sunnis and shi'ites will unite, hold hands, sing cumbaya, and shout in unison "allah is great! and the united states is his prophet." all the while, american troops will stand on the side with their m-16's pointed squarely at the congregation as f-16's fly overhead. the iraqi interim government will have sovereignty so long as they pass every major decision through washington. the end.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US/IRAQ - how will it end?
- Thread starter Micah
- Start date
ah micah,don't you remember this extremely long thread when the war was about to begin??? so many ppl talked so much stupid things and now this naive questioning about the future starts all over again?
there is absolutely no surprise in what happened, what happens right now and what will happen in the future, except for those who had a little "disturbed" point of view from the beginning on.
that's one reason why this thread is weird. the other one is how you ppl sit here and talk about it as if it was some football game to come, discussing about tactics and how you could win the game...those ways are beyond my understanding.
there is absolutely no surprise in what happened, what happens right now and what will happen in the future, except for those who had a little "disturbed" point of view from the beginning on.
that's one reason why this thread is weird. the other one is how you ppl sit here and talk about it as if it was some football game to come, discussing about tactics and how you could win the game...those ways are beyond my understanding.
Last edited:
Absolutely true, Matthew. I just hate seeing our men and women dying for a people that can't appreciate what we're trying to do for them. But if we did just pull out, chances are it would be worse than before, as you would be seeing a flat-out civil war...........Matthew said:if we simply leave, someone like saddam will just take over, and all the soldiers that have died would be a waste.
that being said, we need to hold elections and stay in Iraq in a supervisory and police role, but maintaining a firm grip, easing out of the country. you cant just pull out all the sudden, but you cant run the country forever either...
.
Roywhitep5
Member
- :
- 2007 350z
after the end of world war 2, when the US was occupying germany, there were nazi sympathizers that started attacing anyone who helped the americans. they planned on the german people to rise up against the americans but it never happened. instead most of the german people protested the attacks. they were so tired of the violence that had taken place over the past 10 years that they just wanted peace.
if somehting like this happened in iraq, maybe the violence would stop
if somehting like this happened in iraq, maybe the violence would stop
StarvingRussian
Member
i hope so
we'll invade texas, rename it to connecticut II and open up a successful string of cracker barrels.
ghetto waggon
Member
- :
- 2003 Protege5, Yellow.
my best friend's brother enlisted last year and is baghdad now.
a few days ago there was an explosion and he is in serious to critical condition.
anyone military know how we could find out more info?
the contact info they got with the info said they will only disclose location not current status/health.
i've heard people say theres online databases of WIA and KIA,
anyone know?
a few days ago there was an explosion and he is in serious to critical condition.
anyone military know how we could find out more info?
the contact info they got with the info said they will only disclose location not current status/health.
i've heard people say theres online databases of WIA and KIA,
anyone know?
news to me..it would have to be quite new..
- :
- 10 MS3
The only way you can really find out what is going on with him is if he calls. The other way is if he passes away(which I hope it doesn't happen).milmoejoe said:my best friend's brother enlisted last year and is baghdad now.
a few days ago there was an explosion and he is in serious to critical condition.
anyone military know how we could find out more info?
the contact info they got with the info said they will only disclose location not current status/health.
i've heard people say theres online databases of WIA and KIA,
anyone know?
The people of Iraq are scared of protesting against these dickheads attacking us. These peopl are mostly from other countries, trust me. All I have to say is give us time, and keep supporting us. You can b**** at the politics all you want, but right now we are motivated and ready to finish these bastards out here in Fallujah. The unfortunate part is civilians are often put in the way by these guys and therefore there will be civilian casualties.
BTW, with Vietman, you have to remember that it was the U.S. against North Vietnam, the Vietcong, China and maybe other countries supporting them with weapons. Here it's just a couple of johnny jihads who want to make the U.S. look like occupiers, bad guys or whatever. Anyway, these are just my thoughts, a couple of months back I would have thought that we had to pull back because we were getting slaughtered out here and these people didn't care. Now that Im back out here it's a little different, we will succeed , at least on the military side, now for the political side I don't know.
