Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

[grandpa]

Quote by: BugsBunny07 I never implied any such thing. A declining death toll indicates progress.

How much progress can be claimed? Of course the death toll will go down after a while. It could just be a sign that many thousands of Iraqis have been imprisoned or have been killed.

I posted this in another thread, but it's relevant here.

The Iraq war had the US:
Overthrowing a dictator we had previously supported (both in arms and in other heavy trade) all while telling war opponents they "support Saddam"; citing Saddam's gassing of Kurds as an excuse for the invasion (though we supported Saddam during and even after that, and we also support Turkey, which treats Kurds brutally); killing thousands upon thousands to "liberate" Iraqis from Saddam because he was brutal; shifting from the "liberating Iraqis" rationale to the "it's better to take it over there than have it here" one; urging people to find hope in elections thousands of Iraqis had to protest to see, in addition to the fact that elections might not mean much anyway; making claims about Saddam having many nuclear weapons which never turned up (claims made more hypocritical when coming from the only country to have "nuked" another).

Then, as if to put the final nail in the coffin, the US takes credit when killings finally slow down. This has been progress?

I'd have to be in a fantasy world to fawn over KBR like you do. KBR is the same company that provided US troops with contaminated drinking water, and the Iraqi government has demanded they be removed from the country for killing civilians. You also mention arms sales in a positive light, something that also baffles me (or should baffle me, I should say).

Grandpa h.

[BugsBunny07]

Quote by: Zeebadee None of which are my responsibility to pay for...

Point taken, the fact is everybody disagrees with something there money is being spent on. If enough people think it's a priority, you are just SOL. Enough people think enforcing pot prohibition, enforcing gun regulations, and bribing states to keep the drinking age higher than the enlistment age, are worth blowing my money on. I eat it. I bitch about it, but I eat it. Thats the beauty of being in America, you don't have to agree with everybody, you can agree to disagree, and (usually) not resort to blowing shit up.

Your credibility as a "soldier" just took a big hit.

Why, because I'm behind in the latest headlines or because I wouldn't comment even if I were?

Quote by: grandpa How much progress can be claimed? Of course the death toll will go down after a while. It could just be a sign that many thousands of Iraqis have been imprisoned or have been killed. I posted this in another thread, but it's relevant here. The Iraq war had the US: Overthrowing a dictator we had previously supported (both in arms and in other heavy trade) all while telling war opponents they "support Saddam"; citing Saddam's gassing of Kurds as an excuse for the invasion (though we supported Saddam during and even after that, and we also support Turkey, which treats Kurds brutally); killing thousands upon thousands to "liberate" Iraqis from Saddam because he was brutal; shifting from the "liberating Iraqis" rationale to the "it's better to take it over there than have it here" one; urging people to find hope in elections thousands of Iraqis had to protest to see, in addition to the fact that elections might not mean much anyway; making claims about Saddam having many nuclear weapons which never turned up (claims made more hypocritical when coming from the only country to have "nuked" another). Then, as if to put the final nail in the coffin, the US takes credit when killings finally slow down. This has been progress? I'd have to be in a fantasy world to fawn over KBR like you do. KBR is the same company that provided US troops with contaminated drinking water, and the Iraqi government has demanded they be removed from the country for killing civilians. You also mention arms sales in a positive light, something that also baffles me (or should baffle me, I should say). Grandpa h.

You don't say! Insurgents that are dead or in jail can't plant IEDs? Did you figure that out by yourself? That must be why we carry machine guns and flex cuffs...

KBR is not being kicked out of Iraq. You have them confused with Blackwater. I've never seen them in action, but I do know that they have never lost a client, and a few of thier employees have gone home in a plastic bag to achieve that.

Whats wrong with arms sales? Why should that baffle you? I like my new guns, my new gear...the new threads not so much, I wish I had something, you know, the same color as, like...sand, but I guess you cant have everything.

[grandpa]

Quote by: BugsBunny07 You don't say! Insurgents that are dead or in jail can't plant IEDs? Did you figure that out by yourself? That must be why we carry machine guns and flex cuffs... KBR is not being kicked out of Iraq. You have them confused with Blackwater. I've never seen them in action, but I do know that they have never lost a client, and a few of thier employees have gone home in a plastic bag to achieve that. Whats wrong with arms sales? Why should that baffle you? I like my new guns, my new gear...the new threads not so much, I wish I had something, you know, the same color as, like...sand, but I guess you cant have everything.

