One idea for more troops in Iraq.

[Desmond Hawkins]

Proof please. I think you are directly incorrect on this issue and your statement completely insupportable.

The fact that Turkey and Egypt are still in intact. If people actually wanted that lifestyle, they could have overthrown their governments by now.

Yeah, I can tell that from how the Sunnis and Shia treat each other in Iraq.

Ya, kind of like the Irish... But why did you bother invading and knocking over the only thing keeping a lead on these apparantly hopeless people? Perhaps you didn't think it through.

Also, you ignored my questions. How many countries supported the USA into Iraq? And are the Israelis and Russians still going strong?

The Israelis just lost a war in southern Lebanon, and although they still exist, their existence is worse than if they had not attempted to occupy and settle the West Bank/Gaza. Victory and peace are now a lot further away then before Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. I would say the Israelis are failing (unless you consider endless war a success, which you might)

As for the Russians, the Chechen war has left tens of thousand of young Russian servicemen crippled or killed, with the survivors causing problems with drugs, crime, and violence all over the country. And what have they managed to do? Completely destroy a tiny country and barely hold together a puppet government.

Even if you call that success, it was by the smallest hair.

Again, Iraq is at least 30 times larger in land and population, and America's forces are not 30 times more powerful than the Russian forces. If the Russians only barely managed to impoverish and devastate Chechnya to bring it back into the federation, I don't like US chances.

On-Topic since I have threadjacked a little (sorry)
There are some hills worth dying on. WWII may have been one of those hills. But is it really worth American prestige, power, and influence dying on the hill of Iraq? I think not, which is why America should forget a major troop increase, cut its losses, and go home fairly soon.

 

[Little Raven]

The fact that Turkey and Egypt are still in intact. If people actually wanted that lifestyle, they could have overthrown their governments by now.

Oh, give them time.

There's a reason Mubarak prays every night that the US manages to defeat the Islamic tide washing over the region. He knows he'll drown long before we're even wet to the knees. However, I don't mean to support the notion that all Muslims are religious fanatics. Arab governments just suck.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Oh, give them time.

There's a reason Mubarak prays every night that the US manages to defeat the Islamic tide washing over the region. He knows he'll drown long before we're even wet to the knees. However, I don't mean to support the notion that all Muslims are religious fanatics. Arab governments just suck.

Well, yes these countries are more fanatical than western countries, but you underestimate them. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey were annoyed by the US invasion because it risked increasing radicalisation in their countries, but that doesn't mean it would be enough to push a majority of them to Sharia law.

I think people here should befriend some more Muslim people. You will find that they are mostly just like everyone else. They want a good standard of living, an education, and safety for their children.

 

[MobBoss]

The fact that Turkey and Egypt are still in intact. If people actually wanted that lifestyle, they could have overthrown their governments by now.

Ah...Turkey and Egypt hardly equate to the majority of Muslims worldwide. Plus, Egypt does employ Islamic law in its legal system, along with parts of English common law and Neopoleanic law.

The Israelis just lost a war in southern Lebanon

Huh? You think they lost? Here I was under the impression they withdrew as part of a cease fire, not that they were defeated by force of arms. Only people who drink Hezbollah kookaid really think Israel "lost".

and although they still exist, their existence is worse than if they had not attempted to occupy and settle the West Bank/Gaza.

Pure assumption and one I dont agree with.

Again, Iraq is at least 30 times larger in land and population, and America's forces are not 30 times more powerful than the Russian forces.

How do you know? Besides, 30 times larger does not equate into 30 times more military capability. Another false assumption on your part.

WWII may have been one of those hills.

"May" have been?

 

[Little Raven]

Well, yes these countries are more fanatical than western countries, but you underestimate them. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey were annoyed by the US invasion because it risked increasing radicalisation in their countries, but that doesn't mean it would be enough to push a majority of them to Sharia law.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that Iraq will lead to the overthrow of Mubarak. (though it probably won't help) I'm claiming that given current trends, it's inevitable, because Mubarak's government, like so many in the Arab world, is fast losing credibility with the very people it represents.

And let's face it, it's a pretty crappy government. If I lived in Egypt, or Saudi Araba, or even Jordan, I'd be pretty damn annoyed by my government. (I don't think Turkey is suffering from this problem to the same degree, at least not yet.) They constantly prattle on about the poor Palestinians and the evil West, but they never do jack to actually help the Palestinians, and the cooperate with the West whenever they think it will put dollars in their pockets. Their citizens should be pissed off. These are governments that elevate hypocrisy and corruption to new heights. They deserve to go the way of the DoDo.

I think people here should befriend some more Muslim people. You will find that they are mostly just like everyone else. They want a good standard of living, an education, and safety for their children.