Thats b/s! Milmoejoe call the Red Cross they do amazing work for the military.The only way you can really find out what is going on with him is if he calls. The other way is if he passes away(which I hope it doesn't happen).
Last edited:
This was posted on TIME's site today:
Monday, Apr. 19, 2004
"[Bush] might redefine success and announce a quicker exit strategy."
The bloody events in Iraq over the past month have raised the specter of another huge American disaster, the possibility that after again spending blood and huge treasure we will have to get out of Iraq without leaving a stable democratic government and the Middle East transformedat least not in the way the Administration expected. As uncertainty rises in the U.S. about what we are doing in Iraq, the bipartisan consensus insists that we must "stay the course" because failure to do so will have "catastrophic" consequences for the U.S. and Iraq.
It is too early to declare that we will be unsuccessful in Iraq if we strenuously persist in pursuing important goals. But the basis for believing these can be achieved is eroding. There is a growing belief in the U.S. that we do not know what we are doing in Iraq, that the U.S. is drifting and losing Iraqi support, and to use another once familiar term, that we are in a "quagmire." Regrettably, there is reason for the increasing skepticism. The Administration's basis for going to war has come to look shaky, and it clearly had little idea of what to expect beyond destroying the Saddam regime. We are trying to create a radically different state in a place we have little understanding of and were effectively cut off from for 15 years. We are supposedly turning over "sovereignty" in less than three months, but we are not sure to whom.
It is tempting to believe, as many on both sides of the aisle apparently do, that we can achieve success by turning the military task over to NATO or by relying on the U.N. to fashion an Iraqi government. But NATO is not going to supply many troops in continuing hostilities. As for the U.N., its capacity at this juncture to shape the political future of Iraq is equally dubious. It has had a checkered history in Iraq, and the Iraqi parties struggling for power are not overly concerned about any international legitimacy the U.N. might confer.
At some point the President may have to consider different approaches. He might redefine success and announce a quicker exit strategy that would include early elections, the complete turnover of political rule and military security to an Iraqi government, and the removal of all U.S. forces within a year. Such a policy would still require spending lots of money, time and diplomatic effort on our part pulling in more help from our allies. But it also bows to the realities of our predicament and probably gives the Iraqis greater urgency to form their own government, however democratic or parlous. A deadline for reducing our involvement might also win us greater international support.
The potential costs of leaving Iraq sooner rather than later, in uncertain circumstances, are greatinstability and even civil war in Iraq, a vast loss of prestige and influence in the Arab world, encouragement to terrorists, and a serious decline in our unrivaled political ability to use force. But these must be matched against the costs of staying, a debate which is all too little done in public. If the worst does persist and the Administration wants to stay the course, the President must come forth and candidly tell the public not only the costs of leaving but also those of stayingthe casualties, the expense, the continuing abrasions with allies, the polarization of our public life, the sidelining of other domestic and foreign priorities, and the uncertainty of success.
Ultimate success in Iraq would be a great achievement and is still worth vigorously pursuing. But the U.S. can also endure failure, however traumatic; it has done so in the past, it will likely do so in the future. It has a still enormously pre-eminent power position, the continued dependence of the world on our making things happen, the dynamism of its people, and above all great resilience. Hopefully, we will not fail, but if we do, we can be confident of surviving it.
By Morton Abramowitz
"We need more help ... [we need] to be more creative about obtaining it."
The President must demonstrate to Iraqis and to the rest of the world that we are determined to finish what we started and do what it takes to bring about a stable, democratic Iraq. That means, above all, restoring the security situation. We can't hope to meet the June 30 deadline unless the country is relatively secure. This will require decisive removal of the groups that have taken over certain towns. It will require decisive defeat of the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and of anyone else willing to take up arms against the coalition. We must commit the armed forces necessary to do the job.
