Welcome to PatsFans.com

Bases in Iraq Get a Boost

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Feb 21, 2006.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060220-015649-7679r

    Does anyone still reject the idea that we are there for the long haul?

    Going unnoticed over the last few years has been our construction of permanent installations in some of Iraqs hottest zones. Did Bush get a mandate to do this?

    For all the smoke he's blowing up our a$$es about alternative energy, seems that the truth on the ground suggests a very different idea.

    The hidden costs in this latest supplemental, which of course had no business being in his budget so was not included, are the funds to continue the construction of permanent forward operating bases. There is no question that the neo-cons have no intention of turning Iraq over to a bunch of rag-tag militias.
     
  2. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Oh good grief. This is simply one more indication that things are going along the same track that they went in Japan and in Germany after WWII. We have bases there, and have had them since the war. Do you see any inherent problem with those bases? Or just the Iraq bases?
     
  3. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    At what point were you told that we would be establishing a permanent presence in Iraq? I must have missed that news story.
     
  4. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    That's the problem, before the "war" started, we were catagorically told we would not remain there for the long haul. We weren't told it would be like WWII, we were told it would be more like Israel's 8 Day War. Also the difference with the bases in Japan and Germany is that those countries want us to be there and cooperate with us, whereas there will always be people in Iraq blowing our soldiers up.
     
  5. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Feb 21, 2006
  6. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,311
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

     
  7. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

    The architect of the Iraq war is now safely huddled behind a desk at the world bank. Here he was saying that we would leave as soon as possible, testifying before congress. That makes Mr. Wolfowitz a criminal for willfully distorting the truth- the true reasoned calculus of the CIA and Army War College and General Shinseki.

    Or, perhaps, Wolfowitz truly believed his own deluded vision for Iraq?
     
  8. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Do you honestly think that was the case right after the war? That all the people of both of those countries wanted us to be there? I think some historical perspective would help here.

    How many Iraqi people have to express their thanks for us being there, doing the job we're doing, before you acknowledge it?

    You seem very certain that there will "always" be people in Iraq trying to kill us, but the same could have been said in Japan in 1947.
     
  9. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You're right, but when we got into WWII (which, by the way, wasn't until we were attacked on our own soil) everyone knew it would be for the long haul. It was a WORLD WAR. Don't you remember Iraq being presented as a quick conflict? I remember Rumsfeld saying he wasn't sure how long we'd be there, but it would be measured in months and not years. Now we're going to keep bases there like after WORLD WAR II? How many people would have supported this conflict if that had come out right away?
     
  10. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    About 20% by my estimate. Instead, by conflating 911 and Iraq, "assuring" a quick, cheap, and easy mission, Bush got a ~60% approval. Through a well planned series of LIES perpetrated by this administration.
     
  11. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If that's what he said, then he was wrong. But...
    ... I would contend that it was a misjudgment, not a deliberate lie. You guys need to accept the fact that the combat mission was accomplished quickly. And we were greeted as liberators. Do you not remember the statue coming down in Baghdad, and people ripping down posters of Saddam and whacking with their shoes what was left of those posters on the wall?

    The misjudgment involved how thoroughly corrupt Saddams govt. was and the Bath party was, and how many weapons caches were distributed throughout the country, and how many foreigners would cross the borders into Iraq to play terrorist.

    Somewhere along the way, Bush probably decided that it would be good to have some bases there, not only for the value of their strategic locations, but also to help stabilize the new Iraqi government. But to hear you guys talk, you seem to think he was planning on installing bases in Iraq as he was running for President the first time. It's not very rational.
     
  12. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    There is negligence, and there is GROSS negligence. I (along with countless other people), having NO access to intelligence, immediately thought: "Bush's objectives will take a decade or longer to accomplish." Now I'm not saying I should be president, but should someone who knows even less than me be allowed to?

    What Bush did was give us the very optimistic "best case scenario", but didn't tell us it was a best case scenario. If you think politics didn't play into it and it was a simple mistake, you're being naive. Even if you DO believe Bush, you have to be terrified of how many more mistakes they'd be capable of making, no?
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2006
  13. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That argument doesn't impress me much. There were a whole lot of people saying that we didn't have a chance against Afghanistan, that we'd get bogged down, yet in the end they were wrong. And people started saying the same stuff about Iraq (it really was a pathetic joke from the military perspective, when people started using the word "quagmire" less than a week into Iraq -- that's how spoiled our society has become), and they were wrong then too. As I said earlier, the combat was finished and the war was won very quickly. (When a nation's capitol is taken, and the enemy forces surrender, and the nation's government acknowledges it, the war is over. What happens next, whatever you want to call it -- occupation, clean-up, rebuilding, whatever -- it's not war.)

    No. Because for one thing, I don't expect perfection. But also, I believe in the mission in Iraq, and I don't buy the story that we're there because "Bush lied." We haven't yet found anything the left considers to be WMDs, and that's sole basis for the left making that claim -- but it was never the only reason for going in there. It just drove the timing.

    It seems to me -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that many people on the left start from the position of hating Bush. They hate him for being a Texan, for being a cowboy, for being a Christian, for being a conservative, and for beating Gore in the first election. And that's just the starting point. Then, many on the left blame him for 9/11, and then blame him for "squandering" the post-9/11 "good will" of the world community by going after terrorists. So by the time we get to Iraq, many of you on the left are already at a highly elevated emotional state, and your corks are already about ready to pop.

    So I think that's why you're so ready to accuse Bush of lying, so ready to be "terrified of how many more mistakes they'd be capable of making", and why you probably think I'm a right-wing ideologue or Bush sycophant (the former may be accurate, but not the latter).
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2006
  14. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I can't correct you because I can't speak for other people. Actually, I'm pretty sure there are people like you mentioned out there that would hate Bush if he decided to give his own kidney to a stranger.

