NY, LA, Miami and 'Dirty Bomb' Threat

[manu1959]

Saddam was an ass, no doubt about it, but after countless Iraqi and American deaths I think it can be said that its a failure if its unsure whether they are better or worse off under Americans than under Saddam.

well the reasons I gave from two different points.

1) I think the Bush administration thought it would be easy and so got people involved based on their ideological beliefs as opposed to competence. I think they did not realize what would happen and made a lot of mistakes. I think one of the main mistakes was bringing in American contractors. Pay Iraqis to rebuild their country...give them a sense of pride, get young restless men off the streets, and give them a boost to their economy, not ours.

2) Iraq was a shithole compared to America. Compard to Sudan, Rwanda, Congo, Myanmar, etc, etc, its a fucking paradise. If you want to go gallivanting around the world on humanitarian missions, which I am strongly in favor of, do it in the places that are suffering the most.

with the exception of pay iraqis to rebuild their contry (which the us is doing) you did not give one solution ....just criticisim.....

come on......give me a solution....i make you king....solve the problem....help the iraqi people.....

 

[Larkinn]

So secret that the list of what we sold him was available even back then from Government and private sources. Your claims get stupider and stupider.

Hell most household cleaners and material can be used to make chemical weapons. Your so full of shit your eyes are brown.

Really? Please tell me what chemical comparable to Anthrax can be made out of a household cleaner.

When United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components, and computers from American suppliers, including such household names as Union Carbide and Honeywell, which were being used for military purposes.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.

Read the bolded part. It proves you wrong.

 

[Larkinn]

what should we be doing instead......top three things...

Now? I think we should pull out. At this point I don't think its salvagable by us. I think we have cultivated too much ill will there through various actions.

 

[manu1959]

Now? I think we should pull out. At this point I don't think its salvagable by us. I think we have cultivated too much ill will there through various actions.

pack up and split....how quickly.....

 

[Larkinn]

with the exception of pay iraqis to rebuild their contry (which the us is doing) you did not give one solution ....just criticisim.....

come on......give me a solution....i make you king....solve the problem....help the iraqi people.....

The US is not doing it enough. We have almost as many US contractors over there as we do US military...those people should be Iraqis being paid to rebuild their country.

I don't know if this is something that could have been changed, but close Guantanamo, and keep a much tighter reign on intel services...there is talk that spooks were responsible for pressuring some of the soldiers who committed Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib hurt our chances significantly there, and created a greal deal of ill will. I think it might also behoove us to talk to the Iranians and other countries in the area to get their support.

 

[Larkinn]

pack up and split....how quickly.....

As quickly as possible. Give the Iraqi government as much as we can to allow them a fighting chance at least, perhaps keep some soldiers in a support setting, but withdraw the large majority of soldiers.

 

[Larkinn]

pack up and split....how quickly.....

I take it from your questioning that you think we should stay. What do you see as the end result of us staying? Do you see an end to the violence? If so, how?

 

[manu1959]

The US is not doing it enough. We have almost as many US contractors over there as we do US military...those people should be Iraqis being paid to rebuild their country.

I don't know if this is something that could have been changed, but close Guantanamo, and keep a much tighter reign on intel services...there is talk that spooks were responsible for pressuring some of the soldiers who committed Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib hurt our chances significantly there, and created a greal deal of ill will. I think it might also behoove us to talk to the Iranians and other countries in the area to get their support.

so we shouldn't send us contractors over to rebuild the infrastruction we blew up?....just send the iraqis money and tell them to build it themsleves?

if you close gitmo where do you send the POWs?

yes i heard it was bad at abu grab ass.....naked women, barking dogs....naked piles of men...the horror.....

the iranians once captured the us embasy and wants to wipe another nation from the face of the earth....what do you want to ask them to do?

 

[manu1959]

I take it from your questioning that you think we should stay. What do you see as the end result of us staying? Do you see an end to the violence? If so, how?

this reminds me of northern ireland but 10 times worse......

the us military will never be turned loose to fight an asymetirical war which would end this.....

and thus the us can not do this alone.....this is a political war

but the us will get no help....it is the us turn to eat shit and iraqs will get the short end of the stick.....

the uss will pull out...the un will take over....you may get a rawanda or you may get a vietnam.....

radical islam will continue to blow up shit around the world.....

me...i think we should close all forigen military bases and cut off all forigen funding and invest in the US.....fuck em all....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I take it from your questioning that you think we should stay. What do you see as the end result of us staying? Do you see an end to the violence? If so, how?