We need more help from our friends and allies, and the Administration needs to be more creative about obtaining it. We could draw more help by first asking them to help us with broader development issues in the region, like economic reform and democratization. This would link stabilization of Iraq to the broader region and demonstrate to our allies that our agenda is more than a military one.
Security is absolutely necessary now for U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to travel in Iraq and to complete his work on reaching a governance agreement among Iraqi factions for the transfer of sovereignty. The transition requires a new U.N. Security Council resolution explicitly recognizing this arrangement and giving it international legitimacy. These are crucial steps that the Administration must make every effort to get right.
Finally, the Administration must demonstrate to Americans and Iraqis that this transition is going to be well-managed, including the part that shifts U.S. power from L. Paul Bremer at the Coalition Provisional Authority to a new U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Ideally, the ambassador, who requires Senate confirmation, should have been nominated before now. The Administration must appoint and provide security for the estimated 3,000 embassy personnel, who must get out into the country.
The American public needs confidence that this planning is progressing well. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing next week, when I will ask the State Department to lay out the arrangements that have been made. The Congress, and in fact the world, needs to see how the June 30 transition date can work.
By Richard Lugar
"We need 80,000 or more troops added to the U.S. Army."
When a grass fire first starts, you can jump right in the middle of it and stomp it out. But if you wait too long, it just becomes uncontrollable. We should immediately jump onto the opposition and end it, and then launch smart diplomatic moves to get NATO and the U.N. and other Arab forces involved in a bigger way.
There are no more U.S. troops to send to Iraq. That's why we need 80,000 or more troops added to the U.S. Army. Congress is allowing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to dig in his heels and try to maintain a foreign policy based on a grossly undermanned U.S. military. The key question isn't whether the 1st Cavalry Division is going to get run out of Baghdadit's not. The key question is, if you've got 70% of your combat battalions in the U.S. Army deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea and elsewhere, can you maintain this kind of muscular presence in that many places? The answer is no. But if we take action now to increase the size of the Army by 80,000 soldiers, we'll be able to handle this global reach. The key would be to activate nine National Guard brigades in the next 18 months and convert them into active-duty soldiers, allowing the reservists to go back to their communities.
The transfer of political authority on June 30 is extremely premature. By that date, there will not be a sovereign government with any political legitimacy. And here's another challenge we face: we need to put the training of Iraqi security servicesthe police, army, border patrol and otherssolely under the control of the U.S. military instead of the Coalition Provisional Authority and give these Iraqi recruits more money. Iraq is costing us $4 billion a month, and only a tiny percent of that has gone directly to support the creation of Iraqi security forces. We should also transfer authority for security policy in Iraq from Rumsfeld to Secretary of State Colin Powell because the most important tasks are now diplomatic.
We need to invest two to 10 years in Iraq, and we'll have a good outcome. But if we think we're dumping this responsibility in the coming year, we're going to end up with a mess on our hands that will severely impair our international role for the coming 20 years.
By Barry McCaffrey
Morton Abramowitz headed the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general, was wounded three times in Vietnam. From the Apr. 19, 2004 issue of TIME magazine
strange that I posted this topic yesterday, then found this today.
Monday, Apr. 19, 2004
"[Bush] might redefine success and announce a quicker exit strategy."
The bloody events in Iraq over the past month have raised the specter of another huge American disaster, the possibility that after again spending blood and huge treasure we will have to get out of Iraq without leaving a stable democratic government and the Middle East transformedat least not in the way the Administration expected. As uncertainty rises in the U.S. about what we are doing in Iraq, the bipartisan consensus insists that we must "stay the course" because failure to do so will have "catastrophic" consequences for the U.S. and Iraq.
