Topic: Iraq not mistake but strategy?

[The Doctor]

why are we talking about this rather than how it can be avoided?

Because the thread is about if the war in Iraq is really just a plan to lure out terrorists and the implications of the situation if it is. 

I think that it is stupid to, but morality has little to do with it.

So it's ok to go through with a plan that you know will cause more damage than it will benefits...it's ok to throw away resources...in this case lives?

As for discrimination, the US has gone to great lengths to only kill those who are firing back.  Saddam killed all those who disagreed with him in any way, shape or form.  That's a far larger group of people than those actively fighting your troops.

What about the civilians killed in the bombing? The people who have died thinking they were preserving their religion? The collatoral damage to the civilian sector from the firefights between the Coalition forces and the resistence?

Go take a look at my link.  I assume nothing, I'm doing nothing but stating facts provided by Saddam's own records and the reports of eyewitnesses.  They all say the kill rate was 70-125 people per day, which I, by doing my own math: number of Iraqi's killed divided by days the US has been in Iraq, came up with thirty per day.  That means it's at 42% of Saddam's record.  But don't take my word for it, go and look at the numbers for yourself.

Ummm....I don't see where on the site you gave it gives the numbers for Iraqis killed overall furing Saddam's regime...Also does the number of Iraqis killed since the US invasion take into account those killed by medical conditions because they couldn't have access to the supplies they needed?

ave you seen the footage from Iraq, when reporters interview soliders?  When they ask, why are you fighting, the top two answers are to free the Iraqi people, and defend the United States.  While the second reason makes little sense, it is still a reason.

So you're saying they can't give a unified reason of why they're in Iraq? Wasn't the origional reason because of some sort of WMD? Also that doesn't address my points about where and who your foe is. 

Also you should study your history of the Arab world...they kill everyone when they are at war, because if you leave anyone alive they will grow into a threat once more.  No the pregnant women wouldn't be a threat right now...but when they raise their children with the view that the US is made up of godless heathens that must be destroyed? What about the 6 year old childen who have have no mother because of the carpet bombing? Think they like the US a lot? Unless the US kills every single person opposing them, this battle will continue. 

[Calus Drakin]

As for discrimination, the US has gone to great lengths to only kill those who are firing back.  Saddam killed all those who disagreed with him in any way, shape or form.  That's a far larger group of people than those actively fighting your troops.

Actually, this is contrary to what almost every member of the military has said here where I live when they actually get the chance to come home for a little while. About 70% of the casualties are civilian from what I've been told. Not that they're happy about it, but as you showed, they take a solemn vow to follow orders.

Another thing, if all the muslims rose against the US, it would definately be with women and children. I recall a couple new reports about some of the attacks against the US in Iraq, the suicide bombers were women. So they are already taking part, as for the kids, just look at TheOnlySpiral's comment.

[Scars]

<<Uhhh, no, they wouldn't.  Those actually doing the fighting need stuff like, say, bullets, and maybe, food.  Some clothes would probably be nice, along with possibly some fuel for the tanks and who knows, maybe even some missles, if they want to spring for them.>>

Do you actually realise how many weapons and ammunition is floating round in the Middle East? There are 3 weapons for every person in Yemen, and that's about average for the Middle East. Plus many miltant organisations raise millions independently every year- Hamas and Hizbullah being the best examples of this. They have all these things and if they need them, they can get them. Or they can make them, the more recent versions of the Quassam rocket have been getting better and better, not to mention the widescale production of bombs, mortars and other such weaponary. Look at Lebanon, Arabs alone managed to drive the Jew and the American from its boarders. They can do it again if needs be. 

<<And unless I miss my mark, current arab views on gender would prevent all women from taking up arms, and unless they have no morals whatsoever, six year olds and sixty year old men would be excluded from warfare too.>>

Under the Islamic, and Jewish and Christian for that matter, religion you are an adult at the age of 14. Just like it use to be in Europe. This whole 18-21 thing is a more recent invention designed to pamper and shelter youth from the realities of the world for as long as possible. So when people starts creaming about Hamas using 'child soldiers', no. They are not children, nor are they forced to do anything. Hamas is a completely voluntary organisation. Women don't fight? I invite you to look to Iran, there is a state run all women paramilitary organisation. Hamas has female fighters. There have been female suicide bombers. Hizbullah has female fighters.