    But here's how I feel: When 9/11 happened, I was all for a strong military response. I was behind Bush on Afghanistan, except for the tactics (I think we should have fought a ground war to try and capture Bin Laden instead of leaving it to Afghani warlords, though I do understand Bush was trying to save US lives). When Bush presented the Iraq 9/11 connection, I was sceptical but I thought we would have to do something if Iraq did aquire WMD's, because even if they wouldn't use them, they'd sell them to someone who would. But then the story in Iraq changed. Remember, NOT ONCE did Bush give a reason other than WMD's and the 9/11 connection when they were first pitching their case. Only once the WMD's claim became discredited did all these other reasons creep in there. Seriously, Google "liberating the Iraqi people" and see how many hits you find from before we had "won" the war.

    My other beef with what you're saying is the part about the major "war" being won. We've lost more soldiers in the "post-war" than in the war, and if we're there for a decade or longer we'll stand to lose many, many more. It's like the tail wagging the dog. You can use whatever words you want, but clearly the post-conflict is the bigger fish, and also one that was clearly predicted. I don't remember nearly as many voices warning us about Afghanistan. It seems like a lot of people who agreed with that war don't agree with this one.
     
  15. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This is a lie. The WMD "discreditation" didn't occur until after the war had started. Long before then, the following arguments were made:
    - The Bush Doctrine. It says that any country that supports terrorism must either change its ways or consider us their enemy. It was articulated immediately after 9/11, and there was not much argument by anyone against it. It became the backdrop to everything else that took place.
    - Consistant and constant violation of 17 UN resolutions.
    - Daily attacks on our aircraft in the southern No-Fly Zone.
    - A history of using WMDs and an active WMD program.
    - Humanitarian concerns.

    You can only say that from your current historical perspective. Hindsight is always 20/20. It's perfectly legitimate to say the administration misunderestimated what would take place after the war. But before the war, nobody was saying that the after-war would be worse than the war itself.
     
  16. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    We're going to have to agree to disagree here, but please don't legitimize the use of "misunderestimated".
     
  17. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    There is an issue I'll take up with you Talon. You suggested that the war plan went as scripted. The fact that Powell and Shinseki and numerous other career military generals (Zinni) have parted company with Rumsfeld (champagne unit) and Cheney (5 deferments) should speak volumes to you since you are a Marine. Have you ignored their version of history?

    Three examples:

    Powell: addressed the Pottery Barn rule specifically to Bush on the eve of conflict "You break it, you own it" He was ignored by the civilian leadership. Now we own it.

    Shinseki: we need several hundred thousand troops to control the post-Saddam chaos. He was ignored and humiliated by the civilian leadership. The borders were porous, flooded with sunnis from neighboring countries, and insufficient troop strength to secure weapons caches and prevent looting.

    Zinni: criticized Rumsfeld's policy as seriously flawed. He was ignored and humiliated by the civilian leadership. He too, was right. The post-invasion plan was never even taken off the shelf.

    What do these men have in common? Each of them served in Nam and saw what a piecemeal "mission" is like, directed by Washington politicos and scholarly elitists and each of them vowed to do Iraq right if it was to be done.
    Now, where are they? They are outside looking in, and everyday that this goes on, I can't help but to sense that they are more and more outraged at what was done to them by the civilian neo-conservative leadership. They spent 25 years of their lives watching the rebuild of our forces post-Vietnam, only to watch these scholars and politicos ruin it all over again.

    You claim that the mission was simply the toppling of Bagdad? Thats an error/miscalculation of extrordinary magnitude (I think most military minded individuals would agree with me on that). That was the error of this administration of chickenhawks. That was not the fault of the joint chiefs, the Army War College, or Powells state department. That was the misjudgement of people who have never really seen armed conflict from the ground.

    Not just the left has a beef with this administration on the war. This is an old article, but still quite pertinent today. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22922-2003Dec22?language=printer
     
  18. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Why is it that the left has such a hard time with this concept? The mission of winning the war was accomplished. At no time did I say that was the only mission. And yes, the administration made mistakes, many of them, in the war's aftermath. But for you to mix all missions together into one indistinguishable lump and then say or imply that we have not accomplished "the mission" is disingenuous, and overlooks what has successfully been accomplished.

    And what speaks volumes to me as a Marine is that you cherry-picked three names that disagreed with the administration, named two key people in the administration while lobbing gratuitous insults at them, and ignored the large number of military leaders who actually did the planning and execution of the war. That's not to say they (your three) didn't have a point, but you grossly oversimplify things by presenting them the way you did.

    Plus, I'd venture a guess that the only reason you paid any attention to them is that they disagreed with the administration. If they were saying that we need to expand our force, and it wasn't in the context of disagreeing with a Republican administration, I suspect you'd have been far less amenable to their suggestions of sending more troops into a war.
     
  19. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I feel its equally disingenous to ignore the basis for their arguments which the right seems perfectly content with doing: 1) too few troops from the outset and 2) a piecemeal approach to the mission and 3) too little attention paid to the consequences of removing a stabilizing government from power.

    Had this been our tactic in Vietnam, we would have lost 50,000+ troops. (uhh...nevermind)
     
  20. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Part of that, if you recall, is that Turkey suddenly changed its mind about allowing us to go through their airspace right before the war. You can hardly blame that on Bush. (Well, maybe you can find a way, if you're motivated and resourceful enough.) Had Turkey not done that, most of your criticisms would be moot.

    Don't use the bit about "removing a stabilizing government from power" unless you're going to try to argue that the Iraqi people and everyone else would be better off if Saddam was still in power.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>