It is too early to declare that we will be unsuccessful in Iraq if we strenuously persist in pursuing important goals. But the basis for believing these can be achieved is eroding. There is a growing belief in the U.S. that we do not know what we are doing in Iraq, that the U.S. is drifting and losing Iraqi support, and to use another once familiar term, that we are in a "quagmire." Regrettably, there is reason for the increasing skepticism. The Administration's basis for going to war has come to look shaky, and it clearly had little idea of what to expect beyond destroying the Saddam regime. We are trying to create a radically different state in a place we have little understanding of and were effectively cut off from for 15 years. We are supposedly turning over "sovereignty" in less than three months, but we are not sure to whom.
It is tempting to believe, as many on both sides of the aisle apparently do, that we can achieve success by turning the military task over to NATO or by relying on the U.N. to fashion an Iraqi government. But NATO is not going to supply many troops in continuing hostilities. As for the U.N., its capacity at this juncture to shape the political future of Iraq is equally dubious. It has had a checkered history in Iraq, and the Iraqi parties struggling for power are not overly concerned about any international legitimacy the U.N. might confer.
At some point the President may have to consider different approaches. He might redefine success and announce a quicker exit strategy that would include early elections, the complete turnover of political rule and military security to an Iraqi government, and the removal of all U.S. forces within a year. Such a policy would still require spending lots of money, time and diplomatic effort on our part pulling in more help from our allies. But it also bows to the realities of our predicament and probably gives the Iraqis greater urgency to form their own government, however democratic or parlous. A deadline for reducing our involvement might also win us greater international support.
The potential costs of leaving Iraq sooner rather than later, in uncertain circumstances, are greatinstability and even civil war in Iraq, a vast loss of prestige and influence in the Arab world, encouragement to terrorists, and a serious decline in our unrivaled political ability to use force. But these must be matched against the costs of staying, a debate which is all too little done in public. If the worst does persist and the Administration wants to stay the course, the President must come forth and candidly tell the public not only the costs of leaving but also those of stayingthe casualties, the expense, the continuing abrasions with allies, the polarization of our public life, the sidelining of other domestic and foreign priorities, and the uncertainty of success.
Ultimate success in Iraq would be a great achievement and is still worth vigorously pursuing. But the U.S. can also endure failure, however traumatic; it has done so in the past, it will likely do so in the future. It has a still enormously pre-eminent power position, the continued dependence of the world on our making things happen, the dynamism of its people, and above all great resilience. Hopefully, we will not fail, but if we do, we can be confident of surviving it.
By Morton Abramowitz
"We need more help ... [we need] to be more creative about obtaining it."
The President must demonstrate to Iraqis and to the rest of the world that we are determined to finish what we started and do what it takes to bring about a stable, democratic Iraq. That means, above all, restoring the security situation. We can't hope to meet the June 30 deadline unless the country is relatively secure. This will require decisive removal of the groups that have taken over certain towns. It will require decisive defeat of the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and of anyone else willing to take up arms against the coalition. We must commit the armed forces necessary to do the job.
We need more help from our friends and allies, and the Administration needs to be more creative about obtaining it. We could draw more help by first asking them to help us with broader development issues in the region, like economic reform and democratization. This would link stabilization of Iraq to the broader region and demonstrate to our allies that our agenda is more than a military one.
Security is absolutely necessary now for U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to travel in Iraq and to complete his work on reaching a governance agreement among Iraqi factions for the transfer of sovereignty. The transition requires a new U.N. Security Council resolution explicitly recognizing this arrangement and giving it international legitimacy. These are crucial steps that the Administration must make every effort to get right.
Finally, the Administration must demonstrate to Americans and Iraqis that this transition is going to be well-managed, including the part that shifts U.S. power from L. Paul Bremer at the Coalition Provisional Authority to a new U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Ideally, the ambassador, who requires Senate confirmation, should have been nominated before now. The Administration must appoint and provide security for the estimated 3,000 embassy personnel, who must get out into the country.