<<I don't care what country or other group you care to name, but the majority of any wartime effort is not on the battlefield.  Logistics are what really matter in a fight.>>

Arabs (and other racial groups in the Middle East) have conducted many long and successful guerrilla wars and have some of the longest standing and most sucessful guerilla organisations on the face of the planet based in the Middle East. Their logistical systems are fine.

[The Doctor]

Do you actually realise how many weapons and ammunition is floating round in the Middle East? There are 3 weapons for every person in Yemen, and that's about average for the Middle East.

That is a lot more than even I thought...wow is all I can say.'

Look at Lebanon, Arabs alone managed to drive the Jew and the American from its boarders. They can do it again if needs be. 

SHHHH don't bring that up...the Americans don't like to hear about their failures.

Arabs (and other racial groups in the Middle East) have conducted many long and successful guerrilla wars and have some of the longest standing and most sucessful guerilla organisations on the face of the planet based in the Middle East. Their logistical systems are fine.

Their logistic systems are a lot more efficent and safe than coalition lines...friendly territory, shorter lines, non-obvious places to store their equipent...

[TheCol.]

I am myself not a fan of war or bloodshed (I was in Rwanda, 1994(at that time a very very junior leuitenant).

There are times when war is necessary however. I do not think that Saddam Hussein should have been allowed to continue his reign.

I myself am ashamed that Canada let two of our oldest allies go into a war practically themselves, to depose a tyrant responsible for thousands of deaths.

Canada is supposed to listen to the U.N., but the U.N. was wrong. they were wrong in Kosovo, and they were wrong in Rwanda, why should they be trusted with Iraq?

Frankly I am even more ashamed of the U.N., it should look itself in the mirror and make some major changes. I thought it was there to protect people. Apparently only if you are rich and white...     

[Chuckles, The Angry Warhammer Clown]

The U.N has rarely if ever demonstrated a soft spot for white rich people, like for example George W Bush. It's a bureaucracy, and more to the point it is a completely new idea that has only been imitated once by it's predecessor (the League of Nations), which didn't work because in fact very few countries really agreed that such a strong international community should exist. The U.N is not perfect, but it didn't sanction a war on a country on the basis of it's owning Weapons of Mass Destruction that, in fact it didn't have.

[TheCol.]

O, i didn't mean it should sanction a war for that reason. The WMD is a crock.

It should however have spotted and tried to stop the humanitarian issues. Anyway, got to go, my units on the range in 20.

[Iron-Hand Ace]

What about the civilians killed in the bombing? The people who have died thinking they were preserving their religion? The collatoral damage to the civilian sector from the firefights between the Coalition forces and the resistence?

Kept to an absoulete minimum by strict rules of engagement and very, very accurate munitions.  And quite frankly, if they were shooting at troops because they thought they were preserving their religion, they just lost their civilian status and are fair game.

Ummm....I don't see where on the site you gave it gives the numbers for Iraqis killed overall furing Saddam's regime...Also does the number of Iraqis killed since the US invasion take into account those killed by medical conditions because they couldn't have access to the supplies they needed?

Quite right, I forgot to post the right link.  Here you go:

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

And I have no idea about the other Iraqi's, though I expect it would include them.  However, if you find a sourse saying otherwise, feel free to post.

So you're saying they can't give a unified reason of why they're in Iraq? Wasn't the origional reason because of some sort of WMD? Also that doesn't address my points about where and who your foe is.

No, they can't, which is actually quite shameful when you look at it.  However, your original point, that they don't know why they're fighting, is still disproven.  If you can convince the Iraqis to meet the military in actual combat, please do so, for the sake of our troops.  But if you can't, I don't think the military is going to leave because the going got tough.  I also think that if you ask any solider whether they'd rather die or have a mental disorder, the vast majority will answer #1.

Think they like the US a lot? Unless the US kills every single person opposing them, this battle will continue. 

Don't temp them, the US is one of the few countries that could actually make good on a threat like that.

Actually, this is contrary to what almost every member of the military has said here where I live when they actually get the chance to come home for a little while. About 70% of the casualties are civilian from what I've been told. Not that they're happy about it, but as you showed, they take a solemn vow to follow orders.

I find this unlikely, but if you find me a sourse, as usual, I'll change my opinion.

Do you actually realise how many weapons and ammunition is floating round in the Middle East?

Do you have any idea who MADE all those weapons?  Industralised first world nations like, say, the United States?  Yes, other nations sell to Arab Nations, but they have very little capasity to actually make new weapons for themselves.  They also don't have the latest equipment, as those weapons which are sold are mostly those which are being phased out by a new type.  That's why the vast majority of insurgents are using AK-47s.

