This Iraq war is pointless

[vyo476]

WTF? do unto? what the hell. Do I look like jane fonda?

It means, in layman's terms, that you shouldn't wish things on other people if you wouldn't wish them on yourself. You want other people getting tortured? How would you feel about being tortured yourself?

 

[ArmChair General]

It means, in layman's terms, that you shouldn't wish things on other people if you wouldn't wish them on yourself. You want other people getting tortured? How would you feel about being tortured yourself?

Man, If it was up to me, I'd charge Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Feith with treason for sending troops into Indian Country with no intelligence, so our patrols end up cruising the ****-stinking alleys of Iraq like ducks in a shooting gallery, letting the locals pick their time to join those wires and detonate the old artillery shell they buried at the intersection last night. You can't expect heavily armed Marines to shrug and applaud when that shell goes off and kills their buddies. They itch to show the neighborhood who's got the firepower. Sooner or later, they're going to do it the way that one fire-team did in Haditha: going house to house killing everything inside.

And you know what? Those Marines were right, at a strategic level. Tactically, no; small massacres like Haditha just piss the locals off, recruit more insurgents. But strategically, those jarheads were right: massacre on a really big scale is the only solution. The shooters at Haditha saw the situation more clearly than the Generals who sent them out on patrol to smile and pass out candy, hoping to win "Hearts and Minds."

The cold, scary fact is that there is no way for a conventional army to defeat an urban guerrilla force militarily. The only options are withdrawal or smart genocide, the cold-blooded, efficient extermination of the whole population of any city or region that supports the guerrillas. When those Marines went house-to-house killing, they were acting logically and thinking more strategically than their commanders, never mind the Moron-in-Chief. Mao would have nodded approvingly, and so would the Brit officers who wiped out 1/4 of the Boers' civilian population and pioneered the Concentration Camp. Stalin said it best: "No people, no problem."

I'm not saying I advocate that kind of maximum response. But damn it, at least it makes some kind of sense. What we're doing now, killing a few Iraqis a day and letting Shiite and Sunni death squads kill a lot more, is just mean... and stupid.

Iraq right now reminds me of that great scene in Apocalypse Now where Martin Sheen, the only sane man in the movie, tells Chief not to search a sampan they meet on the river. Chief, a by-the-numbers Army regular, orders a board-n-search anyway, and the nervous GIs end up shooting everybody on the sampan. Then they get sobby, and try to save one girl who's not quite dead. Sheen takes out his .45 and kills her. That's sanity in guerrilla warfare: either leave 'em alone or finish 'em off.

If that sounds harsh to you, here's a totally non-violent method that would also work better than what we're doing now: just flat-out bribe countries like Iraq to cut their birthrate: "for every percentage point your birthrate goes down, we pass out ten billion bucks, divvied between the number of households in your country." It would be way, WAY cheaper than this war; it would work WAY better; and best of all, having some money for the first time would get the poor bastards interested in something better than Islam, like, say, golf or pilates, some pissant rich-people hobby.

We'd be aborting the real threat, the demographic one, and we'd look like philanthropists! See, now that's what they call thinking outside the box.

Instead of doing something decisive, we're hunkered down like cranky old fogies in an Old Folks' Home, bugging the cops to come down and shoot those durn skateboard rats who keep annoying us. It's not going to work. Sooner or later the punks are going to torch the convalescent home and fall over laughing as they watch the old cripples try to wheel their way out of the flames.

Bribe'em, Nuke'em or Just Leave'em the Hell Alone, Either way would have a chance of working, but let me say it plain: this half-assed occupation has no chance at all.

 

[StatesRights]

General,

Though gruesome, you are pretty much 100% on the money. That tactic may be a little to late though, don't you think? We shouldn't have gone into Iraq half assed in the first place. They called it "shock and awe" but really it was "sigh and yawn", they really should have duplicated Dresden in Baghdad.

