AGuSTiN wrote:So be the article's definition, wolves attack and sheepdogs protect. Iraq didn't attack us, ever. We attacked it. Twice.
AGuSTiN wrote:^^
Sure, but they didn't attack us. I understand the reasoning of why we went to Kuwait, but is it the sheepdog's duty to protect flocks that aren't theirs?
Luke wrote:To anyone who thinks we shouldnt be in Iraq, I would like for you to come over here and talk to the Iraqi people. Talk to the people who's families are being killed every day by insurgent violence. After all, its not just insurgents against Americans here, its Suni's against Shiites against Kurds.
Luke wrote:One of the problems with the war in Iraq, is that this culture has created a large number of "sheep" and "wolves" and not many "sheep dogs". It doesnt matter whether or not you think America should have ousted Sadaam, the fact is that we did. And if we leave now, the country will be destroyed..
Luke wrote:The governement is not yet capable of controlling the insurgency, terrorists would flock to Iraq as it would become a land of "anything goes". An Iraq without the U.S. presence would become a training ground, and safe-haven for terrorists from many countries.
Luke wrote:Iraq differs from Vietnam, my father was in Vietnam, I am in Iraq.....Military goals were achieved swiftly in Iraq, not so in Vietnam. The dictatorship of Sadaam and his supporters in the military were destroyed. What Iraq faces now is not conflict between the US and a military force trying to re-take lost ground. Iraq faces Terrorists, terrorists who not only try to kill U.S. forces, but who now actually prefer to target its citizens to turn them against each other, to create a civil war. That is the goal of the "wolves" here.
Luke wrote:Removal of U.S. forces from Iraq is simply an idea by the "sheep" of America, for they are in denial. Denial that causes them to believe if we leave, everything will be fine back in America. It will not, terrorists would run rampent in Iraq, Iran would be bolstered with new confidence now that the U.S. Military is not right next store.
Luke wrote:Two of the biggest terrorism supporting nations (Syria and Iran) are now split by hundreds of thousands of U.S. Military persons, if you do not believe that is a strategic victory in its own right your need to open your eyes. The U.S. has HUGE air bases here in Iraq(Al Asad, Balad, Al Taqaddum, BIAP) and we have an Arabic governement in Iraq who is grateful of our presence and who supports us. That was previously UNHEARD of in this region.
Luke wrote:Terrorism is rearing its ugly head again, this time against Isreal and in the United Kingdom. Iraq is such a key strategic location for the Coalition militaries to combat terrorism, if you think we would just up and leave on a whim, you are sorely mistaken, and are indeed in denial.
Luke wrote:Edit...one interesting similarity between Iraq and Vietnam are the cries of the "sheep" the people in denial to pull out and leave both conflicts. Perhaps the greatest challenge faced in Vietnam and Iraq is that the U.S. has to win two wars at once....We are trying to win the Strategic war and the war for public opinion. And the latter is a mistake by government leaders.
Wars are not popular, people die, they are long, expensive and many Americans do not have the stomach for them. And perhaps the hardest strain on the Military achieving victory, is the protestors, the pundits, the arm chair quarter-backs who preach a negative outlook on the conduct of our Military. That is the greatest threat to victory, not the enemy.
Quote:John, obviously you were never a U.S. Marine. There is a popular saying by the great "Chesty" Puller when the Marines were surrounded at Koto-Ri in Korea: "we're surrounded, GOOD, that simplifies things" ....What I am trying to say is that militariliy, we are right where we want to be, dividing the enemy, right in their back yard, able to strike at a moments notice.
You're surrounded and that's a good thing? </sarcasm> Don't get too comfortable there, you know Bush is going to get us involved in the Isreal/Lebanon dealio. CNN reported that the US is going to send between 5000 and 15000 troops there, so add another country that is motivated to initiate terrorism against us.
Quote:John, please read what I am writing when you answer. I didnt say the terrorists would ever stop, I said that we HAVE to stay until the Iraqi People can take care of them their selves.
Terrorists are a tougher enemy than the Iraqi army. What makes you think that those terrorists will stop at whatever time our army leaves? Whether it's now, 2 years from now or 10 years from now, the only difference is how much resentment we're creating and allowing to fester.
Quote:
We opened the door for the insurgents when we took over. Saddam's army kept insurgents in check. As far as how this effects the Iraqi people, did you enlist in the Iraqi military or the US military? How does guarding the Iraqi people make it any safer for me to fly in an airplane?
Quote:
Disagree. If we left today, Iraq would have a civil war. One side would win, one side would lose, but there'd be an Iraq. Let them fight eachother instead of plotting to blow up more airplanes.
Quote:
Luke wrote:The governement is not yet capable of controlling the insurgency, terrorists would flock to Iraq as it would become a land of "anything goes". An Iraq without the U.S. presence would become a training ground, and safe-haven for terrorists from many countries.