Do you have ANY knowledge of how to fight an insurgency? It takes years. We stay until the Iraqi military and police can do the job. Or until it is obvious they will never do the job ( something that has NOT happened)

We stay until the Iraqi Government tells us to leave or we give them the ability to defend their country. Harping on and on about " we should not have gone" is pointless, we DID. We are past that argument, it is meaningless. We are also past the argument that we should have destroyed the military rather then allow it to melt away and the argument we should have kept the military intact after we took over. Those arguments are again, meaningless.

I can assure you, if we leave with the job undone, in a few years we WILL be back to do it again. The only conversation we should have with Iran and Syria is the one where we tell them we will be shutting down the borders and killing anything that moves across them without our permission.

 

[manu1959]

As quickly as possible. Give the Iraqi government as much as we can to allow them a fighting chance at least, perhaps keep some soldiers in a support setting, but withdraw the large majority of soldiers.

basicaly what the us did in vietnam and rawanda....bye....good luck.....

 

[Larkinn]

so we shouldn't send us contractors over to rebuild the infrastruction we blew up?....just send the iraqis money and tell them to build it themsleves?

No, we hire Iraqi companies to rebuild the infrastructure.

if you close gitmo where do you send the POWs?

They are not POWs. And you try them or release them.

yes i heard it was bad at abu grab ass.....naked women, barking dogs....naked piles of men...the horror.....

It doesn't matter whether it outrages you or not. It matters whether it outrages the Iraqi people, which it did.

the iranians once captured the us embasy and wants to wipe another nation from the face of the earth....what do you want to ask them to do?

And Japan once bombed Pearl Harbour, Germany killed thousands of Americans, and Italy did the same...but yet we are friends with both of them now.

Regardless, if you want to keep holding onto old grudges, go for it. But you asked how to help Iraq, and those are some ways too.

me...i think we should close all forigen military bases and cut off all forigen funding and invest in the US.....fuck em all....

So your solution is also to pull out...but because you don't care.

 

[Larkinn]

basicaly what the us did in vietnam and rawanda....bye....good luck.....

Umm no. Iraq is massively different than Rwanda. Vietnam is an apt comparison...but look at what happened there. We went in, lots of people died, we left, massacres, now relative peace. If we had stayed, the lots of people dying would have continued indefinitely.

 

[Larkinn]

Do you have ANY knowledge of how to fight an insurgency? It takes years. We stay until the Iraqi military and police can do the job. Or until it is obvious they will never do the job ( something that has NOT happened)

I disagree. I don't think they will ever be able to do the job with us there. Its a bit of a catch-22 they are in.

We stay until the Iraqi Government tells us to leave or we give them the ability to defend their country.

And if that never happens?

Harping on and on about " we should not have gone" is pointless, we DID. We are past that argument, it is meaningless. We are also past the argument that we should have destroyed the military rather then allow it to melt away and the argument we should have kept the military intact after we took over. Those arguments are again, meaningless.

No, they aren't. If those decisions were policy failures and we are trusting the same people who made those failures to make future decisions, that raises the question of should we be trusting them?

I can assure you, if we leave with the job undone, in a few years we WILL be back to do it again. The only conversation we should have with Iran and Syria is the one where we tell them we will be shutting down the borders and killing anything that moves across them without our permission.

You put your pride above Iraqi lives...and you have the nerve to tell me that I don't care about them? Peh.

 

[manu1959]

Umm no. Iraq is massively different than Rwanda. Vietnam is an apt comparison...but look at what happened there. We went in, lots of people died, we left, massacres, now relative peace. If we had stayed, the lots of people dying would have continued indefinitely.

rawanda was a religous genocide war same as iraq.....vietnam was a political war....both used to be french colonies.....

vietnam is peaceful ..... as china / nvn filled the gap....

iraq will be interesting.....if we bail....iran takes it ... then maybe peace.....after a lot of people are re-educated---post shaw.....

but i think turkey will take the north and syria the west and iran the east.....

if everyone stands back it will be a three way religous / civil war.....rawanda

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Umm no. Iraq is massively different than Rwanda. Vietnam is an apt comparison...but look at what happened there. We went in, lots of people died, we left, massacres, now relative peace. If we had stayed, the lots of people dying would have continued indefinitely.

