Would more U.S. troops help stop Iraq violence?

[WITHTEETH]

Sand is wrong as usual. I guess the US president during WW2 failed as well since they lost 10s of thosuands of troops in a matter of couple of years. :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It matters on the individuals definition of a just war. A "preemptive strike" sounds more like a nazi Germany tactic to me. Where as JFK only pushed the cold war as far as it had to go thus keeping it cold.

[Volourn]

"World War 2 we were directly attacked and so were our allies. Who did Iraq attack just prior to our invasion? The U.S.? No. Any of our allies? No. Did Saddam and his cronies even capable of attacking/invading another nation let alone the US when we invaded? No."

 

Saddam had a habit of shooting at Amerikan and British planes that were up in the air inforcing the UN Resolution of 'no flightzone' and the Kurds.

 

Bootom line is Saddam was a threat to all good humans and needed to have his power stopped. He thought he was a Big Shot. He wa snothing more than a gang leader... who started soemthing he could not finish.

 

The world is better off without him leading Iraq. Period.

[kirottu]

3000+ soldiers each of who have died a useless and meaningless death.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They chose to be in the army. They went to war knowing they might get killed. They did this for their own reasons.

 

Your opinion of their deaths is clouded by your hate towards Bush. You have no right what so ever to judge their deaths.

 

Only meaningless death is when overweigted gamer dies surrounded by nothing else than game boxes.

Edited January 9, 2007 by kirottu

[Sand]

Shooting planes does not equal invasion. As for the Kurds, they were Iraqis and not US citizens.

[DeathScepter]

"World War 2 we were directly attacked and so were our allies. Who did Iraq attack just prior to our invasion? The U.S.? No. Any of our allies? No. Did Saddam and his cronies even capable of attacking/invading another nation let alone the US when we invaded? No."

 

Saddam had a habit of shooting at Amerikan and British planes that were up in the air inforcing the UN Resolution of 'no flightzone' and the Kurds.

 

Bootom line is Saddam was a threat to all good humans and needed to have his power stopped. He thought he was a Big Shot. He wa snothing more than a gang leader... who started soemthing he could not finish.

 

The world is better off without him leading Iraq. Period.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Also I won't be surprised that once the documents from the Iraq have a lot more details of Sadduam's dealings than it is on public record.

 

 

 

Btw The US only has a few people in the Intelligence that can translate Arab languages.

 

 

 

To those thinking i am bull****ting........................why not collect documents from Iraq after we invaded.

[metadigital]

more troops = more people to shoot at = more people who shoots

 

:crazy:

 

 

thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clausewitz discovered that by applying greater force to a smaller one, the greater force loses less casualties.

 

So your over-simplistic model fails.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This was back in the 19th century though. We're not dealing with muskets and sabres anymore so would this theory still apply in ever more complex situations like Iraq and their car bombs, bazookas, and AK's?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure. It's all about stacking the probabilities.

 

If, say, the US has a Division of men (10k) versus a Division of men from Great Britain, all other things being equal, they will lose approximately the same amount of casualties.

 

If the US attacked half of that UK Division, then they would inflict much greater casualties and incur far fewer; then they could attack the other half and have a net benefit.

 

EdD'Oh!'s equation is too simple, because the amount of opposition will not necessarily increase with the increase in allied forces.

 

Hardly.  In fact I think it is best we move away from oil all together.  With continuing advances in ethanol and biodiesel production we could rely on our own supplemented oil supplies and let the Middle East be damned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even someone you regard as none-to-bright, who was elected on an isolationist platform, learnt that there is no way (especially for the US!) to live in the world with such a foreign policy. It's a pity you haven't learnt this, as well, as you tend to crow on about Bush Jr's failings: at least he learnt this.

[213374U]

Bush has failed.

Um? No, he hasn't, in fact. The war was aimed at toppling Saddam's government. It succeeded at that.

 

 

The problem is that he cannot accept his failure and his failure has cost the lives of 3000+ soldiers each of who have died a useless and meaningless death.

Useless and meaningless according to whom? You like to tote this argument around quite a bit, but no matter how categorical you try to be, it is just an opinion that stems from your own prejudices and short-sightedness. Consider that not everyone is like you. Maybe some are proud to die serving their country, regardless of the political situation. I don't think they'd be happy about you cheapening their deaths like that.

 

 

Now he wants to throw more soldiers at the problem.  I don't see a change in strategy.  I don't see Bush learning from his mistakes.  All I see is more of our soldiers going into a country to die and not a single good thing coming out of it. Bush and the Republicans have proven themselves incompetent in this matter. The only viable option is to remove our troops and let Iraq be swallowed by sectarian violence.  It is the waste of US resources and US lives to continue being in a country that wants to kill itself.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, indeed. Nothing good is going to come out of it, since the Iraqi people have proven unable (and perhaps most importantly, unwilling) to live in peace under a democratic government. Well, perhaps they do need a civil war to sort it out. The mistake here is allowing them to set up a supposedly democratic government, and then doing their dirty work for them. They are either politically mature enough to run their own sovereign nation, or they are not. That's all there is to it, really.

 

 

Only meaningless death is when overweigted gamer dies surrounded by nothing else than game boxes.

Kirottu wins!

 

Fatality!