According to Bush, many of the terrorists we're dealing with were trained in Iraq and funded by Iraq. It was part of his speech when we dropped our first bombs in Iraq.
Quote:
Terrorists are a tougher enemy than the Iraqi army. What makes you think that those terrorists will stop at whatever time our army leaves? Whether it's now, 2 years from now or 10 years from now, the only difference is how much resentment we're creating and allowing to fester.
Quote:
As long as we're present in the middle east, we are motivating terrorists to action against us. You can pound your chest and claim victory, but what has been won? The "free world" we live in is less free every time we have to take off our shoes at an airport. Add to the list no beverages on a plane. We can't win against terrorists, if we make everyone fly naked with no luggage, terrorists will surgically implant bombs in their asses and we lose anyway.
Quote:
Keep telling me that hittng a hornets nest with a stick is a good idea, but remember that those angry hornets are going to sting someone. They can't beat us on the battlefield, so they beat us in our own backyard.
Quote:
You're surrounded and that's a good thing? </sarcasm> Don't get too comfortable there, you know Bush is going to get us involved in the Isreal/Lebanon dealio. CNN reported that the US is going to send between 5000 and 15000 troops there, so add another country that is motivated to initiate terrorism against us.
Quote:
Do you really believe that the terrorist attempt originating in the UK wasn't a direct result of the US's involvement in Iraq? Those planes were to explode in various places in the US, causing "greater than 9/11 destruction". While you're in the desert looking for an enemy, they're in the airports launching an attack against us. Who is in denial here? You can claim all the strategic importance of a US military presence in Iraq, but we're paying the price for it in the civilian world.
Quote:
To anyone who thinks we shouldnt be in Iraq, I would like for you to come over here and talk to the Iraqi people. Talk to the people who's families are being killed every day by insurgent violence. After all, its not just insurgents against Americans here, its Suni's against Shiites against Kurds.
One of the problems with the war in Iraq, is that this culture has created a large number of "sheep" and "wolves" and not many "sheep dogs". It doesnt matter whether or not you think America should have ousted Sadaam, the fact is that we did. And if we leave now, the country will be destroyed..
The governement is not yet capable of controlling the insurgency, terrorists would flock to Iraq as it would become a land of "anything goes". An Iraq without the U.S. presence would become a training ground, and safe-haven for terrorists from many countries.
Iraq differs from Vietnam, my father was in Vietnam, I am in Iraq.....Military goals were achieved swiftly in Iraq, not so in Vietnam. The dictatorship of Sadaam and his supporters in the military were destroyed. What Iraq faces now is not conflict between the US and a military force trying to re-take lost ground. Iraq faces Terrorists, terrorists who not only try to kill U.S. forces, but who now actually prefer to target its citizens to turn them against each other, to create a civil war. That is the goal of the "wolves" here.
Removal of U.S. forces from Iraq is simply an idea by the "sheep" of America, for they are in denial. Denial that causes them to believe if we leave, everything will be fine back in America. It will not, terrorists would run rampent in Iraq, Iran would be bolstered with new confidence now that the U.S. Military is not right next store.
Two of the biggest terrorism supporting nations (Syria and Iran) are now split by hundreds of thousands of U.S. Military persons, if you do not believe that is a strategic victory in its own right your need to open your eyes. The U.S. has HUGE air bases here in Iraq(Al Asad, Balad, Al Taqaddum, BIAP) and we have an Arabic governement in Iraq who is grateful of our presence and who supports us. That was previously UNHEARD of in this region.
Terrorism is rearing its ugly head again, this time against Isreal and in the United Kingdom. Iraq is such a key strategic location for the Coalition militaries to combat terrorism, if you think we would just up and leave on a whim, you are sorely mistaken, and are indeed in denial.
Edit...one interesting similarity between Iraq and Vietnam are the cries of the "sheep" the people in denial to pull out and leave both conflicts. Perhaps the greatest challenge faced in Vietnam and Iraq is that the U.S. has to win two wars at once....We are trying to win the Strategic war and the war for public opinion. And the latter is a mistake by government leaders.
Wars are not popular, people die, they are long, expensive and many Americans do not have the stomach for them. And perhaps the hardest strain on the Military achieving victory, is the protestors, the pundits, the arm chair quarter-backs who preach a negative outlook on the conduct of our Military. That is the greatest threat to victory, not the enemy.
Quote:
What power-that-be decided that the best thing is to have things the way they are, rather than have the supposed civil war? How does that power-that-be *know* that that civil war may not end up as the best thing that happened to that region?