Simply NOT true. South Vietnam was INVADED by North Vietnam. There was no chaos as a Government, all be it a bad one, was in charge after the war. There is no Government capable of providing security in Iraq if we abandon them.

Also I suggest you read some real history. The facts are that by 1988 or so, most think tanks believe South Vietnam would have been completely stable. The TET offensive in 68 wiped out the "insurgents" all that was left were North Vietnamese troops pretending to be insurgents. Further our troops were out of South Vietnam by the end of 71. The South successfully stopped a North invasion in 72 with just air support and Naval support from us. Further they had begun to push the North out of the areas they lost in 72. Until Congress cut them off.

They fell in 75 because a democratic Congress cut funds and supplies off the year before and refused to honor our military commitments to the South. The North started a probe in 75, in force, and were totally surprised when the US did not back the South, so hey ordered a full invasion. 25 Divisions, the South had 11. South Vietnam still held out for just over a month. Without outside help. They had to abandon their tanks early in the fight because they had no parts, no fuel and no ammo to keep them running. Yet they fought for over 30 days.

 

[Larkinn]

rawanda was a religous genocide war same as iraq.....vietnam was a political war....both used to be french colonies.....

Incorrect. Rwanda was an ethnic genocide between the Hutus and the Tutsis. It was also never a french colony, it was a colony of Belgium. There was also the further difference of how the war was waged, and that there were no troops there, just peacekeepers. You do, I hope, see the difference between invading a country like Iraq which is very militarized and invading a country like Rwanda which was so poor that the Tutsis who wanted to be shot to death, instead of hacked to death with a machete, were required to pay for the bullets required to kill them.

Read a few books about Rwanda. I recommend "we wish to inform you that we are about to be killed with our families". It is an extremely interesting and tragic part of our recent history that most people, including you it seems, are very uninformed about.

vietnam is peaceful ..... as china / nvn filled the gap....

iraq will be interesting.....if we bail....iran takes it ... then maybe peace.....after a lot of people are re-educated---post shaw.....


but i think turkey will take the north and syria the west and iran the east.....

if everyone stands back it will be a three way religous / civil war.....rawanda

No, I don't think so. The Kurds will retreat to their part and the Sunnis and the Shiites will battle it out.

 

[Larkinn]

PS...Iraq is not a genocide situation. Nor was Vietnam.

 

[Larkinn]

Simply NOT true. South Vietnam was INVADED by North Vietnam. There was no chaos as a Government, all be it a bad one, was in charge after the war. There is no Government capable of providing security in Iraq if we abandon them.

Sure there is. Just not the democratically elected one. It will have to be another strongman.

Also I suggest you read some real history. The facts are that by 1988 or so, most think tanks believe South Vietnam would have been completely stable. The TET offensive in 68 wiped out the "insurgents" all that was left were North Vietnamese troops pretending to be insurgents. Further our troops were out of South Vietnam by the end of 71. The South successfully stopped a North invasion in 72 with just air support and Naval support from us. Further they had begun to push the North out of the areas they lost in 72. Until Congress cut them off.

So by reading history you really want me to read what people think would have happened in an alternative universe? Sorry but that type of speculation actually is useless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sure there is. Just not the democratically elected one. It will have to be another strongman.



So by reading history you really want me to read what people think would have happened in an alternative universe? Sorry but that type of speculation actually is useless.

Wrong answer, but par for the course with you. Using your claim, then your insistance that Iraq is doomed if we stay is Fanatsy as well, since it has not happened. It is FACT not fiction what DID happen in South Vietnam. They stopped one Invasion with our airsupport, naval support and supplies. They would not have had to stop an all out invasion in 75 if we had assisted them, that is a fact as well. Read what the North Vietnamese generals had to say. They stated they only launched a full invasion BECAUSE we did not help.