Re: So the war on Iraq was decided before 9/11

the chart won't help either,

firstly these things happened 30 years ago spanning a 17 years period, there's no way they can be reliably verified, just look at it's source, it's not even from the iraqis and even then it's accuracy can be questioned. unless you were there counting each and every weapon delivery you can't be certain about anything, the only thing the chart does is give a big indication that russia was the biggest supplier.

secondly do you seriously think countries like poland and czechoslovakia sold 4-7 times more than the us? they don't even have their own tank or fighter designs, the only thing they can sell the iraqis is light arms and even they are not designed by themselves, the chart only shows volume meaning a ak-47 counts the same as a tank. people fail to realize when they quote these figure is that they show no where near the whole story

 

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is as reliable as they get.
That chart is merely a nice compact version of lots of infomation obtained from the SIPRI database on arms trade.

1973 is important because of the oil crisis and the Yom Kippur War.
1990 is important because thats when Iraq invaded Kuwait

Attached are files from the SIPRI database supporting my "claims."

 

K paragon, here I was thinking you supported bush and were defending him with the classic "Lul TeRrorizmz!11!!11one" rhetoric that the republicans love. Instead it seems you're just explaining your reasoning behind why you think the invasion was launched. If thats the case, then I see no reason for argument. This is merely each person saying "well I think it's this." etc etc.

Amirite?

 

Well if thats the case then 'paragon is da devil!'

 

Currently he's trying to state his reason how Bush may have genuinely thought this was the right thing to do, then you guys into the whole thing of how much the US actually armed Iraq in the first place.

I must say...we've gone through both a politics and religion thread and we haven't gotten too many "you're ways are stupid and ignorant" junk really, there's been a few, but not to the point where it needs to be locked....I'm proud of you guys

 

You know what I say to that itsmyship? Your ways are ignorant and stupid. <3

 

No I don't. Clearly you've missed the fact that I said that it was a mistake multiple times.

How about you stop shouting lies to try and get more people to dislike me.

 

Most of what they show on the news is a load of crap from a skewed point of view though. Nothing wrong with not liking that.

 

There is a problem with just leaving: We blew up their infrastructure and killed their government. If we leave now there will be anarchy and Iran will have a new colony. Do you want that? I don't. That is what happened in Afghanistan. We helped them push the Soviets out then left them without helping them rebuild. We handed the country to a rich man who DID rebuild the country. His name was Osama Bin Laden. We left the country and left him to gain all the good PR and major regional influence.

If we leave Iraq today Hezbollah will inherit the country. The war sucks I know I hate it too but that is what happens when you break other peoples countries. I would like to mention that we leveled Germany and Japan in WWII and we are STILL in those countries. We are STILL in Korea. We are still in those countries that won't implode anymore so why leave the one that will? It is kind of stupid to leave an unstable country if we will remain in occupation of the stable ones.

 

Watching the video of the interview where Cheney outlines all the reasons why invading Iraq is a bad idea is a great moment in comedy.

-------------
Realistically speaking, nothing we do is going to fix Iraq. The potential courses of action that would fix it are all not viable due to public opinion. Secondly, there isn't really that much to gain by taking the steps necessary to fix Iraq. We have a few options.

One, dramatically increase troop numbers (most likely institute a draft) and use our soldiers like police to enforce law and order across the entire nation. I believe pretty much anybody can see the cost and difficulty involved in that task.

Two, forget about the rules of engagement and blow the crap out of anybody and any location which seems the least bit threatening. When there are only vegetarians and grandmothers left in the country, we leave. The political and global backlash from that course obviously prevent it from being considered.

Third, we can keep on doing what we are now... and it will work in approx 20-30 years. That's a long time to have this many of our armed forces tied up in one place, this many bodybags coming home and this much money being spent. However, the state of Iraq is not going to get better until a whole new generation grows up.

Fourth, we could pull out right now. Let the country fall to pieces (more pieces - it already is in pieces) and let the Iraqis worry about the Iraqis. Some dictator will assume power, enforce law and order and do horrible things to the ppl he doesn't like. The world will go on much as it has been, and America will be more prosperous than it is now.

ehh... none of the above is very appealing... but personally, I think there are worse things to worry about

 

lichking - I'm against Bush's handling of the war. Which I've said.
I'm against withdrawing troops right now because that would create an even worse situation. Which I've said.
I'm against the media breaking operational security and endangering our troops. Which I've said.

None of these things contradict.

NateSMZ - the best thing to do is used the combined action platoon model. This model has proved effecting against combating insurgents. A marine squad is in charge of an area and has the block in the center. The Iraqi police would have the blocks around that one and the Iraqi national guard would have the blocks around those. During the day they provide services to help rebuild their part of the city including protection. At night they patrol with the national guard and police buildings (which are in the center block) completely empty and locked. This would not require a significant amount of men and would not require an increase in troops.

This strategy is based on that by the British in Malaya (Malaysia) where they successfully countered an insurgency and the marine CAP plan that was done towards the end of the Vietnam war which significantly reduced the number and effectiveness of the VietCong. It was written out in more detail by H. John Poole, a retired Marine who was in military service for 28 years and has since spent 12 years doing heavy research on small arms tactics of various nations. He is also currently teaching units in our military about 4th Generation Warfare (what the insurgents use) and the tactics required for it. He has far more experience and knowledge that either of us and clearly shows that he does a lot of research for all of his books.