Luke wrote:John,
I wasnt referring to you in particular for anything I posted above, they were all general comments. Please dont attack me personally(which you have). Your opinions are your own, but I can tell you from experience that some of them are wrong. People can sit and argue "why" the terrorists hate the US more, is it becasue of our overall foreign policy or is it because of what we are doing in Iraq right now. I CAN tell you that if you think it is just because of what we are doing in Iraq, you are WRONG. They have hated us since the time of Jesus Christ, and will continue to hate the "infadel" until they day their own suicide bomb explodes. By the way, these people are going to hate us FOREVER, as long as we are primarily Christian(or not Muslim), and support Isreal, they will hate us. So tell me which of those you would prefer to condemn first. Your right, terrorists are a tough enemy, they are driven by religious fanaticism that is all but impossible to crush.
Luke wrote:What we can stop however, are legitimate governments that support that kind of fanaticism. Like I said earlier, you may think we went into Iraq un-justly and without cause, I too can not say other wise.
Luke wrote: But what I can say is that we are HERE. Whether you like it or not, we are going to execute someones objectives. And we will win, the ONLY thing and I repeat ONLY thing that can stop us, is the politicians pulling out early, and trying to appease the outspoken minority. That "strategically" is no way to fight a war, you and I both know that. We did it that way in Vietnam.
Luke wrote:Quote:John, obviously you were never a U.S. Marine. There is a popular saying by the great "Chesty" Puller when the Marines were surrounded at Koto-Ri in Korea: "we're surrounded, GOOD, that simplifies things" ....What I am trying to say is that militariliy, we are right where we want to be, dividing the enemy, right in their back yard, able to strike at a moments notice.
You're surrounded and that's a good thing? </sarcasm> Don't get too comfortable there, you know Bush is going to get us involved in the Isreal/Lebanon dealio. CNN reported that the US is going to send between 5000 and 15000 troops there, so add another country that is motivated to initiate terrorism against us.
Luke wrote:
And please dont lecture me about how these insurgents are "tougher" than the Iraqi army was, when were you over here?, how many have you had to kill?, how many have you come face to face with? Can you tell me how many you have seen that are actually foreign fighters, and how many are just brothers and fathers and sons forced into insurgent activities, or else their families will be killed. Come on John, HOW MANY HAVE YOU SEEN????
Luke wrote:I do want you to know though that the great thing about the Military, and the Marines in particular. Is that we will defend the Constitution of the United States and execute the policy of our elected leaders to protect our country. NO MATTER who those elected leaders may be. Remember that we do not have the luxury of sitting back in our homes with our families who we miss dearly, and second guessing the government. You however, do. So forgive me if I fail to shed a tear, because you feel it is an infringement upon your freedom to have to take your shoes off at the airport. We have to wonder every day we step outside, if today is the day, is today the day, that round doesnt hit my chicken plate, is today the day the missile tracks onto my helicopter, is today the day my wife gets a @!#$ telephone call she will remember the rest of her life!!!, is today the day....
RaiLS wrote:Quote:
Keep telling me that hittng a hornets nest with a stick is a good idea, but remember that those angry hornets are going to sting someone. They can't beat us on the battlefield, so they beat us in our own backyard.
Tell me how that would be differant if we got up and left, leaving Iraq open for anyone and everyone to fill in on our absence.
RailS wrote:Since the two parties are religious based there will never be rest if you let them fight eachother. They will cause more hate, more hate = more violence = no stability
RaiLS wrote:In order to be surrounded, you would need to have the same enemy all around you. Fact of the matter is that no one trusts anyone out here, so we aren't exactly surrounded. It's not like Iran is going to line up their Army and come marching at us. No one is crazy enough to do that. NO ONE can line up against the US. Especially in the middle east with their old Soviet equipment. It will always result in gorrilla warefare. That would require us to march on to them.
RailS wrote:Being in Iraq is not going to put a stop to all terrorism in the world. Reversly, us being in Iraq has nothing to do with those attempts. And those very prices you are paying at the airport are exactly what saved your butt from another attack.
RailS wrote:What I am about to say may seem like a personal attack, but it is not. If you take it that way, I'm sorry. That is not it's intention. I am just having a hard time with everything you write. This is also a cut and paste from what I wrote in a differant forum that I post in. It's just mondane to write the same thing over and over.
Plain and simple, you are basing your argument on what you believe to be true. Tell me, what do you KNOW.
Quote:
RailS and I could have a cold beer and play darts or something as long as politics aren't discussed. (if you're ever in Cleveland...)
Quote:
Who decided that WE should play policeman to the world? In other words, say we pull out now--what says that we have to even go back?
John Wilken wrote:^^ X2 with sprinkles on top. Especially this:
Quote:
Who decided that WE should play policeman to the world? In other words, say we pull out now--what says that we have to even go back?
This is where the US gets itself in trouble, meddling with other countries affairs.
.