How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 44 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #**646** 09-09-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Some members of Congress suggested that but the Administrations policy specifically prohibited that as they did NOT want anybody to claim that seizure of the Iraqi oil was why we went into Iraq.

B

Then how do you explain the following statements collected at http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm?

Quote:

Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [Source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002]

State Department Official Alan Larson: “On the resource side, Iraq itself will rightly shoulder much of the responsibilities. Among the sources of revenue available are $1.7 billion in invested Iraqi assets, the found assets in Iraq…and unallocated oil-for-food money that will be deposited in the development fund.” [Source: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing on Iraq Stabilization, 06/04/03]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction, in a sense…[Reconstruction] funds can come from those various sources I mentioned: frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has a very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. [Source: Senate Appropriations Hearing, 3/27/03]

Honus · #**647** 09-09-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Yes, I remember it being said that it would take quite a while.

Memory is a funny thing, because I remember it more along the following lines:

Quote:

On the March 16, 2003, broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, Cheney stated: "I think [the war will] go relatively quickly." When host Bob Schieffer pressed the vice president to offer a more precise estimate of how long the war would take, Cheney replied: "Weeks rather than months." On NBC's Meet the Press the same day, Cheney stated, "my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators [by the Iraqi people]."
In a February 7, 2003, appearance at Aviano Air Base in Italy, Rumsfeld projected that the Iraq war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
In a February 13, 2002, Washington Post op-ed, Ken Adelman, at the time a member of the Defense Policy Board, stated: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."

That's from http://mediamatters.org/items/200508260004.

Botnst · #**648** 09-09-2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Then how do you explain the following statements collected at http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm?

Would you say that the word, "operations" is different from the word "reconstruction"?

Bot

Botnst · #**649** 09-09-2006, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Memory is a funny thing, because I remember it more along the following lines: That's from http://mediamatters.org/items/200508260004.

Yes that's right.

There is a difference between war, in which organized armies under leadership of recognized governments engage in armed conflict according to the Geneva Conventions (of which both Iraq and the USA are signatories) and the process of reconstruction and forming a new government, in which we find ourselves at present.

Recall for example, in our war against the 3rd Reich and the Imperial government of Japan. The armed conflict was of shorter duration than the subsequent reconstruction and formation of democratic governments.

Would you say that war ended in 1945 or when the last of our troops left the homelands of our former enemies?

Bot

Honus · #**650** 09-09-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Would you say that the word, "operations" is different from the word "reconstruction"?

Bot

Yes, those are different words.

raymr · #**651** 09-09-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

now there are some enlightened christian thoughts!

i want to think we have moral superiority, but the problem with this iraq thing is i am not getting that feeling.

tom w

You do realize we are at war in two ways. The Iraq thing represents more of a conventional war - its about liberation/oil, installing government, police, etc. The other element is the Islamic extremists who know no borders and have very few or no targets to strike militarily.

The two are totally separate, and I was mostly addressing the second issue.

peragro · #**652** 09-09-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

You do realize we are at war in two ways. The Iraq thing represents more of a conventional war - its about liberation/oil, installing government, police, etc. The other element is the Islamic extremists who know no borders and have very few or no targets to strike militarily.

The two are totally separate, and I was mostly addressing the second issue.

They are dealt with with two seperate strategies. Both strategies attempt the same goal and have a common purpose.

Honus · #**653** 09-09-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Yes that's right.

There is a difference between war, in which organized armies under leadership of recognized governments engage in armed conflict according to the Geneva Conventions (of which both Iraq and the USA are signatories) and the process of reconstruction and forming a new government, in which we find ourselves at present.

Recall for example, in our war against the 3rd Reich and the Imperial government of Japan. The armed conflict was of shorter duration than the subsequent reconstruction and formation of democratic governments.

Would you say that war ended in 1945 or when the last of our troops left the homelands of our former enemies?

Bot

Different people might give different answers to that question. To me, the war ended in 1945. To a soldier who wasn't allowed to go home to his family, the war continued longer than that.

Do you really think that you can defend against the claim that the administration gave overly-optimistic predictions about how the entire Iraq invasion-war-reconstruction would go?

peragro · #**654** 09-09-2006, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Different people might give different answers to that question. To me, the war ended in 1945. To a soldier who wasn't allowed to go home to his family, the war continued longer than that.

Do you really think that you can defend against the claim that the administration gave overly-optimistic predictions about how the entire Iraq invasion-war-reconstruction would go?

My friend here in town, Dick, is exactly the kind of soldier you mention. He was stationed in the China, Burma, India theatre during WWII and was a communications engineer. After the war ended in 1945 Dick was required to stay behind to destroy the chemical weapons that both the US and Japan had stockpiled. Most of his fellow soldiers went home. He was there for well over a year doing that, sometimes in China which was not a pleasent place to be at that time.