 

Well I am sure that H. John Poole, and even you and I, can realize that Malaysia is not Iraq. What works in one place, will not necessarily work in another.

The scenario you described would be doomed to failure because:
1. The Iraqi police are part of the problem.
and
2. The Iraqi national guard are another part of the problem.

If the two weren't shooting each other in that scenario, shooting innocent civilians who come from a different background, or shooting said out-numbered Marine squad... then it might work. But then, it's going to take at LEAST one generation to counter established cultural hatreds. And that's if we seriously work on the problem... if we don't, it'll take even longer.

 

So you feel that you are more qualified to judge the effectiveness of a plan that you have not thoroughly read about by someone who has spent 28 years in the military and 12 years researching this very problem why?

For the police and national guard small squads that don't know the location of each other and have patrol paths that do not cross means that rooting out those that are on the side of the insurgents will happen much quicker than it could now.

Read his plan before you bash it. It makes you look bad to bash it without even knowing a lot about it. His 40 years experience trumps you.

 

Well, firstly, I'm not talking to him - so I really don't know what his thoughts on the matter are. All I have before me are your interpretations of his thoughts.

And if you think greater reliance on the Iraqi police and national guard are key to success, then you are sadly mistaken, considering the extreme levels of corruption in those organizations. They are hopelessly infested with the very people you wish them to help control. How are the Iraqi police to help control insurgency, when large portions of the Iraqi police ARE part of the insurgency?

 

I am telling you what he is saying. I can't give you the entire chapter to fully explain it.

Read his book. Then we can talk.

 

Paragon, as far as I can tell, all Nate is asking is of you to explain how we're supposed to use an organization that's corrupt with insurgents to help police the insurgency. I really don't see how this would involve giving us the whole chapter. It's like asking how we're supposed to use wine to get the wine stain out.

Since you're so comfortable with the idea of how people "look bad", I feel I should only return the favour and point out that you look bad dodging Nate's question and hiding behind a book.

 

General Sir Michael Rose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Michael_Rose

His 48 years of experience trumps your guys mere 42 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2072171,00.html

He says we should get out of Iraq.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Washingtons-War-Independence-Great-Commanders/dp/0297846981

Read his book. Then we can talk.

------------
Or you could think for yourself and realize that no matter how absurd a position is, you can find somebody with a long list of titles who supports your nonsense.

 

bizzaro - I already said how in my previous answer. To explain it any further I would have to give the whole chapter or else he would keep saying "yeah but how" over and over and over. I just said how.

NateSMZ - Where is his basis for saying that the Iraqi's are fighting for national freedom? How does he come to terms with the fact that Iran is sticking it's hand in the situation in an attempt to exert it's dominance over the country just like it did in Lebanon? You have provided none of his argument while I have given you the basis for Poole's arguments. There is also no mention of the research he did to come to this conclusion. Does he have a vast amount of research on the culture of that area? His comparison of the Iraq War to the American Revolution is very surprising considering there are so many conflicts that are a lot closer with regards to what the tactics and strategies were that he could have compared it to that are in the same region of the world (Poole describes all of these in depth).

I gave Poole's experience because it is all relevant to this conflict due to the fact that it started with the Vietnam War. Rose's experience on the other hand includes many commanding positions of regiments and brigades and even being the commandant of an infantry school and the director of special forces which are impressive but also completely different from that of Poole. Also, Rose's combat experience is limited to the Falkland Islands (British vs. Argentina...) and Bosnia where he was part of UNPROFOR which has generally been seen as pretty ineffective considering NATO had to be brought in to actually fix the problem. So I'm sure he does know a considerable amount about commanding large groups of the regiment or battalion size but little in comparison about the squad level that Poole has very intimate knowledge of. Due to this, Poole's solution involves strategies that Rose may not even consider due to his type of experience.

So, while Poole says the current strategy is not working and we have to do something else that has been proven to work in the past to win, Rose says that the current strategy isn't working and just leave.

 

You're trying to argue with a GENERAL with 48 years of military experience? Pffft. It doesn't matter what you say, you're automatically wrong. He has 48 years of experience, and he's a knight, and he's a general, and:

as you see, he has extensive Middle Eastern experience. Seeing as Vietnam is not in the Middle East, I think you need to give your guy a few power ups.

But when you're a general and have 48 years of experience, then we can continue this argument. I say argument and not debate because obviously nobody could debate with whichever side has the greatest credentials.

 

So this is the part of the argument where you have no actual credible argument to speak of so you just fall back on someone who has a large quantity of experience but little quality. You never answered any questions I had about him about his research to get this information or the involvement of Iran. Poole's ENTIRE 40 years is all important to this discussion while I can assure you the Falkland Island and messing up in Bosnia are not relevant or good demonstrations of expertise in this particular area.

And I hope you realize that the Vietnamese use the same basic tactics and strategies that the insurgents all over South West Asia use. That is why Vietnam is relevant.