Happy V. I. Day {Victory in Iraq}

On Dec 17, 5:35*am, Möebius Pretzel
g wrote:
How Maliki & Iran Outsmarted the US on Troop Withdrawal

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s suggestion that the end of the U.S.
troop presence in Iraq is part of a U.S. military success story ignores
the fact that the George W. Bush administration and the U.S. military
had planned to maintain a semi-permanent military presence in Iraq.

The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of
deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in
cooperation with Iran outmaneuvered Bush and the U.S. military
leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal
agreement.

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2...i-and-iran-out...

what's wrong with that? our stated goal was the removal of WMD and no
one can doubt the Iraqis don't have them now. Get our military home
where we can rebuild them and allow our war-fighters a chance to
recover, refit, and prepare for the wars our next Republican president
decides we need to fight. According to the debates the other night,
a vote for a Republican president is assured to be a vote for another
decade long war in the Mid-East, giving even more of that region's
residents a chance to strike at us. The central issue that must be
remembered is that Jihadists and Islamist Extremists all point to our
continued bases in the region as their primary motive for continuing
their attacks against us.

Ten years from now, no one in Iraq is going to care we removed Saddam
from power - they will still be hating us for our occupation for
generations to come. These are the same folks that still hate the
British, from decades ago, for doing far less than we have. Our
country invaded a foreign country that never attacked us and as a
direct result, tens- to hundreds of thousands of civilians have died
or suffered - yeah, we can blame the Jihadists that flocked in but
they weren't there until we invaded. That fact we invaded another
country for invented reasons has caused our nation's stock to plummet
in the world.

What we need to do now is refit our military and the next time we let
a leader take us to war, it can't be with evidence this ****ty (18
wheeler trucks became "mobile WMD vans"??), or with threats that to
not rush to war we are somehow weak or unpatriotic. No one has ever
won a war in Afghanistan, so we can occupy it for . I thought we were
there to get Bin Laden? Bring the troops home. If that leads to Iran
becoming a cornerstone power in the region, complete with a shut down
of the Straits of Hormuz, then so be it - we have had 30 years warning
they intend to do that, at some point we might want to switch off
petroleum and make that threat toothless. We aren't in the position,
economically, to enforce our will at all points of the globe. If we
took the billions spent on these occupations and applied it to new
technology for transportation, Iran wouldn't matter. That country is
80 % under the age of 40 and a few years down the road, they are going
to be dealing with a straight-up revolution. Or we can continue to
threaten them and unite their entire population against us - that has
proven to work soooo well in the past.

I have friends on their sixth combat deployment, and they are in their
20s.

On Dec 17, 6:47*am, Dakota wrote:

Or we could mind our own business and stop dumping huge piles of cash
onto the laps of the defense industry. Let's keep our troops home and
alive until a true threat can be verified rather than sending them off
on adventures based on faulty intelligence and blatant lies. No one
wants the USA to be the cops of the world and we cant afford it.

I appreciate a rational voice.

On 12/17/2011 9:47 AM, Dakota wrote:
On 12/17/2011 7:21 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
On 18/12/2011 12:36, Jonathan wrote:
Should December 25, 2011 be given the honor of that title?


Despite all the problems and controversy, the Iraq
campaign should be remembered as one of America's
most daring, difficult and significant victories in our
history.

Planting the US flag in the very heart of Islam, and winning
a war of attrition against some of the most viscous people
and tactics the world has to offer, is an enormous
accomplishment.

Since we can now see, it turns out the old 'domino-effect'
only applies for things people...want, like freedom
and democracy.


Jonathan

Obama may have won but he could have lost. If a militant leader
sprouting anti-American rhetoric appears in Iraq then this will look
like a retreat.

The USA could open naval and air-force bases in Iraq as part of a Gulf
Stabilization Force i.e. to keep the Iranians down.

Andrew Swallow

Or we could mind our own business and stop dumping huge piles of cash
onto the laps of the defense industry. Let's keep our troops home and
alive until a true threat can be verified rather than sending them off
on adventures based on faulty intelligence and blatant lies. No one
wants the USA to be the cops of the world and we cant afford it.

sure we can, all we have to do is print more money.

The name I get is the name of my sister. I was puzzled since when you
ask for the source code of the message the name of my sister doesn't
appear:

I see in Thunderbird "Sara Navia" as the sender

Path: aioe.org!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-
mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!npeer03.iad.highwinds-
media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-
media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-
media.com!newsfe05.iad.POSTED!c4450871!not-for-mail
From: =?windows-1252?Q?M=F6ebius_Pretzel?=
g
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105
Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military,us.milita ry.army,sci.space.policy,
alt.politics
Subject: How Maliki & Iran Outsmarted the US on Troop Withdrawal
References:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 15
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 13:36:06 UTC
Organization: TeraNews.com
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:35:54 -0500
us.military.army:28525 sci.space.policy:38983 alt.politics:472760

Gordon wrote:

Ten years from now, no one in Iraq is going to care we removed Saddam
from power - they will still be hating us for our occupation for
generations to come. These are the same folks that still hate the
British, from decades ago, for doing far less than we have. Our
country invaded a foreign country that never attacked us and as a
direct result, tens- to hundreds of thousands of civilians have died
or suffered - yeah, we can blame the Jihadists that flocked in but
they weren't there until we invaded. That fact we invaded another
country for invented reasons has caused our nation's stock to plummet
in the world.

Yup, their country is a shambles - and why? For no good reason!

