush and his team spin it to place the blame on the Democrats, continuing to prove that he really is the worst president we've ever ****ing had.

QFT.

To be honest, do you think remaining in Iraq for another 8-10 years will really help at all? Do you think the lives spent will be worth the possibility that maybe, maybe, MAYBE there can be a democracy over in Iraq?

Here's a nice little fact: Democracy is a Western invention. It works fantastically for Capitalism, because it gives leverage to those who trim corners, compete with others and have a strong belief in the protestant work ethic. A big "Type A" Personality system. Do you feel Iraq is the same? Do you honestly believe Democracy will survive over there, after another 10 years of our troops dying for a cause that wasn't very just in the first place?

None of us here are warmongers, obviously. We all want what is best for the world, but sometimes the senseless killing has just got to stop. I don't side with Republicans OR Democrats; both of them are complete dumb-**** parties just trying to get popularity. I just feel it is unfortunate that the pawns in this power struggle are the lives of our troops.

[Ace]

Please im not from america but i want to learn moore so what is QTF?

[KrasnyOktyabr]

Quoted for truth.

[Kinetic]

War is needed. Without war we cannot know peace, without death we cannot know life. With that being said, it has been debated whether humans are actually warmongers, some say yes, some say no, with no definitive answer. I would presume that we are both, we enjoy peace and war to break the monotony of every day life. The overal public is filled with idiots and retards. People only hate the Iraq war because they are bored with it, much like everything else. If democrats spend too much time in office we get bored and go Republican and vice versa. People are too incompetent to have a "true" democracy which is "mob rule", rough Greek translation.

Whether or not Democracy will survive in Iraq is yet to be determined and I could honestly care less. I am sure there are many reasons for us still being in Iraq of which I cannot grasp and some at which I can guess. Either way I can only assume it is for the greater good for our country. granted, I do not enjoy our "police" stature in the world, but for those that do they may be able to comprehend why we are in Iraq and be it founding morals to help a nation that has been tarnished by war throughout its history, or oil that will keep our tanks running once supplies run low (in the not too far future might I add, according to economists) all it sums up to is something that is being done that is worth or not worth it but for a reason non the less.

I do not claim to support either side of the argument, just realize the other perspective and you may not be so blinded by the boredom of hate to see the truth behind the actions.

[nilloC]

War is needed. Without war we cannot know peace, without death we cannot know life. With that being said, it has been debated whether humans are actually warmongers, some say yes, some say no, with no definitive answer. I would presume that we are both, we enjoy peace and war to break the monotony of every day life. The overal public is filled with idiots and retards. People only hate the Iraq war because they are bored with it, much like everything else. If democrats spend too much time in office we get bored and go Republican and vice versa. People are too incompetent to have a "true" democracy which is "mob rule", rough Greek translation.

Whether or not Democracy will survive in Iraq is yet to be determined and I could honestly care less. I am sure there are many reasons for us still being in Iraq of which I cannot grasp and some at which I can guess. Either way I can only assume it is for the greater good for our country. granted, I do not enjoy our "police" stature in the world, but for those that do they may be able to comprehend why we are in Iraq and be it founding morals to help a nation that has been tarnished by war throughout its history, or oil that will keep our tanks running once supplies run low (in the not too far future might I add, according to economists) all it sums up to is something that is being done that is worth or not worth it but for a reason non the less.


A wonderful example of not caring about the other people in the world. I didn't know we enjoyed war to break the monotony of life. C'mon.

I know this as well as you do, war isn't a sport. Generally the basic reason for wars occuring are a dispute over resources. It may not be hard, materialistic resources, but resources none the less. I am one of the people that believe wars can never be avoided. It is dumb and idealistic to be a "love love- hate never exists" kind of person. However I do believe there is good, and good intentions, in all people. There is no fundamental root evil.

I (this is my own personal opinion) just feel this war is being disadvantageous and detrimental not only to America but Iraq and every other country involved. No one country has anything positive to gain from this, only a further plummet into aggression. Don't get me wrong, I support our troops and back them. But I feel that the continuous killing going on is really not improving anything.

We should stop asking if this is for the greater good of the country and instead ask ourselves if this is for the greater good of the world and mankind in general. This close-minded competition for resources does nothing but further hurt humanity. Sure it can spur technological races (threats of resources being overtaken is a great motivator) and leaps and bounds (Look at the space race). What I feel is ironic about America's "Policing Stanz" is that it isn't advantageous to America, nor the countries we are policing.

A true Debbie Downer moment.

[Wrecking Crew]

"War is Hell", so why do we insist on living in a perpetual state of war in one country or another? The answer it seems, is that humans were born to conflict. We fight to get born, we fight to get to the top of the pack and we fight to earn a living. To top it off, we get married just so we can enjoy more conflict at home.

