What does she actually think? Does she think?

[ndicki]

Mkloby, the thread was about terrorism, not Saddam - like I said, I did not mention Iraq, as the problem there is not really terrorism in the accepted sense of the word - although the methods, aims and results are identical. What I did mean, and say, was essentially about Afghanistan. The war in Iraq, between you and me, has got nothing to do with rounding up Al Qaeda, and therefore did not contribute to improving the security of the West as far as terrorism is concerned.

But it would not have taken him long to put together some nasty toys if he had been left to his own devices! (Pardon the pun... )

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Well I think of it in this respect: the world is safer with a neutered Iraq. As I have posted before, God only knows what would happen if Saddam passed out his weapons like candy to terrorist groups.

Ummm.... WHAT WEAPONS? I assume you are refering to WMD's.

All the evidence clearly shows that Saddam had no WMD's and was not in a position to have them anytime soon. The only WMD's found were decaying weapons which WE GAVE HIM back in the 80's. These were unusable sitting in a dump because Saddam had no capacity to decommission them properly.

On the other hand, there are other nations that pose a real WMD threat, and we have no capacity to stand up to them given our commitment in Iraq.

I certainly have no problem with having disposed of Saddam, though it does bother me that we were fine with his behavior right up to 1991 when he invaded Kuwait. Remember, we gave him his chemical weapons with the belief these would help him defeat the Iranians. We did little/nothing when he used these against the Kurds in the late 80's. We still considered him an ally until the Gulf war.

Let's not be hypocrits about what we do.

[Lunatic]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Having served in Iraq for 14 months I can say our methods there are the correct methods. The problem is just that we have failed to plan for Post War Iraq in all areas.

The commanders and the soldiers in Iraq are doing a damn good job, but polotics is getting in the way.

Correct in what way?

The problem is not with the soldiers performance, it is with the unrealistic objectives and poor analysis of the enemy.

It does not matter how well the commanders and soldiers in Iraq perform if their objectives are impossible to achieve.

The fact is that Iraq is not ready for the kind of Democracy we are trying to establish there. Like Serbia, once the iron-handed dictator is removed chaos ensues as generations old adversaries via for power.

What do you think can be achieved in Iraq and on what kind of time table?

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Nice photo DerAdler!

Nobody can doubt the patriotism there.

[Erich]

Lune the proof is that there were WMD's buried, I have the proof from the vets and documentation. At present it doesn't even matter if there were or are or were not, as that is not the basis of why we were bound to be in Iraq or the mid-east in general. It was to happen and now were are there. It is time to seriously look to see if we can get our butts out or hopefully improve or dispositions by getting more help from the Europeans in engaging the slime that inhabit the mideast in a selfish lifestyle of killing all ............ die Infidels !

the objectvies by our military are not unrealistic, and never have been as they were in nam. It was the leadership that was born above "us" with our hands tied. Unreasonable depictions by self-deserving political individuals that wanted to boost their own browny point during the elctions, while we slithered into the mire and were forgotten. the only reason our men/women are getting some credit is that the media has been employed probably too closely in their everyday lives. And with that media as corrupt as it has been since Nam and now worse is making up it's own stories to boost sagging ratings. Both poltical parties are making up sad excuses, and don;t worry as 2008 comes along you are going to hear some much BS it will make your head pop.

there is strong proof and I know it first had you cannot teach these people in the desert about western style democracy. They have to make the decision to do so or else die by the sword they wield, and it appears this is how it will all go down. Watch for the Kurds in the near future. And although Lebanon seems to be slowly cleared of IDF troops it will blaze up again which then will also have an effect on Iraq/Iran ~ Syria and then back to Lebannon, Saudia Arabia, Europe and then the US

[mkloby]

Oh lunatic - you are so naive. Do you think you know the whole story by sitting there watching your CNN? Seriously? You read the papers and watch the docs and you know the whole story, all there is to know about the situation in Iraq - what was really going on. You know only what the news has told you. There are other parts to this story out there that you don't know, nor can be told. But go ahead - watch your news channels and read your papers, and call out all the facts as you see fit.

[mkloby]

Sure the thread was about terrorism. Iraq is in fact tied directly to that. Some of the wars most bitter opponents think not, but that's another matter. You're absolutely correct that it would be very easy for the iraqi gov't to put together some nasty toys. Maybe that is a risk you deem acceptable. Seriously - many people think it's ok for a state such as Iraq, or even Iran to develop and possess NBC stockpiles. I happen to think it's not acceptable. MAD, which eased tensions between US and USSR I don't think would work - as one of these fanatic terrorist orgs supplied with NBC weapons by a state such as Iraq or Iran I'm afraid would not hesistate to make use of them. The radical muslims facing us do not hesitate to shed innocent blood, and don't seem to value life much either.

Here lies what many people, including myself, believe about iraq. It was a bad state that served no positive purpose in the global community - with distinct capability to cause a tremendous amount of damage. The link with al quaeda and iraq does seem to be somewhat of a stretch to the best of my knowledge, but that doesn't mean it's irrelevant to "terrorism." the cowards of al qaeda are just one group, not the end all be all.

Lastly - actions that were taken several administrations ago cannot be used to limit or declare US goals now as hypocritical. President now cannot change what, say, Reagan did in his presidency. If we had a monarch, that would yield stable, consistent foreign policy. However, we have a 2 term limit, and foreign policy directions change very often in this republic. I do understand your point though, lunatic, and I wish the US did not play the balance of power game just for the sake of playing it.

