Here Goes Nothing ...

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by That Guy

1million hutus dead in ethnic genocide in riwanda while the world sat and watched and did nothing (with 2.5mill refugees). 400,000 in darfur. it's really not hard to beat those numbers. aids has killed more in africa (2million deaths alone in 2005).

the iran iraq war results in about 375k casualties on the iraq side and 500k on the iranian side.

No doubt the other conflicts in Rwanda and Darfur were or are bad. My only point was that it seems somewhat illogical to call for intervention in Rwanda, Somalia, or the Sudan based on a humanitarian crises and not think that Saddam's regime was worthy of ouster (considering between the Iran-Iraq war and killing his own people, some 1.1-1.3M died).

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Not to hijack ... but did someone say, "iRack"?

Mad TV - The iRack

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Not to hijack ... but did someone say, "iRack"?

Mad TV - The iRack

Take it to the super happy fun thread, please.

[dmek25]

in my opinion there has to be a time table. and like tmc said, once the United States feels that certain regions are secure, then they need to be turned over to the Iraqi people. we have created one helluva of a mess by over estimating the amount of Iraqi people that really wanted a democracy. just because it kind of works here doesn't mean we should will it on everyone. when religion plays that big a part in their everyday life's, democracy simply isn't the way to go

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Interesting article. It's interesting that the press has remained fairly silent about the relative peace in Baghdad. I guarantee you that the press would be jizzing all over themselves if the plan was failing horribly. But, then again, the press knows that disasters sell more papers than success stories.

[That Guy]

i honestly think rummy has a lot of blame in this. by thinking he was smarter than everyone else (and while you could be smarter than a person individually, 1 vs 2000, the 1 person can't process the same amount of info or know enough about all the specifics needed to disregard everything they have to say).

it's not like its a big surprise that you have to win over the population by providing CONSTANT safety and talking to the locals... the pre-war planning had little contingency planning and doesn't seem like it was very well thought out ("of course they'll greet us as liberators", "of course we should destroy all the operational knowledge and trained military overnight", the limited thought behind who exactly was supposed to lead the new government once it was up and running, etc). which is what really makes me mad.

[dmek25]

it almost seemed like rumsfield had a plan, and no matter what, he was sticking to it. I'm sure one of the big strategies is to adapt to your enemies tactics

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

The planning was undoubtedly horrible and Bush will likely be judged accordingly. However, as pointed out, all that is water under the bridge. The issue of how to handle Iraq in the future is a distinct question.

[That Guy]

the other thing is all our intelligence was geared towards russia, and we're still trying to get enough arabic speakers and cultural knowledge on the ground level to get the info that's needed to run full loads of intelligence ops.

i mean, if you speak arabic or go to an air force recruiter and say you want to be a linguist, they won't turn you down. It's a massive ramp up and there's still some institutional learning that's going on about the "new" enemy. that should help going forward, if nothing else.

[That Guy]

well, i think the right move is to commit the proper number of troops to do what needs to be done, and we really didn't have enough on the ground compared to the deployment needs. More people is good. if the locals feel safe, they'll feel better about going on with their lives and try harder to restore iraq since they'll be less worried about, you know, not dying.

but while more troops on the ground is good, you CANNOT institute a draft. while it's nice economically, the effect on morale, combat efficiency, and conduct is terrible. Soldiers that don't want to be there aren't as likely to play nice with the locals, are more likely to do drugs, etc etc. not to mention popular support goes to zero REALLY, REALLY fast.

[724Skinsfan]

There are still people in this country who can remember a time when certain regions of this country had fellow countrymen killing fellow countrymen all because the pigmentation of their skin was darker. Even today you'll find trace elements of groups who still think this barbarically.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

There are still people in this country who can remember a time when certain regions of this country had fellow countrymen killing fellow countrymen all because the pigmentation of their skin was darker. Even today you'll find trace elements of groups who still think this barbarically.

But the difference is that here, when a guy (e.g., Byrd) is dragged behind a truck because of the color of his skin, the country gasps. In Iraq, videos of beheadings and torture are top-selling hits.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

But the difference is that here, when a guy (e.g., Byrd) is dragged behind a truck because of the color of his skin, the country gasps. In Iraq, videos of beheadings and torture are top-selling hits.

Yeah, I know. Good thing the Internet wasn't around 50+ years ago.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I have a question for anyone to answer:

So a lot of people think it is almost comical that the Bush administration has failed to recognize that Iraq is in the midst of a full-blown civil war. I certainly agree that Iraq is in a full-blown civil war (albeit one international actors on both sides). Iraq's civil war consists of ethnic cleansing on highest scale - Shia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shia, neighborhoods being "cleansed," etc. However, isn't this the same kind of civil war that many wanted us to get involved in in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Kosovo? If so, what accounts for saying that we should get out of Iraq because they are in a civil war and saying that we should get involved in those other places?

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I have a question for anyone to answer:

So a lot of people think it is almost comical that the Bush administration has failed to recognize that Iraq is in the midst of a full-blown civil war. I certainly agree that Iraq is in a full-blown civil war (albeit one international actors on both sides). Iraq's civil war consists of ethnic cleansing on highest scale - Shia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shia, neighborhoods being "cleansed," etc. However, isn't this the same kind of civil war that many wanted us to get involved in in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Kosovo? If so, what accounts for saying that we should get out of Iraq because they are in a civil war and saying that we should get involved in those other places?

i think the one major difference between Iraq and kosovo is that the united states pretty much created the mess that Iraq is right now. it was almost like stepping on a bees nest. we really stirred all the nuts up. i know one thing, there sure is alot more hatred in the world against the united states since we invaded Iraq