What we need to do now is refit our military and the next time we let
a leader take us to war, it can't be with evidence this ****ty (18
wheeler trucks became "mobile WMD vans"??), or with threats that to
not rush to war we are somehow weak or unpatriotic. No one has ever
won a war in Afghanistan, so we can occupy it for . I thought we were
there to get Bin Laden? Bring the troops home. If that leads to Iran
becoming a cornerstone power in the region, complete with a shut down
of the Straits of Hormuz, then so be it - we have had 30 years warning
they intend to do that, at some point we might want to switch off
petroleum and make that threat toothless. We aren't in the position,
economically, to enforce our will at all points of the globe. If we
took the billions spent on these occupations and applied it to new
technology for transportation, Iran wouldn't matter. That country is
80 % under the age of 40 and a few years down the road, they are going
to be dealing with a straight-up revolution. Or we can continue to
threaten them and unite their entire population against us - that has
proven to work soooo well in the past.

Ain't that the truth!

I have friends on their sixth combat deployment, and they are in their
20s.

How anyone can handle that is utterly beyond me. Why they should have to
is as well.

Dennis

Peter skelton wrote:

On Dec 18, 7:36*am, "Jonathan" wrote:

Should December 25, 2011 be given the honor of that title?

I fear that history will call it something else. What do we call the day
we left Vietnam?

Despite all the problems and controversy, the Iraq
campaign should be remembered as one of America's
most daring, difficult and significant victories in our
history.

Planting the US flag in the very heart of Islam, and winning
a war of attrition against some of the most viscous people

'Viscous'? Well, to us they're thick! ;-)

and tactics the world has to offer, is an enormous
accomplishment.

Yes, quite a *tactical* success! However...

Since we can now see, it turns out the old 'domino-effect'
only applies for things people...want, like freedom
and democracy.

If anything had been accomplished beyond spending tons of money and
thousands of lives, one might call it a victory. But nothing was. The
death of Saddam (born 1937) would have put the country about where it
is now - a collection of factions armed to the teeth unwilling to
cooperate in an uneasy truce. Inability to form a government, let
alone a stable one, after an election is not the hallmark of a
democracy.

Yes, at least the Scuds-Bag kept the peace; it remains to be seen whether
the current gov't can do as much without our assistance. Maybe they can!
I certainly hope so.

Too, the US has a way of forgetting that when people have a choice, they
often choose people we don't like. Hamas, Allende, and others come to
mind.

The war of attrition is clearly lost, have you looked at the world
economic situation lately? The idiot wastage of money and people in
the war on terror is a significant, if not dominant, part of the
cause. The main problem was, and is, inattention to controlling greed.
A lot of evil happened while we were looking the other way.

I hope for the best, but I fear that the war in Iraq will be a tactical
victory but a strategic defeat for the US.

Dennis

Andrew Swallow wrote:

Obama may have won but he could have lost. If a militant leader
sprouting anti-American rhetoric appears in Iraq then this will look
like a retreat.

The USA could open naval and air-force bases in Iraq as part of a Gulf
Stabilization Force i.e. to keep the Iranians down.

The Iraqis don't like the Iranians. They fought a nine-year war, as you
might recall. Arabs and Iranians hate each other; it's an ethnic hatred
that goes back centuries. Even Iraq's Shiite Islam is a different kind
from the Shiite Islam of the Arabid-speaking Khuzestan in Iran.

I think that'll take care of it so far as Iraq is concerned.

Dennis

On 17/12/2011 18:56, Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
Andrew Swallow wrote:
On 18/12/2011 12:36, Jonathan wrote:
{snip}


Obama may have won but he could have lost. If a militant leader
sprouting anti-American rhetoric appears in Iraq then this will look
like a retreat.

The USA could open naval and air-force bases in Iraq as part of a Gulf
Stabilization Force i.e. to keep the Iranians down.

Andrew Swallow

Andrew there is a reason why the US is _not_ leaving troops in Iraq, this
was widely reported topic and _YOU_ should know it by now.

cheers......Jeff



Iraq is not Vietnam. The West needs Iraqi oil.

Andrew Swallow

On 18/12/2011 04:01, Dennis wrote:
Andrew Swallow wrote:

Obama may have won but he could have lost. If a militant leader
sprouting anti-American rhetoric appears in Iraq then this will look
like a retreat.

The USA could open naval and air-force bases in Iraq as part of a Gulf
Stabilization Force i.e. to keep the Iranians down.

The Iraqis don't like the Iranians. They fought a nine-year war, as you
might recall. Arabs and Iranians hate each other; it's an ethnic hatred
that goes back centuries. Even Iraq's Shiite Islam is a different kind
from the Shiite Islam of the Arabid-speaking Khuzestan in Iran.

I think that'll take care of it so far as Iraq is concerned.

Dennis

The hatred of Iran is why the Iraqis may allow western bases. Currently
the weak forces in Iraq have to both police the population and keep the
Iranian military out - they are probably going to need help.

Andrew Swallow

On Dec 18, 1:42*am, Andrew Swallow wrote:
On 18/12/2011 04:01, Dennis wrote:





Andrew Swallow wrote:

Obama may have won but he could have lost. *If a militant leader
sprouting anti-American rhetoric appears in Iraq then this will look
like a retreat.

The USA could open naval and air-force bases in Iraq as part of a Gulf
Stabilization Force i.e. to keep the Iranians down.

The Iraqis don't like the Iranians. *They fought a nine-year war, as you
might recall. *Arabs and Iranians hate each other; it's an ethnic hatred
that goes back centuries. *Even Iraq's Shiite Islam is a different kind
from the Shiite Islam of the Arabid-speaking Khuzestan in Iran.

I think that'll take care of it so far as Iraq is concerned.

Dennis

The hatred of Iran is why the Iraqis may allow western bases. *Currently
the weak forces in Iraq have to both police the population and keep the
Iranian military out - they are probably going to need help.

Andrew Swallow- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

that part of the war has fought since biblical times, certinally the
US has solved their issues and brought peace........