The American public needs confidence that this planning is progressing well. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing next week, when I will ask the State Department to lay out the arrangements that have been made. The Congress, and in fact the world, needs to see how the June 30 transition date can work.
By Richard Lugar
"We need 80,000 or more troops added to the U.S. Army."
When a grass fire first starts, you can jump right in the middle of it and stomp it out. But if you wait too long, it just becomes uncontrollable. We should immediately jump onto the opposition and end it, and then launch smart diplomatic moves to get NATO and the U.N. and other Arab forces involved in a bigger way.
There are no more U.S. troops to send to Iraq. That's why we need 80,000 or more troops added to the U.S. Army. Congress is allowing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to dig in his heels and try to maintain a foreign policy based on a grossly undermanned U.S. military. The key question isn't whether the 1st Cavalry Division is going to get run out of Baghdadit's not. The key question is, if you've got 70% of your combat battalions in the U.S. Army deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea and elsewhere, can you maintain this kind of muscular presence in that many places? The answer is no. But if we take action now to increase the size of the Army by 80,000 soldiers, we'll be able to handle this global reach. The key would be to activate nine National Guard brigades in the next 18 months and convert them into active-duty soldiers, allowing the reservists to go back to their communities.
The transfer of political authority on June 30 is extremely premature. By that date, there will not be a sovereign government with any political legitimacy. And here's another challenge we face: we need to put the training of Iraqi security servicesthe police, army, border patrol and otherssolely under the control of the U.S. military instead of the Coalition Provisional Authority and give these Iraqi recruits more money. Iraq is costing us $4 billion a month, and only a tiny percent of that has gone directly to support the creation of Iraqi security forces. We should also transfer authority for security policy in Iraq from Rumsfeld to Secretary of State Colin Powell because the most important tasks are now diplomatic.
We need to invest two to 10 years in Iraq, and we'll have a good outcome. But if we think we're dumping this responsibility in the coming year, we're going to end up with a mess on our hands that will severely impair our international role for the coming 20 years.
By Barry McCaffrey
Morton Abramowitz headed the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general, was wounded three times in Vietnam. From the Apr. 19, 2004 issue of TIME magazine
strange that I posted this topic yesterday, then found this today.
MazdaSpeeder00
Member
- :
- MSP
well i myself having been over there have a much different view than most of you. Yes its a hostile environment with a civil war. And yes we take interest in their oil. The world is a game of politics and until people understand it and deal with it then they are just going to get upset and b**** about everything. The U.S. is the big brother of the world and sometimes we are going to step in and solve squabbles. Yes we lose troops but thats part of it. Everyone of us who signed that contract and went to duty knew that it was a possibility and we all excepted the fact that we might die.
And to Educate you on this whole matter.............Iraqi people dont want us to leave. You watch way too much CNN! The groups (who are mostly militia left over from the Saddam Riegn) try to weaken our support everday. Eventually this is gonna end, but it will take time. Unfortunately the people back home dont see and understand what is going on. If we were to leave now that would cause a HUGE uprising. We are stopping a potential threat to our homeland and allies. And loss of soldiers is gonna be a part of it. So if everyone gets upset when a soldier dies then we really got issues! We dont play FLAG WAR...........IT's FULL CONTACT!!!
And yes MilMoeJoe call the RedCross... It is their job to contact military members.. Might have to be family though. so have a family member of his call.
And to Educate you on this whole matter.............Iraqi people dont want us to leave. You watch way too much CNN! The groups (who are mostly militia left over from the Saddam Riegn) try to weaken our support everday. Eventually this is gonna end, but it will take time. Unfortunately the people back home dont see and understand what is going on. If we were to leave now that would cause a HUGE uprising. We are stopping a potential threat to our homeland and allies. And loss of soldiers is gonna be a part of it. So if everyone gets upset when a soldier dies then we really got issues! We dont play FLAG WAR...........IT's FULL CONTACT!!!