Not everyone in jail is an "insurgent." You should know that, seeing as to how Iraq has declared martial law in the past.

And yes, I did address KBR as if it were Blackwater, mainly because KBR and Blackwater are in cahoots:

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Military -- After many denials, Army confirms private security contract in Iraq

The secretary of the Army on Tuesday wrote two Democratic lawmakers that the Blackwater USA contract was part of a huge military support operation by run by Halliburton subsidiary KBR... The discovery shows the dense world of Iraq contracting, where the main contractor hires subcontractors who then hire additional subcontractors. Each company tacks on a charge for overhead, a cost that works its way up to U.S. taxpayers....

So technically I was wrong, but also technically correct.

And yes, I do find it baffling how you support the international arms trade between militant groups. In fact, your support for the Iraq war, or any other aspect of US tyranny, is quite perplexing.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa In fact, your support for the Iraq war, or any other aspect of US tyranny, is quite perplexing. Grandpa h.

It's just so wrong to support the over throwing an evil dictator, trying to give people a better life, and trying to bring some stability to the region....God I hate US tyranny.... :rolleyes:

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval It's just so wrong to support the over throwing an evil dictator, trying to give people a better life, and trying to bring some stability to the region.... God I hate US tyranny....

Yes, it is wrong to support a dictator for years, then launch two wars killing thousands, only to overthrow the dictator and destabilize the country (after the country was crippled by economic sanctions that killed at about half a million people). That is tyranny, whether it's done in the name of "freedom" or following the edicts of "God."

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Yes, it is wrong to support a dictator for years, then launch two wars killing thousands, only to overthrow the dictator and destabilize the country (after the country was crippled by economic sanctions that killed at about half a million people). That is tyranny, whether it's done in the name of "freedom" or following the edicts of "God." Grandpa h.

Your response is a gross over simplification of history.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart . while the idea that 9/11 was designed to provoke the U.S. into invading and occupying Afghanistan, so that the Warriors of Islam could repeat their defeat of that 'other' SuperPower, may seem cunningly clever, I've never thought of it as "diabolically brilliant". Besides, why is it so difficult to believe that bin Laden or some of his lieutenants may possess some strategic and tactical genius. Suleman... Saladin... Ataturk... the Moslem mideast has managed to come up with it's share of brilliant military minds. Wasn't that the Bush League's biggest mistake? Assuming the civilian population in Iraq was already completely wooed by the shere wonderfulness of us, the land of the free and the home of the brave Christian soldiers.

#1
Why are you so certain O.bin-Laden's "state-of-mind" planning, was the reason U.S. military personnel to report its presence in the Middle-East region ?

#2
Direct your inquiry to the U.S. intelligence agencies, in order to get some additional data. No "clearance" required on that subject, today.
In short : Russia provided/supplied O.bin-Laden with a very sensitive and/or vital material, then.

#3
The mistake U.S. made from the day 1, in Iraq :
- removing all the S.Hussian's restrictions

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Your response is a gross over simplification of history.

So the US has not done what I described? The government did not support Saddam, did not destabilize Iraq and foster an insurgency and foreign fighters? The sanctions did not end up killing many people, many of them children, rather than punish Saddam?

That's funny, because that's actually pretty common knowledge. I'd dare even say these are presented as almost mainstream accounts here.
If you can prove how I've "grossly oversimplified" the situation, I'd be quite interested. If anything, I've noted how it's more complex than you've made it out to be.

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Rainbow #1 Why are you so certain O.bin-Laden's "state-of-mind" planning, was the reason U.S. military personnel to report its presence in the Middle-East region?

This question seems written a little awkwardly, but I assume you're asking, "Why am I so certain bin-Laden planned to provoke the U.S. into invading the Middle-East?"

