Is Iran next? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #31 03-25-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

pure unadulterated fantasy.

the war is not and cannot be won militarily.

and probably no other way either.

tom w

The campaign in Iraq, as part of a global war, was won in a brilliant military victory. That is beyond question. I think you may confuses establishment of a stable new government with military victory.

If instead you meant the "War on Terror" (a stupid name), of which Iraq was a part, then I completely agree with you. The GWOT cannot be won by military means. It will require "changing hearts and minds" and that is dependent on foreign governments, not the USA. I believe that the best way, in the long term, to change "hearts and minds" is with freedom. A quick glance at the list of nations from which international terrorists arise informs us that the overwhelming majority come from countries with great restrictions on freedom: KSA, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc. And the nations that offer support for terrorists, either through covert support or support of the populace, are also the ones that restrict freedom: Pakistan, Iran, KSA, Syria, Egypt.

t walgamuth · #32 03-25-2007, 01:54 PM

i think to call our military campaign in iraq a complete victory is to equate it to a huge strong man trying to engage a smaller man who puts up some fight but in the end decides to slip away and live to fight again later.... and the big guy delares he won the fight.

iraq never fought us on our terms this time.

they learned in desert storm that they could not win against us on our terms.

their army melted away on the outskirts of bagdhad and dispersed and now is fighting us in the way that they can win.

kindof like comparing a hummer to a vw diesel. the hummer will win a ramming contest but the vw will win an economy run. iraq has the vw here and is out running us in our huge cumbersome hummers.

tom w

Jim B. · #33 03-25-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

i think to call our military campaign in iraq a complete victory is to equate it to a huge strong man trying to engage a smaller man who puts up some fight but in the end decides to slip away and live to fight again later.... and the big guy delares he won the fight.

iraq never fought us on our terms this time.

they learned in desert storm that they could not win against us on our terms.

their army melted away on the outskirts of bagdhad and dispersed and now is fighting us in the way that they can win.

kindof like comparing a hummer to a vw diesel. the hummer will win a ramming contest but the vw will win an economy run. iraq has the vw here and is out running us in our huge cumbersome hummers.

tom w

Their basic strategy appears to me to be more like trying to inflict "Death by a thousand cuts"

t walgamuth · #34 03-25-2007, 02:50 PM

yep

tom w

Botnst · #35 03-25-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

i think to call our military campaign in iraq a complete victory is to equate it to a huge strong man trying to engage a smaller man who puts up some fight but in the end decides to slip away and live to fight again later.... and the big guy delares he won the fight.

iraq never fought us on our terms this time.

they learned in desert storm that they could not win against us on our terms.

their army melted away on the outskirts of bagdhad and dispersed and now is fighting us in the way that they can win.

kindof like comparing a hummer to a vw diesel. the hummer will win a ramming contest but the vw will win an economy run. iraq has the vw here and is out running us in our huge cumbersome hummers.

tom w

A wise general never fights on his enemy's terms.

The former army is nonexistent.

The former government is nonexistent.

The non-coalition combatants are militarily insignificant. They are however, significant to the western news media and other cowards.

B

Hatterasguy · #36 03-25-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

A wise general never fights on his enemy's terms.

The former army is nonexistent.

The former government is nonexistent.

The non-coalition combatants are militarily insignificant. They are however, significant to the western news media and other cowards.

B

Yep, we are the only ones who can drive ourselves from the field.

dlssmith · #37 03-25-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

You have stretched my argument beyond recognition. I said that Bush should engage Iran and see whether their selfish interests overlap with our own. For example, in 2001, Iran and the United States shared an interest in defeating the Taliban and I'm told that we got valuable cooperation from Iran during the early parts of the war in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, W lost interest in that war and decided to start a different war in Iraq. Even so, I will bet that Iran would like to talk to us about fighting the resurgent Taliban. There are other areas where we might have things that Iran wants. We should explore it. We might actually learn something.

If you're talking about talking to Iranians, I am sure you're right. To their government, I doubt there is much we have in common.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I don't see how you can say that history does not support my view that people act in their own selfish interest. I thought that was a universal truth throughout history.I would love to see you go back and find a single word I said that makes that argument.

Your argument seems to imply that there is a commonality in those interests. In some cases, yes. The first world war was one in which the exploration of common interests was ignored, and disaster ensued. But some countries define aggressive moves as if they were "In their best interests". Clearly, with Iranian support of Hamas, and AlQaeda, and with them supplying IEDs to the insurgency in Iraq, our interests diverge. Iranian statements regarding Israel? Serious divergence. dculkin, your argument is the basis for diplomatic theory, and as I said, I think the US is engaging the Iranians, but through the Syrians, and only through back channels.