[alanschu]

Sand is wrong as usual. I guess the US president during WW2 failed as well since they lost 10s of thosuands of troops in a matter of couple of years. :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It matters on the individuals definition of a just war. A "preemptive strike" sounds more like a nazi Germany tactic to me. Where as JFK only pushed the cold war as far as it had to go thus keeping it cold.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I wish I could remember the name of that law that says controversial discussion, given enough time, will eventually involve a comparison in some way to Nazi Germany.

[Sand]

Even someone you regard as none-to-bright, who was elected on an isolationist platform, learnt that there is no way (especially for the US!) to live in the world with such a foreign policy. It's a pity you haven't learnt this, as well, as you tend to crow on about Bush Jr's failings: at least he learnt this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am not saying we should isolate ourselves but if we remove our dependence on foreign oil we wouldn't get caught up in situations like this in the first place. If those who do seek to do us harm and attack we return such actions with equal force but once the job is done our troops come home. We have no place in another country's civil war.

[alanschu]

What if said civil war interrupts the economy of the US though. And no, I'm not saying that the Iraq situation is doing this.

 

But global interdependence is a reality. What if a civil war starts somewhere, and as a result, many Americans end up losing their jobs, and the economy ends up on a heavy downward trend.

[Sand]

I don't deal with "what ifs," Alanschu. What if an asteroid strikes the Earth and destroys civilization as we know it? What if aliens come to conquer us all?

 

I rather deal with "What Is."

[Pidesco]

So you never think ahead, Sand? That's explains a whole lot.

[Sand]

I just think that we should focus more on the here and now than on what might or might not be.

[alanschu]

I don't deal with "what ifs," Alanschu.  What if an asteroid strikes the Earth and destroys civilization as we know it?  What if aliens come to conquer us all? 

 

I rather deal with "What Is."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So you don't plan for anything?

 

 

You see, my "what if" is something that actually has happened in recent history. And given increased global interdependence, probably something that will happen again. In fact, the US has tried to be rather proactive about it, especially through South America. Not only do you not deal with "what ifs," you don't seem to care about "what has already happeneds."

 

But whatever. If not having an explanation simply because of your bizarre concept of reality doesn't entail planning for the future, so be it.

 

 

Not surprisingly, it seems as though the whole Hades "act" wasn't really an act at all.

Edited January 10, 2007 by alanschu

[metadigital]

Sand is wrong as usual. I guess the US president during WW2 failed as well since they lost 10s of thosuands of troops in a matter of couple of years. :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It matters on the individuals definition of a just war. A "preemptive strike" sounds more like a nazi Germany tactic to me. Where as JFK only pushed the cold war as far as it had to go thus keeping it cold.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish I could remember the name of that law that says controversial discussion, given enough time, will eventually involve a comparison in some way to Nazi Germany.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies.

[Sand]

Oh, I remember reading about US interference in South America. Didn't we support a coup in Chile that resulted a dictator taking power and causing mass murder? Oh yes, US foreign policy really worked down there.

[Pidesco]

Oh, I remember reading about US interference in South America.  Didn't we support a coup in Chile that resulted a dictator taking power and causing mass murder?  Oh yes, US foreign policy really worked down there. 

 

It's called the Truman Doctrine, it's not about morals, and American success in the cold war was based on it.

[alanschu]

Oh, I remember reading about US interference in South America.  Didn't we support a coup in Chile that resulted a dictator taking power and causing mass murder?  Oh yes, US foreign policy really worked down there. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

They've supported many coups.

 

No where did I say that anything they did in South America was good, so you can take that pretentious emoticon and shove it.

 

 

 

EDIT: And thanks for that meta. I figured you'd know. I knew it started with a 'G' but was thinking of names like Garrick.

Edited January 10, 2007 by alanschu

[Surreptishus]

I thought it was called the Monroe Doctrine

[Sand]

There is right and wrong. I question America's success in the cold war was a good thing or not.

[alanschu]

Well, had it not been "won," you'd probably still have the arms race. Oh wait, that's a what if.

 

Sorry.

 

 

Wait a minute, you'd have to contemplate "what ifs" to come to the conclusion that "winning" the cold war may not have been a good thing.

Edited January 10, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

I said I question if winning the cold war a good thing or not, not that I think that it was a bad thing.

[WITHTEETH]

Sand is wrong as usual. I guess the US president during WW2 failed as well since they lost 10s of thosuands of troops in a matter of couple of years. :crazy:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It matters on the individuals definition of a just war. A "preemptive strike" sounds more like a nazi Germany tactic to me. Where as JFK only pushed the cold war as far as it had to go thus keeping it cold.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish I could remember the name of that law that says controversial discussion, given enough time, will eventually involve a comparison in some way to Nazi Germany.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So i automatically forfeit the discussion? :'(

[Nartwak]

How valid are plans that don't descry the possible ramifications later on? That's sort of the idea behind plans. Not factoring for the future mostly leads to the sort of cluster**** Hades_One is (ostensibly) against.

[alanschu]

I said I question if winning the cold war a good thing or not, not that I think that it was a bad thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And I never said otherwise.

 

 

If you question that it's not a good thing, then that means there is some of you that feels that it was a bad thing.

 

Because there's right and wrong. Right?