Women don't fight? I invite you to look to Iran, there is a state run all women paramilitary organisation. Hamas has female fighters. There have been female suicide bombers. Hizbullah has female fighters.

Take a look, Iran is a center of equal rights:
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/khatami.htm

Arabs (and other racial groups in the Middle East) have conducted many long and successful guerrilla wars and have some of the longest standing and most sucessful guerilla organisations on the face of the planet based in the Middle East. Their logistical systems are fine.

You're assuming that there would be a US invasion, which would be quite stupid for all the reasons you just stated.  Instead, lets poision the air, irradiate the deserts, and make biological weapons as common as dirt.  Lets seal the borders to arab nationals, increase security, or even just build a wall across the canadian and mexician borders, so that no terrorists can strike at home.  Don't start down this path, you lose before you begin.

[The Doctor]

Kept to an absoulete minimum by strict rules of engagement and very, very accurate munitions.  And quite frankly, if they were shooting at troops because they thought they were preserving their religion, they just lost their civilian status and are fair game.

If the casualties inflicted during the intial bombings were absolutely minimized, than the US military is grossly incompetant and has no place making war. 

Quite right, I forgot to post the right link.  Here you go:
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
And I have no idea about the other Iraqi's, though I expect it would include them.  However, if you find a sourse saying otherwise, feel free to post.

First of all: this article is over two years old...civilian casualties have gone up quite a bit since then.  This is the site that I give the most creedance to: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
They know their stuff.

Don't temp them, the US is one of the few countries that could actually make good on a threat like that.

Then they should.  War is about killing people when you get down to it.  Whether or not there is another goal is irrelevant...you are killing people all the same.  And if the US is afraid to fight a "total war", then they shouldn't be fighting a war at all. 

You're assuming that there would be a US invasion, which would be quite stupid for all the reasons you just stated.  Instead, lets poision the air, irradiate the deserts, and make biological weapons as common as dirt.

Better that, then pissing around for a year in a country that no longer wants you there. 

I am myself not a fan of war or bloodshed (I was in Rwanda, 1994(at that time a very very junior leuitenant). 

I have a lot of respect for what you and the task force did there.

I myself am ashamed that Canada let two of our oldest allies go into a war practically themselves...

"Because they're doing it..." is not a good reason to send troops to fight in a conflict.  To use an old adage "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"

...to depose a tyrant responsible for thousands of deaths.

The US went in to make money for the rich elite and flex their muscle...there was no other reason there.  Taking out Saddam and terrorists was a back up reason when they found out he had no WMDs. 

nada is supposed to listen to the U.N., but the U.N. was wrong. they were wrong in Kosovo, and they were wrong in Rwanda, why should they be trusted with Iraq?

The UN is a useless old relic and needs to be reworked.  The UN just so happened to be right this time.  The US and the coalition are signatory members of the UN...they should listen the way they said they would instead of pissing in any pond they want. 

[Captain Leonidas]

Do you have any idea who MADE all those weapons?  Industralised first world nations like, say, the United States?  Yes, other nations sell to Arab Nations, but they have very little capasity to actually make new weapons for themselves.  They also don't have the latest equipment, as those weapons which are sold are mostly those which are being phased out by a new type.  That's why the vast majority of insurgents are using AK-47s.

God, it is irrelevant to concern yourselves with WHICH country made those weapons! It should be concerned more on WHO sold it to them (of course double blow for the country who MADE and SOLD them). For your record, they used to get a hold on French and surplus German guns.
And it seems you clearly underestimate the productivity of Arabs. A 15 year old in Arab can assemble and disassemble an AK47 in a timed run and are capable to make replacement clips with wood!

[Scars]

<<Do you have any idea who MADE all those weapons?  Industralised first world nations like, say, the United States?  Yes, other nations sell to Arab Nations, but they have very little capasity to actually make new weapons for themselves.  They also don't have the latest equipment, as those weapons which are sold are mostly those which are being phased out by a new type.  That's why the vast majority of insurgents are using AK-47s.>>

Who cares who made many of the weapons? They are there, guerrillas can and are producing new ammunition (it's not particularly hard if you have the right equipment, and everything relating to the AK-47 is simple). Not to mention Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya etc have large arms industries.