Of course. They also want good government, just like everyone else, which is exactly why Mubarak and the House of Saud are so worried.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Ah...Turkey and Egypt hardly equate to the majority of Muslims worldwide. Plus, Egypt does employ Islamic law in its legal system, along with parts of English common law and Neopoleanic law.

I would hardly call that living under Sharia law. And although they are not perfectly representative, they are the two largest Middle Eastern countries. Hell, even Iran is having problems putting the lid on a strong liberal side to its society.

Huh? You think they lost? Here I was under the impression they withdrew as part of a cease fire, not that they were defeated by force of arms. Only people who drink Hezbollah kookaid really think Israel "lost"..

You are the one who is deluded if you think they won. Their goal was to destroy or render harmless Hezbullah, but they barely bloodied them. All they really did was level a bunch of Lebanese infrastructure and kill a bunch of bystanders, while leaving most of Hizbullah intact.

In the meantime, Hizbullah's popularity has sored after killing over 100 Israeli soldiers and managing to hold onto Southern Lebanon (which they do largely still control). In fact the Lebanese government may now have to negotiate to give them more power.

Pure assumption and one I dont agree with.

Well, it naturally will require assumption to decide how things could have been. You see, I can assume the Americans would have been better off if they would not have invaded Iraq. That is a pure assumption based on realities I have observed.

How do you know? Besides, 30 times larger does not equate into 30 times more military capability. Another false assumption on your part.

It may not be a perfectly linear relationship, but you would have to be foolish to think that a country 30 times larger will not require a lot more military capability to subdue. Considering that Rumsfeld wanted to have a post-war troop level of 30,000, while the Russians went into Chechnya with 90,000...

"May" have been?

It is just my style of speech . It means that it was.

 

[MobBoss]

I would hardly call that living under Sharia law. And although they are not perfectly representative, they are the two largest Middle Eastern countries. Hell, even Iran is having problems putting the lid on a strong liberal side to its society.

Time to educate you. Egypt is not in the Middle East. Egypt is part of Africa. The largest (i.e. most populous) nation in the Middle East is Pakistan which has more people than both Turkey and Egypt combined. Turkey is also only slightly more populous than Iran (70 million vs 68 million).

You are the one who is deluded if you think they won.

Actually I never said they won or lost. I think they acheived most of their goals in that operation, but not all. As I stated correctly and truthfully, they only withdrew as part of a ceasefire. They most certainly were not forced out by Hezbollah.

Their goal was to destroy or render harmless Hezbullah, but they barely bloodied them. All they really did was level a bunch of Lebanese infrastructure and kill a bunch of bystanders, while leaving most of Hizbullah intact.

I think you directly wrong on that point. They destroyed a good number of hezbollahs rocket artillery and capability. And if you think all they killed was civilians then you paid too much attention to Hezbollah propaganda.

In the meantime, Hizbullah's popularity has sored after killing over 100 Israeli soldiers and managing to hold onto Southern Lebanon (which they do largely still control). In fact the Lebanese government may now have to negotiate to give them more power.

Whatever happened to the UN mission to dis-arm hezbollah? What happened to that?

 

[Little Raven]

Whatever happened to the UN mission to dis-arm hezbollah? What happened to that?

It going pretty much the way everyone expected. (which it to say, it's keeping the two sides from shooting each other...for now) Why? Do you consider it's existence a win for Israel, or Hezbollah?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Time to educate you. Egypt is not in the Middle East. Egypt is part of Africa. The largest (i.e. most populous) nation in the Middle East is Pakistan which has more people than both Turkey and Egypt combined. Turkey is also only slightly more populous than Iran (70 million vs 68 million).

Pakistan is part of South Asia, the most clearly defineable region in Eurasia, while Egypt is most definitely a part of the Middle Eastern cultural realm while it has very few connections with sub-Saharan Africa. And you know all of that, but you are just fiddling with semantics.

As for Iran, time is on the side of the youth, and the youth tend to be more liberal than their parents. I am pretty sure Iran has more women in university than men, and that does not bode well for people who want to put women in burqas.

Actually I never said they won or lost. I think they acheived most of their goals in that operation, but not all. As I stated correctly and truthfully, they only withdrew as part of a ceasefire. They most certainly were not forced out by Hezbollah.

Ya, a ceasefire designed to save Israels butt. They were having a LOT of problems rooting out Hizbullah, and all you have to do is look at the relative positions before and after the war.

• Israel had their lowest kill ratio since Independence
• Hizbullah's popularity in Lebanon has become stronger
• Hizbullah is still dug-in in southern Lebanon and the UN can't do squat about it
• World opinion of Israel has dropped even lower

On the whole, I would say Hizbullah's position relative to Israel has risen significantly, and therefore I would declare them the net winner.