Mostly because, as I've stated a hundred times on this board, from the moment it was first suggested it was crystal clear to me that invading Iraq was a bad, bad, bad idea, one that played directly into Muslim hands. We'd be sending our troops halfway around the world, at the furthest reaches of our logistical capability, only to pin them down as an occupying force in very heart of Anti-American darkness, surrounded on almost all sides by fanatics who not only hate us but have spent generations perfecting the arts of terrorism and guerilla war. I knew in the depths of my soul that the Iraqi people would not universally welcome us and that the Iraqi military would vanish before our eyes and reconstitute themselves as an invisible guerilla resistance.

And certainly bin Laden has observed the same history I have. Where have super-powers shown themselves to be weak? Against determined guerilla resistances... in Vietnam, in Somalia, where we had absolutely no motivation to sacrifice American lives in a bloody, drawn out guerilla campaign. And, of course, the glorious victory over the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan... Islam's greatest triumph in 100 years, all accomplished by a few motivated warriors willing to keep killing enemies, regardless of their own losses, for as long as it took for the super-power to exhaust themselves and their support at home and give up.

And what didn't work for them? Certainly any form of conventional, set piece war... our hi-tech military is unstoppable. Nor did sporatic attacks against the U.S. periphery work to provoke us: bombing the embassies in Africa, a destroyer parked in Yemen, etc. The U.S. simply shrugged these off as so much cost of doing business in the Mid-East.

Nah, I think an open-minded ROTC highschool cadet, if asked how to defeat the U.S., would eventually come up with the idea of provoking us into invading and occupying a Middle-Eastern or Near-Eastern Moslem country. Afganistan would be an obvious choice, since, after the Soviet war, it had little to lose, and Afghani people are kind of the poster children of tenecious warriors capable of tossing off occupiers from foreign empires... the Soviets, the British, the Greeks, etc.

Quote by: Rainbow #2... In short : Russia provided/supplied O.bin-Laden with a very sensitive and/or vital material, then.

What makes you arrive at that conclusion?? Supplied him with what??? Box cutters?? Kalashnikovs and RPGs? If anyone, I'd suspect North Korea or maybe even China, since we know they were supplying the Palestinians.

The whole concept behind fighting us is going as LOW tech and as invisible as possible. Confucius say: "A fancy heat seeking missile can't target something that doesn't give off any heat".

Besides, in Iraq they're getting all the help they (the Sunnis) need from Syria, Jordan and the Saudis or they (the Shiites) need from Iran.

Quote by: Rainbow #3 The mistake U.S. made from the day 1, in Iraq : - removing all the S.Hussian's restrictions

Nah, the mistake the U.S. made was invading in the first place. Or, If they absolutely had to do something, why not simple stand offshore and bomb Saddam's palaces and military assets into rubble, day after day, one by one, until Saddam cried 'Uncle!!'.

.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa So the US has not done what I described? The government did not support Saddam, did not destabilize Iraq and foster an insurgency and foreign fighters? The sanctions did not end up killing many people, many of them children, rather than punish Saddam? That's funny, because that's actually pretty common knowledge. I'd dare even say these are presented as almost mainstream accounts here. If you can prove how I've "grossly oversimplified" the situation, I'd be quite interested. If anything, I've noted how it's more complex than you've made it out to be. Grandpa h.

To sum up the history of Saddam, Iraq, and the US in 3 paltry sentences is still a gross simplification of history.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval To sum up the history of Saddam, Iraq, and the US in 3 paltry sentences is still a gross simplification of history.

We were discussing events related to USA-occupied Iraq, and I was actually adding things to the discussion, not simplifying them further.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa Yes, it is wrong to support a dictator for years,

Saddam was supported because he was the lesser of 2 evils.

Quote by: grandpa then launch two wars killing thousands,

Both wars were launched because of Saddam's actions or inactions.

Quote by: grandpa only to overthrow the dictator and destabilize the country

And you can say for certain that 5, 10, or 20 years from now Iraq will not be as stable as it was under Saddam or even say, better off than it was under Saddam? I can say for certain that with in 20 years, had Saddam not been removed from power now, he would have reconstituted his weapons programs and been a serious threat to everyone in that region.

Quote by: grandpa (after the country was crippled by economic sanctions that killed at about half a million people).

By "crippled", do you mean the sanctions he had completely subverted in all but name only? Although I believe that estimation to be on the high side, the blood of the dead is completely on Saddam's hands. No where else.

