Thread: Quagmire....

I seem to remember the the British PM Neville Chamberlain was a big appeaser. Look what it got him and the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by repoulinjr

This conflict, regardless of the location will go on for many years and if we do not have the will power and comitment to dedicate the resources to win you can bet our way of life will surely pass.

This conflict? You are in someones country, with guns, trying to impose your ideals onto a people that for centuries have not had to deal with that type of thing. It will go on for years due to the ignorance of both sides.

I really doubt if they will come after you and kill you. That is being a little dramatic don't you think.

You can walk to the ATM, get money, if you are hungry, pop out for a burger, sick, go see a doctor, life as usual.

Bloody luxury. I would bet the people of Iraq and Afghanistan would love to do the same thing. They don't want to see an armed force in their faces every day as much as we don't.

Try to remember these people and these places have had established, thriving communities long before we did. They have survived harsh conditions and repelled invaders long before the americas were even discovered.

Saddam is gone, Osama is lying low, the iraqi people are suffering. Food, water, medicine all hard to get to.

What is your purpose now?

Impose western style democracy on these people. They don't know what it is and IMHO I don't think they really want it?
Introduce them to a lifestyle of indulgence, and instant gratification, over-the-top theatrics by politicians and media people?
They get news, they see deranged gunmen walking into schools with assault weapons and firing away, they see disgruntled former employees coming to their offices and factories and opening up ont their bosses, mentally deranged gunmen taking over a school of pacifists and killing their children, prostitutes openly and brazenly walking the streets, drugs on many corners, they see all that.
Do they want it? I don't think so.
It won't go away.
Dialogue, discussion and tolerances is needed. Not more senseless deaths, not more 'smart' bombs, nor more ignorant ill educated youths with a ak47 on their shoulder.
There was less killing under Saddam, there was more control. Albeit, secular. But less.
Ask them want they need, ask them what they want and then help with their plans, not some trumped up texan with a chip on his shoulder.

Milkman:

I guess if your the moderator it might be well worth to read and understand the context of my response. I'll elaborate a bit further, it wasn't about rehashing Hitler's stroll into the Sunderland or the invasion of Poland, or World War II. It was about the ramifications of "APPEASEMENT", which for the most part was the policy of many nations in dealing with terrorists and their atrocities prior to 9/11. In fact, Spain is a good example of going back to a policy of appeasement and have since been attacked by terrorists.

Semper Fidelis,
CWO-3 USMC (Ret.)

Originally Posted by repoulinjr

Milkman:

I'll elaborate a bit further, it wasn't about rehashing Hitler's stroll into the Sunderland or the invasion of Poland, or World War II. It was about the ramifications of "APPEASEMENT", which for the most part was the policy of many nations in dealing with terrorists and their atrocities prior to 9/11. In fact, Spain is a good example of going back to a policy of appeasement and have since been attacked by terrorists.

Thanks for the comment on Appeasement, repoulinjr.

It deends of course, upon how we percieve and interpret it.

The War on T. mainly consits of organizations, IMO. Not nation-states. Intelligence, translators, Special OP forces will play a role and as well as trying to coordinate with foreign intelligence and police services (that are competent and cooperate).

IMO, appeasement would be ceasing the intelligence and Special Op arms of this War on T. But appeasement doesn't have anything to do with Iraq, because it's apples and oranges - or was - until the U.S. overthrow the Hussein government and disbanded the Baath party at all levels.

Spain never retreated to appeasement. The attack on the Madrid railway was because Spain jumped on the bandwagon, as did the UK, OZ, Japan, and many other countries.

Iraq should not have been a battle in the War on T., which was and is going to take decades according to most experts.

Some battles waged in wars are mistakes. Iraq was one of them.

I deleted some off-topic personal attacks and the responses to it.
We're being firmer with this now, the quality of discussions has suffered recently.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Just be nice to them and they'll go away

one of the weakest strawmen arguments i've seen on this board...and that is saying something.

Well, what's your plan then , ray?
Beyond appeasment that is...

^
Regarding Iraq not complying with UN resolutions, how many have Israel ignored with impunity?
Partly the reason why the US is seen as having double standards by the islamic world.
I pretty much agree with most of your other points, though.

Originally Posted by repoulinjr

The primary reason for the invasion of Iraq was their refusal to abide by the 13 separate U.N. resolutons aimed at allowing the world to ensure that they were not involved in the manufacturing of WMD's.

The primary reason according to who ? not by International standards or by the UN.