I think you directly wrong on that point. They destroyed a good number of hezbollahs rocket artillery and capability. And if you think all they killed was civilians then you paid too much attention to Hezbollah propaganda.

Rockets and artillery are cheap, and Iran and Syria will continue to consider them a cost-effective way of bloodying Israel. More will arrive. As for the number of Hizbullah killed, it is nothing that can't be easily replaced, and will definitely be considered worth it now that Hizbullah's esteem has risen in the whole Muslim world.

Whatever happened to the UN mission to dis-arm hezbollah? What happened to that?

Very little has happened with it. The French and Germans are too busy worrying about trigger-happy Israeli fighter jocks.

Anyhoo, I have done very little schoolwork, and I haven't even showered yet, so I must depart. If I respond, it will be later tonight.

 

[MobBoss]

Pakistan is part of South Asia, the most clearly defineable region in Eurasia, while Egypt is most definitely a part of the Middle Eastern cultural realm while it has very few connections with sub-Saharan Africa. And you know all of that, but you are just fiddling with semantics.

Not according to this map: http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm but /meh.

Ya, a ceasefire designed to save Israels butt.

You have got to be kidding me. Israel most certainly didnt need to have its butt saved. It was dictating the battle. Period. If you believe anything other than that then you are delusional.

They were having a LOT of problems rooting out Hizbullah, and all you have to do is look at the relative positions before and after the war.

I will agree the battle wasnt as lop sided as former Israeli engagements had been, but that doesnt change the fact that Israel was in charge and dictating the battle. They had total air superiority and were pushing forward on the ground. Again, I know what the hell I am talking about. I dont think you do.

 

[MobBoss]

It going pretty much the way everyone expected. (which it to say, it's keeping the two sides from shooting each other...for now) Why? Do you consider it's existence a win for Israel, or Hezbollah?

Well, the original UN mission statement said part of the ceasefire agreement was the planned disarming of hezbollah in the region. Has this happened or is this another typical UN failure?

 

[Little Raven]

Well, the original UN mission statement said part of the ceasefire agreement was the planned disarming of hezbollah in the region. Has this happened or is this another typical UN failure?

Of course it hasn't happened. Nor will it. Everyone knew that going in.

Whether or not you consider that fact to render the entire ceasefire a failure depends on how literally you want to read the agreement. For what it's worth, I doubt that any of the people who drafted it or signed it consider it a failure, including Olmert.

 

[MobBoss]

Of course it hasn't happened. Nor will it. Everyone knew that going in.

Then why put it into the UN resolution for the ceasefire?

 

[Little Raven]

Then why put it into the UN resolution for the ceasefire?

For the same reason Bush talks about slashing Federal spending in every State of the Union. This is politics we're talking about. You have to put on a good show, even when everyone knows that's not really what's going to happen.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Was?Are you saying that now you are not in favor of US being in Iraq?

Indeed, I was wrong. I partly believed the optimistic picture that was drawn in front of me. I had my doubts about the way the war was handled and had my own ideas about the execution of the prelude and aftermath. The invasion itself seemed to be the one thing that worked out pretty well.

Now in hindsight I wonder if the goal set was ever an achievable one. Whichever method used, the aftermath was always going to be hell.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

You have got to be kidding me. Israel most certainly didnt need to have its butt saved. It was dictating the battle. Period. If you believe anything other than that then you are delusional.


I will agree the battle wasnt as lop sided as former Israeli engagements had been, but that doesnt change the fact that Israel was in charge and dictating the battle. They had total air superiority and were pushing forward on the ground. Again, I know what the hell I am talking about. I dont think you do.

Man, it seems really difficult to get through some people's heads that there is more to power and war than just what goes on in battle. America had complete air superiority in Vietnam and won every single battle. Yet they lost.

Power in human affairs comes from the ability to make others behave in a way that you want them to. Before Israel invaded Lebanon, it was viewed as being virtually invincible in conventional warfare. This perception of them brought them a lot of power because when others overestimate them, they alter their behaviour to be more timid. It is like when a person robs a bank with an object in their pocket that looks like a gun. It may in fact not be a gun, but as long as people think it is, they behave as though he has a gun.

Now that Israel has shown how much trouble a non-state force like Hezbollah can be to them, a lot of the power that they derived from other's perceptions has been significantly reduced.

Sure, they have nukes, but that only goes so far as that kind of power isn't very controllable. It isn't very useful to be able to destroy the other guy when you will be devastated in the process (by a possible wider conflict, or even by fallout from the ruins of Damascaus, Amman, Beirut, Cairo...)

This war reduced Israel's overall power. All of this can basically be copy and pasted to America in Iraq. That perception of American conventional invincibility is evaporating.

But you are right, you are the only one who knows what the hell you are talking about. The Americans are winning in Iraq, and Hezbullah is powerless.