He was well aware that the war was over and that what he was doing was cleanup and no longer the war.

Honus · #**655** 09-09-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

...He was well aware that the war was over and that what he was doing was cleanup and no longer the war.

Well, that's just great for your friend Dick. And the relevance to this discussion? Are you and Bot trying to make the case that the administration's pre-war statements were justified because what we're doing in Iraq is not technically a war?

peragro · #**656** 09-09-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Well, that's just great for your friend Dick. And the relevance to this discussion? Are you and Bot trying to make the case that the administration's pre-war statements were justified because what we're doing in Iraq is not technically a war?

No, I'm trying to point out that myself, and I would guess Bot and others, aren't suprised by what was said and what happened.

As I said, it seemed obvious from the beginning.

cmac2012 · #**657** 09-09-2006, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Yes that's right.

There is a difference between war, in which organized armies under leadership of recognized governments engage in armed conflict according to the Geneva Conventions (of which both Iraq and the USA are signatories) and the process of reconstruction and forming a new government, in which we find ourselves at present.

Recall for example, in our war against the 3rd Reich and the Imperial government of Japan. The armed conflict was of shorter duration than the subsequent reconstruction and formation of democratic governments.

Would you say that war ended in 1945 or when the last of our troops left the homelands of our former enemies?

This example is trotted out repeatedly and is about 99% meaningless. Germany and Japan both had experience with democratic governance prior to the war. Both had about 50 times the affinity for US culture than any of the Arab countries.

What, 80 to 90% of the rest of the world was lined up against them? In Germany, there was a charismatic leader, badly discredited among Germans before his cowardly death. Many Germans realized that their ambition had got the better of them. Look at their decades long remorse.

Many Japanese realized too that they had bit off more than they could chew. And having the emperor speak publicly for the first time, urging them to cease and desist had an enormous effect. There were very few violent deaths to occupying forces post WW2.

NONE of those conditions or anything remotely like them are happening in the current imbroglio.

The legacy of western exploitation is far greater in Arab/Muslim lands than anything Germany or Japan experienced.

cmac2012 · #**658** 09-09-2006, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Taking the course of escalating brutality only pays if you win. Each escalation of brutality increases the reward of winning and the losses in defeat.

How well did upping the brutality quotient work out for WW2 Germany and Japan? Conflicts before the age of mass communication were perhaps less susceptable to suffering disadvantage from excess brutality. In the case of WW2, I think knowledge of Japanese excesses strengthened resolve to put a stop to them.

I've read that Viet Cong and the like were determined to drive out the Americans in part because of carpet bombing and agent orange spraying which they considered cowardly. A case where heightened brutality was counter-productive. Yes, I know they were hard on POWs. Our bombs were harder on peasants.

Whoops! I forgot. VN has no bearing on history in any way.

peragro · #**659** 09-09-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

This example is trotted out repeatedly and is about 99% meaningless. Germany and Japan both had experience with democratic governance prior to the war. Both had about 50 times the affinity for US culture than any of the Arab countries.

What, 80 to 90% of the rest of the world was lined up against them? In Germany, there was a charismatic leader, badly discredited among Germans before his cowardly death. Many Germans realized that their ambition had got the better of them. Look at their decades long remorse.

Many Japanese realized too that they had bit off more than they could chew. And having the emperor speak publicly for the first time, urging them to cease and desist had an enormous effect. There were very few violent deaths to occupying forces post WW2.

NONE of those conditions or anything remotely like them are happening in the current imbroglio.

The legacy of western exploitation is far greater in Arab/Muslim lands than anything Germany or Japan experienced.

So are you saying that people in the middle east are just too stupid to be democritized?

BTW, you are ignoring that the "remorse" on the part of Japan and Germany were given to them in a crushing defeat. Both countries were great exploiters - just ask China and the Phillipines. You are completly mischaracterizing these two countries. So much for historical accuracy.

You are incorrect, there were many violent deaths post WWII in Germany and the Asian theatre.

Where do you get the 80% figure "against" the axis powers. In the middle east, countries such as Iran and Iraq were extremely pro Germany during WWII. They still are today. Jihadi is a best seller, you may know the english/german version, Mein Kampf. Hitler was and still is a hero in most of the middle east. I remember very well my peers in Iran doodling swastikas on their school books the same way an American child would doodle a star, and talking about the glory that was the third reich and Hitler - there was no remorse there other than that for Germany's loss. These were the privilaged children of our ally the Shah.

You really should take that history class I suggested months ago rather than rely on the sources you are apparently relying on.

Botnst · #**660** 09-09-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Yes, those are different words.

CMAC's original comment (above) was in regards to paying for military operations, to which I responded. Reconstruction of Iraq, IMO, is a separate issue.

B