The title of this thread is ridiculous their is a point to this war and that's getting to Iran. Really now we are just messing around with the puppet states, which I guess could be a waste of time. We really really need to go to the source of the problem and everyone already knows what the source of the problem is, Iran. The Democrats are defeatists with all the "retreat, retreat" nonsense, even if that was practical we still haven't taken care of the main threat and until we do we will continue to be heavily involved in that region.

 

[ArmChair General]

General,

Though gruesome, you are pretty much 100% on the money. That tactic may be a little to late though, don't you think? We shouldn't have gone into Iraq half assed in the first place. They called it "shock and awe" but really it was "sigh and yawn", they really should have duplicated Dresden in Baghdad.

The title of this thread is ridiculous their is a point to this war and that's getting to Iran. Really now we are just messing around with the puppet states, which I guess could be a waste of time. We really really need to go to the source of the problem and everyone already knows what the source of the problem is, Iran. The Democrats are defeatists with all the "retreat, retreat" nonsense, even if that was practical we still haven't taken care of the main threat and until we do we will continue to be heavily involved in that region.

Ya know, If Iran is a danger now, we have only ourselves to blame. We basically did the Ayatollahs' dirty work for them by taking out Iraq, their only rival for regional power. Iraq is destroyed, and Tehran hasn't lost a single soldier in the process. Our invasion put their natural allies, the Shia, in power; gave their natural enemies, the Iraqi Sunni, a blood-draining feud that will never end; and provided them with a risk-free laboratory to spy on American forces in action. If they feel like trying out a new weapon or tactic to deal with U.S. armor, all they have to do is feed the supplies or diagrams to one of their puppet Shia groups, or even one of the Sunni suicide-commando clans.

And all these claims that Iran is helping the insurgents really make my head spin. Of course they're helping. They'd be insane if they weren't. If somebody invades the country next door, any state worth mentioning has to act. If Mexico got invaded by China, you better believe the U.S. would react. We'd lynch any president who didn't.

What really amazes me is how patient Iran has been about it, how quiet and careful. They've covered their tracks carefully and kept their intervention to R&D level: just enough to keep Iraq burning, and patiently test out news IEDs.

But that's the Persian way: behind all the yelling, they're sly, clever people. If Iranian intelligence really wanted to flood Iraq with weaponry that would turn our APCs into well-insulated BBQs, they could have done it long ago. It's clear they're not doing that. They're smart enough to follow Napoleon's advice not to interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying himself - and stockpiling the new IED designs on their side of the border in case we're stupid enough to invade.

The situation in Iraq right now is optimum for Iran. Iraq is like a nuclear reactor that they can control by inserting and removing control rods. If Shia/Sunni violence looks like cooling off, Tehran's agents, who've penetrated both sides of the fight, play the hothead in their assigned Sunni or Shia gangs and lobby for a spectacular attack on enemy civvies or shrines, whatever gets the locals' blood up. Then, if things get too hot, which would mean the U.S. getting fed up and leaving, they drop a control rod into the reactor core by telling Sadr to call off his militia or letting the Maliki regime stage some ceremony for the TV crews, the kind that keeps the Bushies back in Ohio convinced it's all going to come out fine.

They need to keep us there, because - makes me sick to say it but it's true - our troops are now the biggest, strongest control rod the Persians are using to set the temperature of this war. They want us there as long as possible, stoking the feuds and making sure nobody wins. That's what we just did under Petraeus: switched sides, Shia to Sunni, because the Shia were getting too strong. Yeah, God forbid we should be unfair to the Sunnis, God forbid we should do anything to let somebody win. Let's just make Tehran happy by keeping the feud going another few centuries.

One thing Iran is pretty clearly not scared of is every American amateur's dream: a punitive U.S. invasion of Iran. In fact, like North Korea, Iran is all but begging us to invade. Because with all the anti-armor know-how they've gained by now, they have traps waiting for us that would make Lara Croft's cave expeditions look like a backyard tea party. Even Cheney's team knows that, which is why they're talking about air raids on Iran these days, not invasion.