And yes MilMoeJoe call the RedCross... It is their job to contact military members.. Might have to be family though. so have a family member of his call.
lol - and you are arguing with whom?MazdaSpeeder00 said:well i myself having been over there have a much different view than most of you. Yes its a hostile environment with a civil war. And yes we take interest in their oil. The world is a game of politics and until people understand it and deal with it then they are just going to get upset and b**** about everything. The U.S. is the big brother of the world and sometimes we are going to step in and solve squabbles. Yes we lose troops but thats part of it. Everyone of us who signed that contract and went to duty knew that it was a possibility and we all excepted the fact that we might die.
And to Educate you on this whole matter.............Iraqi people dont want us to leave. You watch way too much CNN! The groups (who are mostly militia left over from the Saddam Riegn) try to weaken our support everday. Eventually this is gonna end, but it will take time. Unfortunately the people back home dont see and understand what is going on. If we were to leave now that would cause a HUGE uprising. We are stopping a potential threat to our homeland and allies. And loss of soldiers is gonna be a part of it. So if everyone gets upset when a soldier dies then we really got issues! We dont play FLAG WAR...........IT's FULL CONTACT!!!
And yes MilMoeJoe call the RedCross... It is their job to contact military members.. Might have to be family though. so have a family member of his call.
I agree - I have friends in the military and I feel no more sorry for them than I have for friends of mine who died of a drug overdose. Either way, it was a known risk going into it. I still get sad at the loss of a friend, but I don't feel it wasn't fair.
MazdaSpeeder00
Member
- :
- MSP
I just hate it when people make uneducated decisions about things they have no clue about.Micah said:lol - and you are arguing with whom?
I agree - I have friends in the military and I feel no more sorry for them than I have for friends of mine who died of a drug overdose. Either way, it was a known risk going into it. I still get sad at the loss of a friend, but I don't feel it wasn't fair.
And yeah i myself still have half of my old squadron over there and it sucks but i know they are doing all that they can to help this and that country. (group)
I stand by my prediction.
Before I read the rest of this thread I just want to say this is the most assinine thing I have ever read. Nobody asked us to invade their country and now that we've ****** up we're supposed to blow the whole place up? I'm cringing with disbelief.mypfizzle said:my idea.. the country is war torn and our troops are getting killed left and right.. i think we should give up on the idea of ground war and just bomb the s*** out fo the country.. the same people we are trying to protect are the ones shooting our soilders in the back. im sure most of the people that dont want to be there have left.. we just need to stop carring what the rest of the world things and blow that whole ******* country up. As bad as it sounds i have never seen anything good come from there.. the people cry about saddam.. and we go remove saddam and now they start shooting us in the back. i myself have had 2 friends wounded over there and feel very storngly about it.
so my vote is pull back.. demolish everything standing and sort the bodies out later.
(rofl)
heheh, yeah, I'm thinking of inciting something.(blah)SpicyMchaggis said:I stand by my prediction.
Your tax dollars at work.pingdum said:Before I read the rest of this thread I just want to say this is the most assinine thing I have ever read. Nobody asked us to invade their country and now that we've ****** up we're supposed to blow the whole place up? I'm cringing with disbelief.
Who is making the uneducated decision?MazdaSpeeder00 said:I just hate it when people make uneducated decisions about things they have no clue about.
And yeah i myself still have half of my old squadron over there and it sucks but i know they are doing all that they can to help this and that country. (group)
And to answer the original question:it won't.
I hope all you people who are so upset about our people dying over there were the same ones who were protesting the invasian to begin with, the entire thing is turning out excatly as predicted, who would've thought? Apparently not our so called leaders.
I hope all you people who are so upset about our people dying over there were the same ones who were protesting the invasian to begin with, the entire thing is turning out excatly as predicted, who would've thought? Apparently not our so called leaders.
New Posts and Comments
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 53
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 60
- Views
- 4K