So let's ask, to go a step further, what interest of the US does the current war serve? Surely some vital interest? Oil, some would say? Others, and I do believe Bush when he says it too, say that the US is protected by taking the fight against violent islamofacists, out of the US. Outside US territory. I like that the fight is not in New York. One day of that was enough. And for those of you that believe 9/11 isn't connected to Iraq, or the Jews did it, or some other nonsense; get a clue.

Honus · #38 03-25-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith

...Others, and I do believe Bush when he says it too, say that the US is protected by taking the fight against violent islamofacists, out of the US. Outside US territory. I like that the fight is not in New York. One day of that was enough...

How does sending our military half-way around the world prevent anyone from attacking us here? I am having trouble seeing how that works. The terrorists have everything in place for attacking New York again, but they have to call it off because our military is somewhere else? That makes no sense.

The flypaper theory is often used to justify the war in Iraq (not as often as before, but we still hear it now and then), but it is exactly backwards. Our enemies are the ones who want this war to be fought over there because they can make us fight on their terms. They like having our military stretched thin and worn down in Iraq. It simultaneously saps our resources while building theirs by helping them recruit a whole new generation of people who hate us.

Quote:

And for those of you that believe 9/11 isn't connected to Iraq

We are still waiting to see the evidence on that one.

Quote:

...or the Jews did it...

Some people blame the Jews for everything, but it's been a while since I heard any knuckleheads try to blame them for 9/11.

450slcguy · #39 03-25-2007, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

How does sending our military half-way around the world prevent anyone from attacking us here? I am having trouble seeing how that works. The terrorists have everything in place for attacking New York again, but they have to call it off because our military is somewhere else? That makes no sense.

I agree, it makes no sense at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

The flypaper theory is often used to justify the war in Iraq (not as often as before, but we still hear it now and then), but it is exactly backwards. Our enemies are the ones who want this war to be fought over there because they can make us fight on their terms. They like having our military stretched thin and worn down in Iraq. It simultaneously saps our resources while building theirs by helping them recruit a whole new generation of people who hate us.We are still waiting to see the evidence on that one.Some people blame the Jews for everything, but it's been a while since I heard any knuckleheads try to blame them for 9/11.

Well said. Our military is being spread way to thin by an enemy that remains anonymous and mobile. We move in and they move out or blend in with locals. We have limited resources in terms of manpower and money, and they appear to have unlimited resources to carry on the fight. We try to play by the rules of engagement, they play by no rules at all. Sure we can win all the battles, but they will still be there when the battles are over.

It's time to come to the realization that the US does not have unlimited resources of soldiers or money. The way I see it, we've accomplished most of the intended objectives, the rest is up to the Iraqi government and people to sink or swim.

Hatterasguy · #40 03-26-2007, 10:33 AM

According to the latest info I saw having out military in Iraq is causing the various terrorist groups great difficulty. We seem to be killing their members faster then they can recruit them, also their logistics and other support is being affected.

Remember that most of the insurgants in Iraq are not from that country, they are brought in. These insurgants would be free to fight in other places, like NY. Thankfully our military is quite good at quickly killing them as well.

jlomon · #41 03-26-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Remember that most of the insurgants in Iraq are not from that country, they are brought in. These insurgants would be free to fight in other places, like NY. Thankfully our military is quite good at quickly killing them as well.

I'd be interested to read the source for this, because my understanding is different. Yes, much of the original insurgency came from outside Iraq. But the balance shifted over time, and for quite some time now the majority of the insurgents are from the Iraqi population. It is also important to note that the insurgency is an entirely different issue from the civil war currently going on between Sunni and Shiite. Those people are all homegrown, and represent a greater threat to nation building in Iraq than the insurgency does.

Medmech · #42 03-26-2007, 01:48 PM

For awhile I thought I missed this spread even after all of the dread, I looked ahead to be mislead by the well read............until I checked out this thread, now I am back to making bread,

Love

Med

Honus · #43 03-26-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

According to the latest info I saw having out military in Iraq is causing the various terrorist groups great difficulty. We seem to be killing their members faster then they can recruit them, also their logistics and other support is being affected.

Remember that most of the insurgants in Iraq are not from that country, they are brought in. These insurgants would be free to fight in other places, like NY. Thankfully our military is quite good at quickly killing them as well.

If we are killing insurgents faster than they can recruit, why don't they just leave Iraq?

Hatterasguy · #44 03-26-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

If we are killing insurgents faster than they can recruit, why don't they just leave Iraq?

They don't want to admit defeat, Iraq is a big deal.

John Doe · #45 03-26-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

But their army is pretty good, chances are they won't need much of our help. Maybe some air raids.

Unnhhhh, google something like "US Financial Assistance to Israel from 1948-present" and get back to us on how much of our help they don't need (or take, as the case is). Another fun trick is to google how much our aid compares to their solo GNP. Course that really isn't an accurate figure, because they are using our money to fund their investments......