Another way countries can win in a regional war like this is from the money flooding in. The big winners of the Vietnam War were Thailand, Malaysia and Hong Kong. Thailand went from a failed state with a half-dozen insurgencies everywhere outside its central valley to a rich, happy tourist paradise during Nam. Modern Thailand is a country built on the backs and, uh, other body parts of its bar girls. Every time a GI spent his pay at the ping-pong shows in Bangkok, Thailand gained foreign exchange. The neon got brighter, the huts went split-level, and the Commie rebels swatting mosquitoes out there in the elephant grass started to feel a little foolish. Finally they said the Hell with it, bought suits and went Yuppie.

That's one way to beat an insurgency: bribe it. Unfortunately, the two neighboring states likely to benefit from the Iraq war are...yup, those twin towers of evil, Syria and Iran. Just imagine how much money is flowing into their border provinces right now. Need any U.S.-issue supplies, weapons, toilet paper, or GPS units cheap? Just ask at any bazaar in Damascus or Tehran. Uncle Sam's guarantee of quality - fell off the back of a two-and-a-half ton truck.

See, this is what I really can't get my head around. How could Bush and Cheney not see that a war in Iraq benefits noncombatant neighboring states? They had to know. They can't be that stup - Wait, I withdraw the comment.

 

[Coyote]

Ya know, If Iran is a danger now, we have only ourselves to blame. We basically did the Ayatollahs' dirty work for them by taking out Iraq, their only rival for regional power. Iraq is destroyed, and Tehran hasn't lost a single soldier in the process. Our invasion put their natural allies, the Shia, in power; gave their natural enemies, the Iraqi Sunni, a blood-draining feud that will never end; and provided them with a risk-free laboratory to spy on American forces in action. If they feel like trying out a new weapon or tactic to deal with U.S. armor, all they have to do is feed the supplies or diagrams to one of their puppet Shia groups, or even one of the Sunni suicide-commando clans.

And all these claims that Iran is helping the insurgents really make my head spin. Of course they're helping. They'd be insane if they weren't. If somebody invades the country next door, any state worth mentioning has to act. If Mexico got invaded by China, you better believe the U.S. would react. We'd lynch any president who didn't.

What really amazes me is how patient Iran has been about it, how quiet and careful. They've covered their tracks carefully and kept their intervention to R&D level: just enough to keep Iraq burning, and patiently test out news IEDs.

But that's the Persian way: behind all the yelling, they're sly, clever people. If Iranian intelligence really wanted to flood Iraq with weaponry that would turn our APCs into well-insulated BBQs, they could have done it long ago. It's clear they're not doing that. They're smart enough to follow Napoleon's advice not to interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying himself - and stockpiling the new IED designs on their side of the border in case we're stupid enough to invade.

The situation in Iraq right now is optimum for Iran. Iraq is like a nuclear reactor that they can control by inserting and removing control rods. If Shia/Sunni violence looks like cooling off, Tehran's agents, who've penetrated both sides of the fight, play the hothead in their assigned Sunni or Shia gangs and lobby for a spectacular attack on enemy civvies or shrines, whatever gets the locals' blood up. Then, if things get too hot, which would mean the U.S. getting fed up and leaving, they drop a control rod into the reactor core by telling Sadr to call off his militia or letting the Maliki regime stage some ceremony for the TV crews, the kind that keeps the Bushies back in Ohio convinced it's all going to come out fine.

They need to keep us there, because - makes me sick to say it but it's true - our troops are now the biggest, strongest control rod the Persians are using to set the temperature of this war. They want us there as long as possible, stoking the feuds and making sure nobody wins. That's what we just did under Petraeus: switched sides, Shia to Sunni, because the Shia were getting too strong. Yeah, God forbid we should be unfair to the Sunnis, God forbid we should do anything to let somebody win. Let's just make Tehran happy by keeping the feud going another few centuries.