OK, I'm just kidding around there. :D

My personal opinion about the Iraqi war is just that, my personal opinion. Stating them here is pointless and unproductive. No one gives a damn about my opinions and to be honest, nothing will change in Iraq just because this forum discusses the problems there.

[ShadowClaw]

The answer it seems, is that humans were born to conflict.

You do have a point. All you see on the major news stations is stuff about shootings, bombings, terrorist acts, and other acts of violence. Sure there are other stories on the major networks but the majority of stories deal with death and/or conflict in some form.

Anyhow like Wrecking Crew said, that is just my personal opinion.

~Shadowclaw

[Kinetic]

A wonderful example of not caring about the other people in the world. I didn't know we enjoyed war to break the monotony of life. C'mon.
I don't care, as I said. Now you know. G'day.

I know this as well as you do, war isn't a sport. Generally the basic reason for wars occuring are a dispute over resources. It may not be hard, materialistic resources, but resources none the less. I am one of the people that believe wars can never be avoided. It is dumb and idealistic to be a "love love- hate never exists" kind of person. However I do believe there is good, and good intentions, in all people. There is no fundamental root evil.
Then you obviously see that there is a reason for the war. Whether your tolerance for it is good or bad is decided by many factors and one being how bored you are of the war. Many people like to complain about things, especially when they have nothing at stake, however, you can bet that while most find it a tragic event to loose US soldiers fail to see that #1 Its Iraq War not Iraq happy sunshine pal hour, #2 fail to see larger objectives, and #3 fail to see anything beyond an egotistical and ethnocentrical view, what about the poor Iraq people? The women and children that have to live in tyranny? Sure war is bad and sacrifice must be made but no oneever wants to be the sacrifice and that is hypocricy at its best.

I (this is my own personal opinion) just feel this war is being disadvantageous and detrimental not only to America but Iraq and every other country involved. No one country has anything positive to gain from this, only a further plummet into aggression. Don't get me wrong, I support our troops and back them. But I feel that the continuous killing going on is really not improving anything.
I will guess and say one of the reasons were there is for oil, granted this isnt the only reason I believe, but is a driving factor to the tenacity of the government. The oil reserves at current should be fine for another 20 years economists estimate and after that oil prices should start to skyrocket and years after that no oil. Oil is a fossil fuel of which we have a limited amount of earth and it takes a LONG time to reproduce. Without the oil reserves secured our freedom will be in jeapardy 20-30 years later when war breaks out over it and we have no fuel for our tanks and jet fighters. Granted this is all on the high side, but its not too wrong to be cautious. P.S. Ethanol takes up roughly the same amount of oil needed to create it so it evens out with oil at the end. Also, while I do not enjoy being the world police I do find it necessary sometimes to help another nation as we did in WW2. By the end of the war everyone wanted out of the war and hated the war...imagine that. Here we are fighting Nazi Germany and saving Jews from genocide and mass murder and we are tired of fighting. Sound similar?

We should stop asking if this is for the greater good of the country and instead ask ourselves if this is for the greater good of the world and mankind in general. This close-minded competition for resources does nothing but further hurt humanity. Sure it can spur technological races (threats of resources being overtaken is a great motivator) and leaps and bounds (Look at the space race). What I feel is ironic about America's "Policing Stanz" is that it isn't advantageous to America, nor the countries we are policing.

A true Debbie Downer moment.


tell that to Communist China, and the Iraq insurgents as well as the other countries of the world bidding for power and resources. As you said earlier, the world is not a happy happy place all the time and I would bet sporaic war and deciet proliferate during a time of limited resources. Morals are many-a-times derived from power. also, note there is a difference between policing and helping. As mentioned earlier I do not enjoy policing, however, I wouldnt mind helping as we did in Nazi Germany. The difference is a matter of personal opinion, although, to make a sound judgement one should know ALL of the facts. As shown again back in WW2.

~Cheers

[Ariss(DJ)]

QFT.
To be honest, do you think remaining in Iraq for another 8-10 years will really help at all? Do you think the lives spent will be worth the possibility that maybe, maybe, MAYBE there can be a democracy over in Iraq?
Here's a nice little fact: Democracy is a Western invention. It works fantastically for Capitalism, because it gives leverage to those who trim corners, compete with others and have a strong belief in the protestant work ethic. A big "Type A" Personality system. Do you feel Iraq is the same? Do you honestly believe Democracy will survive over there, after another 10 years of our troops dying for a cause that wasn't very just in the first place?
None of us here are warmongers, obviously. We all want what is best for the world, but sometimes the senseless killing has just got to stop. I don't side with Republicans OR Democrats; both of them are complete dumb-**** parties just trying to get popularity. I just feel it is unfortunate that the pawns in this power struggle are the lives of our troops.

True.