<<Take a look, Iran is a center of equal rights:
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/khatami.htm>>

This has nothing to do with human rights, this has to do with women fighters. Besides, I'd invite you to look at the US and their friends in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan (and all of Central Asia really), Russia etc human rights record. Iran ain't got nothing on what Russia is doing in Chechnya. Chechen rebels, many of whom aren't Chechen and lack mass support, kill some children (the Russians kill more 'saving' them) and you have it on the news for weeks. The next week Russian troops slaughter several hundred Chechen civilians fleeing the fighting and no one gives a damn. "Let he who is without sin be the first to cast the stone".

<<You're assuming that there would be a US invasion, which would be quite stupid for all the reasons you just stated.  Instead, lets poision the air, irradiate the deserts, and make biological weapons as common as dirt.  Lets seal the borders to arab nationals, increase security, or even just build a wall across the canadian and mexician borders, so that no terrorists can strike at home.  Don't start down this path, you lose before you begin.>>

Actually statistically most Muslims are Asian, followed by African. Arabs only make up around 17% of the total Muslim population. The war would be centred in teh Middle East as that's where the holy sites are, but there would be fighting throughout the whole East (from China to Indonesia, India to Pakistan, Russia to Uzbekistan) and Europe (Bosnia etc). If teh USA was to wage any sort of war on Islam as a religion it would have to fight on more than a dozen fronts. As for walling up the Mexican and Canadian boarders, there are many, many Muslims in America already and as Timmy McVey proved, making big bombs is very, very easy in the states. Not to mention you being able to buy military style weapons incredibly easily if you're in the right state. Racial profiling, no matter how much America would like to think so, does not work for Islam. I'm a average looking white guy and a Muslim. Watch me walk through your airport system unmolested! Look at me easily fly to Tel Aviv! Whee!   

[Calus Drakin]

Actually, this is contrary to what almost every member of the military has said here where I live when they actually get the chance to come home for a little while. About 70% of the casualties are civilian from what I've been told. Not that they're happy about it, but as you showed, they take a solemn vow to follow orders.

I find this unlikely, but if you find me a sourse, as usual, I'll change my opinion.

Well, being one of the least informed here, I don't know of any source, other then getting the people I know in the military to post on here in person. Which I know can't be taken for too much, because there's no way that I know of that they can prove who they are on here. Plus with the american media being as censored as it is, that's something I'm never going to hear on the news or an american based documentary 

[Africa_Shocks]

Ok i'm new to this discussion so i'll say this...

I think yourr all virtually agreed that if the war was strategic to bring out the terrorists, then it wasn't thought out very well. I have to agree with many of you on the moraly reprehensible nature of such a strategy. If they wanted to draw the terrorists out you should do it on your own territory and experience the impacts yourself.

It was NOT a win/win situation ThrawnVictorious, as the invasion was sloppy and poorly planned out. it was motivated by W's political timetable and if more time and care had been taken then a lot of the current problems could have been avoided. I'm of the belife that more time and a proper justification would have led to an international effort to depose sadam. That is the ONLY justifiable reason for the war.

Iraq has suffered massive civilian casualties & infrastructural damage, national destabilization, political instability with suspect validity and it has become a country infested by terrorists. These are some seriously negative factors and I doubt Iraq will be a stable democracy in the next ten years. SO there is not Win for iraq, they have lost a dictator but gained instability and terrorism. There is no win for the US, as it has probably generated more terrorists than they have killed with all this talk of crusades and anti-islamic feeling, and have lost many american lives. The bill for the operation is massive, but that's about the only thing that will balance in the long run, what with the iraqi oil flowing again.

One more thing, I don't think the discussion about who would win in a Islam Vs US war is going anywhere. They would both lose, simply because both would have nukes available to them. I will say that the US is a much more compact target than the islamic world, but that's neither here nor there.

[Chuckles, The Angry Warhammer Clown]

I think yourr all virtually agreed that if the war was strategic to bring out the terrorists, then it wasn't thought out very well. I have to agree with many of you on the moraly reprehensible nature of such a strategy. If they wanted to draw the terrorists out you should do it on your own territory and experience the impacts yourself

While using your own citizens as bait has the moral high ground over using other people, it tends not to go down too well with the people in your country who have just been bombed. Fighting such a conventional war using anyone as bait is really not going to work in any case.