One thing Iran is pretty clearly not scared of is every American amateur's dream: a punitive U.S. invasion of Iran. In fact, like North Korea, Iran is all but begging us to invade. Because with all the anti-armor know-how they've gained by now, they have traps waiting for us that would make Lara Croft's cave expeditions look like a backyard tea party. Even Cheney's team knows that, which is why they're talking about air raids on Iran these days, not invasion.

Another way countries can win in a regional war like this is from the money flooding in. The big winners of the Vietnam War were Thailand, Malaysia and Hong Kong. Thailand went from a failed state with a half-dozen insurgencies everywhere outside its central valley to a rich, happy tourist paradise during Nam. Modern Thailand is a country built on the backs and, uh, other body parts of its bar girls. Every time a GI spent his pay at the ping-pong shows in Bangkok, Thailand gained foreign exchange. The neon got brighter, the huts went split-level, and the Commie rebels swatting mosquitoes out there in the elephant grass started to feel a little foolish. Finally they said the Hell with it, bought suits and went Yuppie.

That's one way to beat an insurgency: bribe it. Unfortunately, the two neighboring states likely to benefit from the Iraq war are...yup, those twin towers of evil, Syria and Iran. Just imagine how much money is flowing into their border provinces right now. Need any U.S.-issue supplies, weapons, toilet paper, or GPS units cheap? Just ask at any bazaar in Damascus or Tehran. Uncle Sam's guarantee of quality - fell off the back of a two-and-a-half ton truck.

See, this is what I really can't get my head around. How could Bush and Cheney not see that a war in Iraq benefits noncombatant neighboring states? They had to know. They can't be that stup - Wait, I withdraw the comment.

Interesting analysis...that makes the most sense out of Iran's activities....

 

[ArmChair General]

Interesting analysis...that makes the most sense out of Iran's activities....

While we flounder around in the Dust Bowl, they've been running up their reserves, putting the money into infrastructure and bullion. The moment you wait for in a setup like this is the inevitable alliance between the regional winner and the global winners. And voila, it's already happened: In February Iran and India signed a pipeline deal sending Iranian oil to the exploding Indian market, bypassing Bush's Saudi/U.S. petro-outpost. If it weren't for Pakistan, the pipeline would already be in place. And as you might have guessed, Iran and India are talking about how easily the pipeline can be looped over the Himalayas to China, an overland route invulnerable to US sea power.

Luckily Pakistan lies right across the route and Pakistan is so hopelessly messed up that the CIA and ISI between them should be able to keep the black smoke pouring out of any section of line the Asiatics manage to finish.

But even that's bad news: we're reduced to a spoiler role, conspiring with the nastiest creeps in the world, the ISI, to keep our blood enemy Iran from forming a natural, inevitable market relationship with the two rising powers that have spent their money smart while we pissed it down the Tigris. A country as big and resilient as America can afford to lose a war now and then, especially when it's in a place like Nam, way off the trade routes. But a war like this... I don't know.

What's worst is that the war's made us dumber. When Sen. Graham asked his question, "Who won Iraq?" a few days back, he thought he was being clever. He thought we're too dumb and soft to face that question and its answers. Because there are answers, pretty grim ones. I just hope people are tough enough to start thinking about them.

 

[The Founders Intent]

All these long-winded rants really don't get to the heart of the matter regarding comparisons with previous wars. In WWII the US fought to win at ALL costs, period! Minimizing losses was a strategic decision, not a moral one. The objective was to destroy the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire, period! Nation-building came later due to the Cold War. Unfortunately we don't fight wars that way anymore, because our media will find every single little mistake no matter how inconsequential or devastating to the objective of winning or the morale of our troops.

If the US was really, and I mean REALLY, fighting to win.....there wouldn't be an Iraqi insurgent left alive and Iran would be facing the US Air Force until they pulled their terrorist clubs back across the border. There wouldn't be any bull**** going on about nuclear centrifuges, because there wouldn't be any.....in Iran anyhow. We have fought like a bunch of liberals since Korea, and the end product has been a demoralized military and citizenry. We need to start acting like the GD super power that we are, which mean we act fairly but when we finally decide to go to war you better get the f*ck out of our way.