Quote by: grandpa That is tyranny

That is BS.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Sonart 1. This question seems written a little awkwardly, but I assume you're asking, "Why am I so certain bin-Laden planned to provoke the U.S. into invading the Middle-East?" Mostly because, as I've stated a hundred times on this board, from the moment it was first suggested it was crystal clear to me that invading Iraq was a bad, bad, bad idea, one that played directly into Muslim hands. We'd be sending our troops halfway around the world, at the furthest reaches of our logistical capability, only to pin them down as an occupying force in very heart of Anti-American darkness, surrounded on almost all sides by fanatics who not only hate us but have spent generations perfecting the arts of terrorism and guerilla war. I knew in the depths of my soul that the Iraqi people would not universally welcome us and that the Iraqi military would vanish before our eyes and reconstitute themselves as an invisible guerilla resistance. And certainly bin Laden has observed the same history I have. Where have super-powers shown themselves to be weak? Against determined guerilla resistances... in Vietnam, in Somalia, where we had absolutely no motivation to sacrifice American lives in a bloody, drawn out guerilla campaign. And, of course, the glorious victory over the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan... Islam's greatest triumph in 100 years, all accomplished by a few motivated warriors willing to keep killing enemies, regardless of their own losses, for as long as it took for the super-power to exhaust themselves and their support at home and give up. And what didn't work for them? Certainly any form of conventional, set piece war... our hi-tech military is unstoppable. Nor did sporatic attacks against the U.S. periphery work to provoke us: bombing the embassies in Africa, a destroyer parked in Yemen, etc. The U.S. simply shrugged these off as so much cost of doing business in the Mid-East. Nah, I think an open-minded ROTC highschool cadet, if asked how to defeat the U.S., would eventually come up with the idea of provoking us into invading and occupying a Middle-Eastern or Near-Eastern Moslem country. Afganistan would be an obvious choice, since, after the Soviet war, it had little to lose, and Afghani people are kind of the poster children of tenecious warriors capable of tossing off occupiers from foreign empires... the Soviets, the British, the Greeks, etc. 2. What makes you arrive at that conclusion?? Supplied him with what??? Box cutters?? Kalashnikovs and RPGs? If anyone, I'd suspect North Korea or maybe even China, since we know they were supplying the Palestinians. The whole concept behind fighting us is going as LOW tech and as invisible as possible. Confucius say: "A fancy heat seeking missile can't target something that doesn't give off any heat". Besides, in Iraq they're getting all the help they (the Sunnis) need from Syria, Jordan and the Saudis or they (the Shiites) need from Iran. 3. Nah, the mistake the U.S. made was invading in the first place. Or, If they absolutely had to do something, why not simple stand offshore and bomb Saddam's palaces and military assets into rubble, day after day, one by one, until Saddam cried 'Uncle!!'..

#1
(The question stands for itself.
Aspirin does not serve all the same way, if it does at all.)

Recall the events for the past 10 years, and you have all you need.

#2
I gave you the sources.
I think you can send an e-mail with some inquiery, instead of posting quite weird and/or abstract data.

#3
Is that a joke ? and/or game ?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Saddam was supported because he was the lesser of 2 evils.

First of all, prove that value statement somehow. Second, please explain why the US should have supported Saddam's "evils."

Quote by: Dieval Both wars were launched because of Saddam's actions or interactions.

Oh, so no other parties were involved in decisionmaking? That's a pretty interesting take on things. Your statement essentially would have me believe Saddam launched the wars on Iraq singlehandedly, and that he sat down, presumably alone, at the UN offices and drafted the sanctions...case closed.

Unfortunately, it wasn't that simple, and the sanctions imposed by the UN and the US did in fact cripple Iraq's economy, which, from what I understand, was actually one of the most stable economies in the Middle East.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa First of all, prove that value statement somehow. Second, please explain why the US should have supported Saddam's "evils."

