Facing reality in Iraq

[Patriot]

This must have confused me when you said,

How do you recommend we "show" them we are not interested in occupation, if not by leaving the country where our troops are stationed?

Resorting to insults must mean you have no more substance to offer. I accept your apologies, in advance, for such chioldish, and immature behavior while trying to conduct an intelligent conversation with adults, and others who really want to try and expand their horizons.

(I would gladly sit down with you and an IQ test any day.....)

Like you had any susbstance to begin with? What are you? A busy body retired marine who bugs his wife or other neighbor for something to do cause you are bored with life?


When I say mean things to you are you going to cry and frag my ass?

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Like you had any susbstance to begin with? What are you? A busy body retired marine who bugs his wife or other neighbor for something to do cause you are bored with life?


When I say mean things to you are you going to cry and frag my ass?

Patriot to the rescue.....why have you taken up the cause of Doc Holiday? I have no qualms about standing up to the opinions I have publicly aired.

You have apparently decided that Doc is not capable understanding the material presented, or cannot fully fathom it yourself.

No, I am not a "busy body" retired jar head....I did my time, and got out, and am now quite happy to interact with intelligent people (and others, evidently) on this internet forum. I actually have a very full and satisfying life, thanks, for asking.

Should we get back to the thread, or are you hijacking this thread as some sort of personal pedestal to hurl insults? If you'd care to discuss the topic, I am here....but if you's rather invest your time in inane blithering, you may as well piss up a rope, because that is as satisfying as it is going to get.


Best regards, and Happy New Year!

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Weren't you the one that stated I was too moronic to speak intelligently? So, since you are flinging insults, don't start crying about them when someone flings them back.

No...if you look, I also stated that I was not insulting you......you know...making a point, by stating the absurd. I evidently did not make it clear enough, or you just did not get it. I choose the former as the cause.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

What part of NO ONE can RE-EDUCATE fuckin EVIL DONT you get?

Maybe I was not clear enough in my statement (although when taken out of context, I suppose there is plenty of room for interpretation, even for someone as open minded as yourself, Patriot)

If you have done any research regarding my position on the war...just do a simple search...you will find I am quite certain that the only way to defeat the medieval thugs who follow AZZAM and al Qaeda's teachings is to destroy them (no sympathy from me, and no mercy for these barbarians)

My point is that we will be a presence in Iraq for a couple generations (at least), just as we had been in Japan following WWII. The indoctrination of the students for the Wahabbis cannot be wished away, a complete overhaul of their educational system must be accomplished to save the next generation with hopes that they can become a part of the modern civilized world. The adults who subscribe to the doctine of intolerance and hate are a lost cause, just as the young Japanese men and women who took up arms against the US in WWII....they find it an honor and an obligation to die for their country or cause...

Now, Iraq is not the real problem...Saudia Arabia is...but as long as the insurgents numbers continue to be fed in to Iraq, we can at least try to "use up" their resources (monetary and in human terms) by taking the fight to them on their soil, and minimize the possibilities of an attack on our population.

Does this make my point a little more clearly about the "re-education" statement I made? I hope I have cleared the air, a bit.

 

[nosarcasm]

the so called re education only works after you kill enough of that ethnic group or nation. Germany and Japan had fought and lost a long bloody war and people wanted peace and a conservative approach without chaos for the future. They welcomed the US help. But they run their country on their own while the US guranteed security initially. This security was easy achieved because after loosing millions of soldiers and civilians with the outcome to be occupied there was no will to continue the fight. So in order to have this
kind of a change in Iraq it would need an so called total war effort with bombing away areas where resistance fighters are active. This in the media age is probably not possible for a democratic nation.

So I think the other proven option should be used. Use one of the factions in your favor and divide and conquer , let them fight each other till they have enough. The Kurdish in the North are de facto independent and strongly pro US anyway. And it seems the moderate Shiites would like to packback the Sunnis. So be it. Yes it will be ugly but it will neutralize Iraq as a possible terrorist haven and free US troops to pressure Iran and North Korea or whereever force is needed. A Shiite strongman that tacitly makes a US brokered deal with the Kurds is what I expect to happen. I believe the Iraqui Shiites will not work as an extension for Iran, there are still some bitte feelings
from the Iran-Iraq war and luckily nationalism is a strong feeling.

In my oppinion there is a good reason why all US administrations do not touch Saudi Arabia. This country is the religious center of Islam and the kingdom if it would be touched would fall for an Islamic Republic or something like it. That would really endanger the oil flow and might hurt the US economy badly. Thats why I support the position to play it safe until the dependence on oil is less. (hope that the new technologies will achieve that)

But attacking the Saudis would gain nothing at the moment. It would just create a more hostile instable country.