 

[MobBoss]

Man, it seems really difficult to get through some people's heads that there is more to power and war than just what goes on in battle. America had complete air superiority in Vietnam and won every single battle. Yet they lost.

Now take the next step and ask yourself did they lose militarily or politically.

Now that Israel has shown how much trouble a non-state force like Hezbollah can be to them, a lot of the power that they derived from other's perceptions has been significantly reduced.

Sigh. Hezbollah gave them a bit of trouble, but not that much trouble. Hezbollah was still getting its ass kicked, no doubt about it. But I suppose if you are only getting it kicked 20-0 as opposed to 40-0 there is some small victory in that.

This war reduced Israel's overall power. All of this can basically be copy and pasted to America in Iraq. That perception of American conventional invincibility is evaporating.

That would be a directly false and incredibly disastrous perception for any nation to think. Iraq is NOT, repeat NOT a conventional war right now. Its about snipers and roadside bombs. Insurgent activity. Thats not a conventional war. Sigh. I dont think you have a clue as to what you are talking about when you make such statements.

But you are right, you are the only one who knows what the hell you are talking about. The Americans are winning in Iraq, and Hezbullah is powerless.

I know enough to be able to realize that Iraq is not a conventional war at the moment and not be confused about the issue. Apparently, you dont.

 

[RedWolf]

Force the other members of NATO to honor the alliance.

What so other members of a defensive alliance have to go around invading everybody that you invade?

At least their is some small rationale in Afghanistan because you were attacked on 9/11 and were going after Al Quaeda...

But Iraq? Just because you go around poking hornets nests it doesn't mean the rest of us are under some obligation to get stung as well.

You wanted a war - you got it. Enjoy it.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Now take the next step and ask yourself did they lose militarily or politically.

The smart leader does not separate the two.

Sigh. Hezbollah gave them a bit of trouble, but not that much trouble. Hezbollah was still getting its ass kicked, no doubt about it. But I suppose if you are only getting it kicked 20-0 as opposed to 40-0 there is some small victory in that. .

I think if Israel tried to stay for any length of time, it would have been more like 8-1. Not great for Hizbullah in a tactical sense, but enough of an improvement over 40-0 to embolden Israel's neighbours and make them less likely to cooperate.

That would be a directly false and incredibly disastrous perception for any nation to think. Iraq is NOT, repeat NOT a conventional war right now. Its about snipers and roadside bombs. Insurgent activity. Thats not a conventional war. Sigh. I dont think you have a clue as to what you are talking about when you make such statements.

I know enough to be able to realize that Iraq is not a conventional war at the moment and not be confused about the issue. Apparently, you dont.

Whether it is a conventional-style war or not is not what is relevant. What is relevant is that it is America's conventional forces that have to fight it. It is the exact same troops that would fight in a conventional war that have to fight the Iraqi insurgency.

People see that the conventional ground forces are not powerful enough to control a relatively small country like Iraq. In fact, in your own words, most of the country is not experiencing much violence. America's conventional forces are not strong enough to pacify just Baghdad and the Anbar province. And the whole world is witnessing this.

Sigh. I dont think you have a clue as to what you are talking about when you make such statements.

You shouldn't keep accusing others of not knowing what they are talking about. If your argument is so strong it should be self-evident. And besides, you come off like a cocky Donald Rumsfeld, circa March 2003, yelling at people who apparantly don't know what they are talking about .

 

[MobBoss]

The smart leader does not separate the two.

But the smart (and honest) historian does.

Whether it is a conventional-style war or not is not what is relevant. What is relevant is that it is America's conventional forces that have to fight it. It is the exact same troops that would fight in a conventional war that have to fight the Iraqi insurgency.

And we have shown the world that without a doubt to mess with the USA in a conventional war is to invite destruction to your land. Not a good idea to take on the most powerful nation on earth in a conventional war.

People see that the conventional ground forces are not powerful enough to control a relatively small country like Iraq.

Well, they could be if we wanted to push the big red button to do it.

In fact, in your own words, most of the country is not experiencing much violence. America's conventional forces are not strong enough to pacify just Baghdad and the Anbar province. And the whole world is witnessing this.

Well that is like saying that all police forces fail since they cant catch all the speeders there ever were. Its silly. Again, to assume that American forces are somehow 'weak' because joe camel sneaks out at night and buries an IED in the road when no one is looking is just beyond stupid. But hey, the world is full of stupid people. That hasnt changed.

You shouldn't keep accusing others of not knowing what they are talking about. If your argument is so strong it should be self-evident. And besides, you come off like a cocky Donald Rumsfeld yelling at people who apparantly don't know what they are talking about circa March 2003.

Again, you referred to Iraq as being a conventional war, not me. Dont get mad at me for correcting you.