[dinurium]

   Im not going to read through all of these posts because, to be frank, if you are not in the military,I doubt you have an educated strategy. Easy to be an arm chair coach when your decisions dont affect other's lives.  I have no opinion on the war perse. I dont know if it could be done better.  I agree with the OP.  Im glad the fighting is not on American soil.  American deaths dont make me happy, niether do muslim deaths, neither do HUMAN deaths for that matter.
  I actually have many Muslim friends and they tell me we are fighting the good fight. As a country with amazing power, I think we owe it to the thousands of moral HUMAN beings that live over there.  I dont agree with pulling out now and to attack the war effort is counter productive.  We are there for a reason, we should finish the job.  Anything less than that would be a travesty.  We all have friends that have and we all have friends that are shipping out.  We owe it to our families to be supportive of them.
  Read the news, listen to the radio.  The terrorist attacks are directed at everyone.  Not just Americans.  Iraqi families are dieing almost daily.  Whats their crime?  Wanting to vote.  If Suadi Arabian's started the war, the terrosist attacks would be in their soil.  Whats the majority religion over there? They are Muslim.  They are human, they are good people that want to live their lives in accordance to their religion in safety.  As a Super Power that set out to give them that (regardless of all the other stuff... i.e. oil... bush's involvement with the bin laddens.. rich getting richer) we have a moral obligation to ALL of HUMANITY to ensure them the same rights we as Americans consider birth right.7

[Chuckles, The Angry Warhammer Clown]

Yes, but the rights Americans consider as necessary aren't all ones that Muslim nations would give a toss about (the right to assembly is one notable one that many of my Muslim friends, usually those not born in the UK, don't understand). It's all very well to try and provide rights to people, but forcing your own beliefs on others is not the right way to go about it. I agree that the terrorist attacks are aimed at everyone, which is why I oppose the US invasion (but everyone please bear in mind that the UK is out there as well, the US is not solely to blame). You can never defeat terrorists by waging war on them, it simply doesn't work.

[xentrobik]

I am no fan of murder what so ever BUT to quote spock the needs of the many out way the needs of the few or one.
those civillians that were killed is a tragerdy but saddam had to be removed he was pure evil in every way he is one man i would see dead.
I fully support bush's decission to invade Iraq whether or not there were or were not weapons of mass destruction the man was evil and he killed far more civillians than the Americans did.

Is this something that you have all forgotten???

think about this if saddam was still in power how many civvies would he have tortured poisoned and murdered by now the answer is far far more thwe the Americans.
(No I'm not an American I'm a Britt and proud to be.)

[Full Metal Geneticist]

The problem is the statement the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few can be used to explain away everything. Like in iraq, a comparatively moderate society which was developing under a brutal dictatorship but which was still not as brutal as say saudi arabia, burma, china, indonesia, thailand. Saddam may have killed a lot of people, but the UN sanctions and american bombing killed a lot more.

Meet an iraqi to find out the definition of a moderate. They as a bunch of people were nice, hard working people who valued education and actually respected the people who helped develop their country. Talk to a saudi or a kuwaiti and you would think their countries built themselves, not the countless thousands of indians, pakistanis, bangladeshis and phillipinos who make up their engineers, workers, doctors, nurses and just about every other service you care to name. An iraqi would remember what these people did for them. The town of Hindiya was a worker town for bangladeshis and pakistani expartriates who would come to work for the iraqis by building oil wells, driving trucks and just generally being workers. Now they are a bitter people, from the top dog of the middle east to the most horrible wretches. From living in a society similar to lebanon where women were equals to men, to a society where they hide in fear of extremist retribution.

A step back IMHO. There were other ways to achieve a change and now there are none, a balance to the religious despot was lost and now the place is unstable as hell.

This war is'nt to bring out terrorists. Infact its probably making more terrorists than its killing.  If so then its like attempting to kill flies with a hammer. You gonna kill one or two but more than likely you are going to hit something else. In the words of a famous thinker "Don't worry m'lord, I have a cunning plan."

[xentrobik]

I do agree with you.
But the one main problem with today is terrorism you can never stomp it out there will always be someone who will kill by the dozens to in the name of something. Personally i don't think they give a damn about their religions to kill someone every day is brutal murder in my book.
I wish the civil countries of the planet would come together to remove all the evil men in power like saddam but sadly that will never happen.
plus such an act would insigate World War III
some of the torturing scum that i have seen i tell you this if i saw them again i would not think twice about stopping them.
but the likely hood of that happening is one in a million.
because they are in the violent countries and i am in a safe countrie.

when you have seen this evil with your own eyes and not infront of the news with your dinner you will understand.

[Hulls Raven]

Stuff world War III all we need to do is send in the special forces and Assassinate the evil leaders and there generals they gave up the right to life when they decided to murder innocent people who just want to live.