[ndicki]

No, my comment about "devices" meant what it said - one way or another, Saddam, Chemical Ali and pals had to be taken out, because otherwise, sooner or later, they would have managed to cobble together something worth being worried about. It probably would not have worked too well - witness the Al-Hussein rubbish - but it might just have worked enough. And that is frightening. And if you're talking MAD with a bunch of suicidal raving nutcases on one side, and the politicians and bureaucrats in ladies underwear on the other, it is not MAD. Total agreement there.

The problem with talking about Saddam's NBC capability (why this new terminology? NBC covers it well enough) is that everyone focusses on the N without mentioning the B or the C. (Perhaps the neologism WMD is preferable because Joe Public then thinks only of nuclear weapons, and not the other stuff.) Nuclear weapons are far too complex, even in Little Boy form, for Saddam's lot to have been able to bang together in a reasonable time frame. The B and the C, on the other hand, are dead easy to knock up in the back of your garage, and are EASY TO DELIVER. That's the point. That's the sort of WMD that scares me to death. Having an atomic weapon, especially a primitive one, is one thing. Getting it to the target is quite another. IT's big, heavy, and not easily able to be stuck underneath whatever outdated aircraft you hope will survive long enough to get close enough to the target. You could use a Boeing with another gang of nutters flying it, I suppose, but that's about your only air option. So it's a ship or a lorry. To go where? Not so simple.

To the unbelievers, I have another thing to say: it is interesting to put one's ear to the ground in Germany; during the war, the Germans manufactured large quantities of nerve and poison gas, which they stockpiled here and there, and did not use. Much of this gas was captured and destroyed, or shipped off to other countries for use in the next one, but a considerable quantity remains unaccounted for. It may well have been buried, or dumped in a lake, or something like that. In a densely-populated European country with some 80 million inhabitants, and despite the 60 years which have elapsed, no-one has stumbled across it. I would imagine that some intrepid German government researchers are still on the job, because if it really does exist, the canisters may not remain intact eternally...

So if the Germans can't find their hidden stockpiles - if they exist - why do we assume that we would have found Saddam's? To use the RAF's expression, in the middle of MMFD?

Personally, I would not dismiss all this WMD stuff so quickly. And we know that Saddam was security-mad, and had unpleasant habits such as having the entire workforce from a project killed, so they couldn't give anything away. The plus side to that is that the terrs/resistance can't find it either.

As I said above, my initial comments did not concern Iraq, because I believe that at the outset, there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There bl**dy well is now, though, but I don't suppose that could have been avoided, not and get rid of the Ba'ath party, at any rate.

It might however have been a good move to get a bit closer to finishing the job in Afghanistan first, though. It might have made the post-war cleaning up and turning round or Iraq a little simpler, by cutting down on some of the options enjoyed at present by those locals who are unhappy with the idea of being able to vote for their own government. As I've said time and time again - though not here, as I'm new - Western values, and therefore Western democracy, may not really be what non-Western people want. And if they do not want it, they will reject it. Look at Africa.

[mkloby]

I agree with much of what you said nd. Obviously it's difficult to uncover Iraq's stockpiles because "we don't know what we don't know." I just use NBC because that's what we call it in the Marines. I really am not fond of the WMD term. What is that mmfd RAF expression???

I personally don't think it's a big problem to have engaged iraq while still in afghan. people just don't really understand the capabilities of the us military. we're not stretched beyond our limits as some might tend to say.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Lunatic

Ummm.... WHAT WEAPONS? I assume you are refering to WMD's.

All the evidence clearly shows that Saddam had no WMD's and was not in a position to have them anytime soon. The only WMD's found were decaying weapons which WE GAVE HIM back in the 80's. These were unusable sitting in a dump because Saddam had no capacity to decommission them properly.

That is not true. We have found real WMD's in Iraq. What the press tells you and what the military tells you are two different things. Iraqi Generals that defected or were captured have confirmed that as well. The stuff that we did not find now lies in Syria.

Originally Posted by Lunatic

The problem is not with the soldiers performance, it is with the unrealistic objectives and poor analysis of the enemy.

I will not say anything further on this, I think Erich covered it.

Originally Posted by Lunatic

What do you think can be achieved in Iraq and on what kind of time table?

I think it will take decades if it can be completed at all, but we can not give up on what we started.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by mkloby

we're not stretched beyond our limits as some might tend to say.

No we are not, but we are pretty damn close to it...

Wait to you are on your 2nd 14 month deployment with 5 months at home with your family between between the first because there are no other units to send.

[Erich]

sadly Chris has served but he brings up the point which I have tried to elude to and not sure if you guys are getting my point except for a select few......... this goes beyond Iraq.

we are there now, and we are not leaving. It was bound to happen as we are allied with Israel. The plans were in the making in the late 1970's but did not come to fruition in the means that it has done so now. Our men/women are in every Muslim country in the mid-east in some sort of capacity and for which I will not go on ........ you guys/gals are sharp enough I feel to figure that out.

further, be awfully careful what you listen to and read

E ~

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Exactly, you can not believe everything that you read or hear in the news or papers. Some people do though...

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

No we are not, but we are pretty damn close to it...

Wait to you are on your 2nd 14 month deployment with 5 months at home with your family between between the first because there are no other units to send.

I know the Army has had more lengthy deployments and more of them than we do in the Marines. I'm guessing that has to do with commitments to Korea and Germany, plus obviously you shoulder more of the occupation burden than we do. The Marines are on 6 month deployment cycles, and are good about bringing you home on time. Hopefully our deployments won't turn into the Army grinder.

[Erich]

that will entirely depend on what happens in the near future in the mid-east. If it goes into the sour mode, expect a long time committment with few ever seein leave