Quote by: article The religious leader Khomeini, however, despises the United States. It is unlikely that relations can be implemented while he is in power. Given the apparently strong position of Iran in the war, the U.S. must take precautions to ensure the Islamic revolution does not spread. If it did, Iran would control the entire Persian Gulf and oil prices, or embargoes, could hurt Western economies. Given past U.S. performance in dealing with complex religious issues in this part of the world, actions favorable to the U.S. may be difficult to ascertain. The Iran-Iraq War: Strategy of Stalemate

Iran was considered the bigger threat - AT THE TIME.

Quote by: grandpa Oh, so no other parties were involved in decisionmaking? That's a pretty interesting take on things. Your statement essentially would have me believe Saddam launched the wars on Iraq singlehandedly, and that he sat down, presumably alone, at the UN offices and drafted the sanctions...case closed.

Did Saddam get the UN's approval to invade Kawait? I think not.
Did Saddam verify that his WMD's were destroyed, as he was required to? I think not.

Quote by: grandpa Unfortunately, it wasn't that simple, and the sanctions imposed by the UN and the US did in fact cripple Iraq's economy, which, from what I understand, was actually one of the most stable economies in the Middle East. Grandpa h.

Quote by: article The Regime financed these government-sanctioned programs by several illicit revenue streams that amassed more that $11 billion from the early 1990s to OIF outside the UN-approved methods. https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/...004/chap2.html

Sounds to me that he had made quite a bit of money, even with the sanctions.... If you check out the link, there's a HUGE article on what he did and how he did it. They did hit him hard initially, but in the end, they were pretty much ineffective.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Iran was considered the bigger threat - AT THE TIME.

I know that, but you are repeating yourself. You didn't explain how Saddam was less evil than any other evil country the US has supported, or supports now. Saying it was for "strategic interests" doens't elaborate on your point. It's just parroting rhetoric.

Quote by: Dieval Did Saddam get the UN's approval to invade Kawait?

No, but that's beside the point. Nothing Saddam did meant the US had to invade and overthrow anybody, or that Saddam was alone in determining the fate of Iraq, which you seem to allege. In fact, as anyone can see, many of Saddam's worst crimes were committed with consider US (and Soviet) aid. In fact, the Us continued aid even after Saddam's Anfal campaign against the Kurds. It's commonly estimated that the Iran/Iraq war killed at least a million people. And, of course, millions became refugees.

The war also allegedly involved oil. For example, according to The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, "Iraq... hoped to seize the western Iranian region of Khuzestan, an area known for its extensive oil fields."
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825449.html

As for the sanctions, Saddam was indeed corrupt. You don't start an "Oil For Food" program with a dictator and not expect corruption, at leats if you're not an utter buffoon. And we can both agree that the sanctions harmed the Iraqi population much more than Saddam. That tends to be the case with group punishment, which is why people often criticize economic sanctions.

Grandpa h.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Rainbow #1 (The question stands for itself. Aspirin does not serve all the same way, if it does at all.) Recall the events for the past 10 years, and you have all you need. #2 I gave you the sources. I think you can send an e-mail with some inquiery, instead of posting quite weird and/or abstract data. #3 Is that a joke ? and/or game ?

Rainbow, why dont you state clearly what your argument is, because I haven't the foggiest idea what these enigmatic responses mean.

.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa I know that, but you are repeating yourself. You didn't explain how Saddam was less evil than any other evil country the US has supported, or supports now. Saying it was for "strategic interests" doens't elaborate on your point. It's just parroting rhetoric.

The truth is not rhetoric.

Quote by: grandpa No, but that's beside the point. Nothing Saddam did meant the US had to invade and overthrow anybody, or that Saddam was alone in determining the fate of Iraq, which you seem to allege.

That's not the point? The the point IS that Saddam was required to VERIFY he had destroyed his WMD's or face consequences. He didn't do what he was required to do and he faced those consequences.

Quote by: grandpa As for the sanctions, Saddam was indeed corrupt. You don't start an "Oil For Food" program with a dictator and not expect corruption, at leats if you're not an utter buffoon. And we can both agree that the sanctions harmed the Iraqi population much more than Saddam. That tends to be the case with group punishment, which is why people often criticize economic sanctions. Grandpa h.

The oil for food program was started to HELP the people of Iraq, yet Saddam twisted it for his own needs. Again, HE hurt his own people.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval The truth is not rhetoric.

But at least a million died for your "truth," for your "lesser of two e