 

[ArmChair General]

All these long-winded rants really don't get to the heart of the matter regarding comparisons with previous wars. In WWII the US fought to win at ALL costs, period! Minimizing losses was a strategic decision, not a moral one. The objective was to destroy the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire, period! Nation-building came later due to the Cold War. Unfortunately we don't fight wars that way anymore, because our media will find every single little mistake no matter how inconsequential or devastating to the objective of winning or the morale of our troops.

Dont even get me started on WW2. The so called Greatest Generation was a bunch of morons.

If the US was really, and I mean REALLY, fighting to win.....there wouldn't be an Iraqi insurgent left alive and Iran would be facing the US Air Force until they pulled their terrorist clubs back across the border. There wouldn't be any bull**** going on about nuclear centrifuges, because there wouldn't be any.....in Iran anyhow. We have fought like a bunch of liberals since Korea, and the end product has been a demoralized military and citizenry. We need to start acting like the GD super power that we are, which mean we act fairly but when we finally decide to go to war you better get the f*ck out of our way.

Well, don't ask me, I just work here. If you want to know the truth, what's pissing me off most is I think the mess in Iraq is getting to me. I had to go to the doctor last week because my back's gone out again, and I was expecting just the usual lecture about losing weight, exercise, buying a bike and wheeling around in green lycra like some Italian or something. You know, painful but short.

Instead he puts the cuff on my arm and inflates it, then grunts and does it again, grunts again, does it for the third time and waves me over to sit down. In other words, we're going to have a serious talk. Turns out it's my blood pressure, and some other blood thing called "purines", sounds like a dog chow to me, but apparently it's a blood count, and mine is through the roof.

I told the guy maybe we could try again after Iraq settles down. He looked at me like I was crazy.

So then there was another ten minutes of serious lectures about how I need to take care of myself and so on. I was thinking, all I need is for us to get out of this Iraq mess, but I decided it was better not to try explaining that to him again. I took the brochures and the prescriptions and got out.

Now I'm on three medications, one for blood pressure, one for these purines, and one for my back disc. Like an old man. I just turned 29 and I've got little brown bottles all over the sink like my grandma did.

 

[Coyote]

Sure yer not confusing purines with prunes?

 

[Coyote]

All these long-winded rants really don't get to the heart of the matter regarding comparisons with previous wars. In WWII the US fought to win at ALL costs, period! Minimizing losses was a strategic decision, not a moral one. The objective was to destroy the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire, period! Nation-building came later due to the Cold War. Unfortunately we don't fight wars that way anymore, because our media will find every single little mistake no matter how inconsequential or devastating to the objective of winning or the morale of our troops.

If the US was really, and I mean REALLY, fighting to win.....there wouldn't be an Iraqi insurgent left alive and Iran would be facing the US Air Force until they pulled their terrorist clubs back across the border. There wouldn't be any bull**** going on about nuclear centrifuges, because there wouldn't be any.....in Iran anyhow. We have fought like a bunch of liberals since Korea, and the end product has been a demoralized military and citizenry. We need to start acting like the GD super power that we are, which mean we act fairly but when we finally decide to go to war you better get the f*ck out of our way.

There's a big difference between WW2 and Iraq: WW2 we were attacked first, Iraq we attacked first. A war of choice and worse, ignorance.

 

[icono1]

Hell is multifaceted so hell can be curious.

 

[ArmChair General]

Sure yer not confusing purines with prunes?

shoot i hope not.

you a doctor?

 

[Coyote]

shoot i hope not.

you a doctor?

Prunes cure everything in sufficient quantity.

 

[vyo476]

Prunes cure everything in sufficient quantity.

Only because you wish you were dead after the third one and you forget about whatever it was that was wrong with you in the first place.

 

[vyo476]

Hell is multifaceted so hell can be curious.

Someone's been reading Dante...