There were no reaons to invade, without a specific resolution, and as for Iraq not complying, it's not true, they were until your puppy thought it would be cute to say "fuck you" to the world and go ahead with an illegal invasion. The rest is silly propaganda but we knew that already.

Stroller:

At hand I am mostly talking about radical/etremist muslims. However, you do bring up a good point about the many others that are floating around out there. Could be the Basque separatists, IRA, FARP, home grown bubbas in the U.S. At any rate, they all can be labeled as terrorists. They all have some things in common such as:

1. Usually a very small part of society where they live and feel disenfranchised due to culture or customs.
2. Somtimes person or persons that are at the poverty level in the area that they live.
3. May be isolated due to race and religion.
4. Use terrorist tatics to bring attention to their cause. This includes the killing of civilians.

They all have their causes, and some might venture to call them freedom fighters, patriots, etc... However, they are still terrorists regardless of where and what their causes are.

The glaring difference between the radical/etremist muslims and the rest is that the rest are usually looking for a change within the confines of the area they are located. The FARP in Columbia have no cell operating in Japan to carry out terrorist attacks. However, radical/extremist muslims can be found just about anywhere on the planet. I can only imagine what Europe is thinking now about their immigration policies. A good example of how pervasive this problem is now, take a look at France. Any small event sets the resident radical/extremist muslims on to the streets torching cars, buses, offices, and killing innocent people. I even read that the local police dare not venture into some of these neighborhoods for fear of being killed. I lived in Paris, France 1975-1977 and it was a great place albeit the rudeness of the locals. But now, don't know if I would want to stay there due to the possibility of being in the wrong neighborhood.

It will be interesting to see where all this leads in the next twenty years or so. At my age, I count my blessing each and everyday. Happy Thanksgiving.

Semper Fidelis,
CWO-3 USMC (Ret.)

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The primary reason according to who ? not by International standards or by the UN. There were no reaons to invade, without a specific resolution, and as for Iraq not complying, it's not true, they were until your puppy thought it would be cute to say "fuck you" to the world and go ahead with an illegal invasion. The rest is silly propaganda but we knew that already.

Madame Butterfly:

You need to go back to your history books. Again, I guess you can't engage in intellectual sparring without spewing filth and vulgarity. It's a common trait with intellectual midgets.

Lastly, if we waited on the U.N. to resolve any problems of significance we might see an entire civilization fall by the wayside. First thing that comes to my mind lately is the genocide in Darfur. The U.N. is really doing a great job there. Three cheers for Kofi Annan!

Semper Fidelis,
CWO-3 USMC (Ret.)

Originally Posted by repoulinjr

First thing that comes to my mind lately is the genocide in Darfur.

Thanks to the US dragging its feet to take any actions where it's needed. Maybe if they find oil, they will get a chance.

Iraq was no threat and there was no terrorists there, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself and others.

Iraq doesn't celebrate Thanksgiving. It is a USA thing.

What was it for again. To thank the Indians for their help in showing them how to grow corn, catch food and survive in a new country.

How did they follow up?

What I meant is while we're all sitting around eating turkey people in another country are dying because of what we have/are doing wrong in that country.

Seems hypocritical to celebrate thanks when others are dying due to our actions.

In the same sense were the native American wrong to kill settlers? The Eurocentric approach is always to make the settlers look good and the Indians look like bloodthirsty savages when it wasn't the natives who went to Europe on a killing frenzy.

Damn, sounds a bit like the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Yes. Yes. Exactly.

This is a very long video but aims to give a real glimpse into what's really happening in Iraq (stuff that never makes it to the television in the states):

Iraq:The hidden story - Google Video

Originally Posted by repoulinjr

The video is over 40 minutes, but it paints a very clear picture how muslim extremists view the western world.

it's no secret. But you don't want to become your ennemy by using their same method.

This week, U.S. troops will have been fighting in Iraq longer than they did in World War II, with no relief in sight. Soldiers from 1st Brigade preparing at Fort Stewart for their third Iraq tour have been spending as much time in Iraq as at home. The rotations -- a year in Iraq followed by a year at home -- dictate soldiers' most intimate decisions: They mandate when troops can marry and have children. They sever relationships that cannot sustain the stress of absence or danger. And they lead some couples to pray for the war to end.

WP: Iraq deployments fracture families - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

what a fucking mess.

Not only that but we'll be paying for it 50 years from now.

Maybe we should levy an Iraq War tax at the gas pumps and new car showrooms. If the government could tax interstate phone service to pay for the Spanish-American War then I don't see why good Americans using the most gasoline can't pony up extra $$ to support their oil habit.