Iran is the real problem, they are bent on building nukes and once they have em they know they are safe. The US has no diplomatic relations to them and lets the European do the diplomacy. This will not work without the real threat of military force and its time the EU joins in the embargo. But really I dont know if their is anything that can be done. Iran is much larger then Iraq, has 4 times the population and frankly I doubt the West could get an alliance together to invade Iran to stop the nuke program.

I am not sure if the nuke production sites can all be eliminated by airstrikes.
But they showed some Satellite images on cable. I would assume that was a threat towards IRan. We know where you built em.

Leads to the last option, using tactical nukes to take out the sites. I am not sure if Bush has the stomach to do that .

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I think your analysis is good, nosarcasm.

Regarding the use of tactical nukes....I am quite certain the US would not hesitate to use them when 2 things happen.

1) WMD are used on US civilians
2) WMD's use is tied directly to a country (like Iran, Syria, N Korea, or Pakistan)

I think it is good to completely withdraw US troops from Saudia Arabia, and let them deal with their issues on their own, since they have been saying one thing to our face and another to the "street" for years. By having a base of operation in Iraq, it allows us to "surround" the Saudis, and even have a port for our Med Fleet, while satisfying the radical's need for keeping infidels out of their holy place. (should be a win win for everyone, right?)

 

[nosarcasm]

I would stay with troops in Saudi Arabia because it could be
seen as a sign of weakness for the prince and lead to his fall and the
rise of some Islamist revolution in Saudi Arabia if they are withdrawn. Thats what Bin Laden wants, a card blanche to take over the region and build his Pan arab empire.

Frankly the Islamist will never be our friends but we can shut them out of power and their movement will loose support over the years. It is some kind containment, but it is probably the most effective way to keep them down.

 

[Patriot]

Should we get back to the thread, or are you hijacking this thread as some sort of personal pedestal to hurl insults? If you'd care to discuss the topic, I am here....but if you's rather invest your time in inane blithering, you may as well piss up a rope, because that is as satisfying as it is going to get.

Why get back to the thread? You apparently dont. When you cant handle the debate you just give bad reps out like candy. Funny how someone sooooo intelligent can resort to that.

 

[Patriot]

No...if you look, I also stated that I was not insulting you......you know...making a point, by stating the absurd. I evidently did not make it clear enough, or you just did not get it. I choose the former as the cause.

LIAR! Out of all the points you COULD have used YOU chose to insult then had the audacity to claim it was ONLY an example. How very convenient! Your impudence came thru loud and clear!

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Why get back to the thread? You apparently dont. When you cant handle the debate you just give bad reps out like candy. Funny how someone sooooo intelligent can resort to that.

What negative rep points are you talking about?

I have never given you negative rep points.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

I would stay with troops in Saudi Arabia because it could be
seen as a sign of weakness for the prince and lead to his fall and the
rise of some Islamist revolution in Saudi Arabia if they are withdrawn. Thats what Bin Laden wants, a card blanche to take over the region and build his Pan arab empire.

Frankly the Islamist will never be our friends but we can shut them out of power and their movement will loose support over the years. It is some kind containment, but it is probably the most effective way to keep them down.

I need to do some more research, but it is fact that the US did pull out the majority of troops stationed in SA prior to the invasion of Iraq. We did so quietly, and positioned troops in Bahrain, Qatar and UAE as well as Kuwait as the primary staging points for the attack due to the fact that the royals did not think we would attack without their help.

If there is a substantial uprising in SA and the royals ask for help, then we can assume that their position is untenable, and more than likely we would step in and assist, but only conditionally.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Why get back to the thread? You apparently dont. When you cant handle the debate you just give bad reps out like candy. Funny how someone sooooo intelligent can resort to that.

Still waiting to hear what neg rep points you are talking about, Patriot.

 

[j07950]

Are you guys all retired military experts or something? Just woundering....

 

[Patriot]

Still waiting to hear what neg rep points you are talking about, Patriot.

You never gave any to me. And Doc told me to drop it. His wish is my comand.


Oh and just so you know...I agree with some of what you said.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

As I said to Doc, water under the bridge...didn't mean to rile you up....

j07950 asked:

Are you guys all retired military experts or something? Just woundering....

As far as being an expert, I would never profess that much knowledge, but I am a student of the world politic, and have military experience. There are others who are on this site who have a lot more knowledge than I.

Most here (from my observation) are not military, but are no more than 1 or 2 steps away from someone who is currently or who was in the military.

Care to add anything to the conversation "j07950?"