Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
now i'm not saying that we haven't made mistakes in our post-war strategy. however, did you really expect it to go much better?
to me, that's like saying the Patriots really didn't go about playing the Super Bowl the right way. sure, they won... but didn't you see them fumble? their running game was slow out of the gate! too many penalties!
while all those statements are true, they don't reflect the fact that a monumental achievement was made. the same is, i think, true for people's perceptions of iraq. sure, it has been hell for our soldiers there. sure, we've had things thrown at us that we weren't prepared for. but in the end, did you think it would or could have gone much better? i know i didn't.
let's face it: many of you out there predicted SEVERE doom and gloom. if i didn't have a life outside of TFP i'd love to compile a list of all the nay-sayers for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq from the public debate and opinions given on this board. the new fetish seems to be to create (and by create, i mean completely imagine) inflated casualty figures in a sleazy attempt to add weight to an argument. instead of going to such lengths to justify the negative forecasts... why not rejoice in the fact that such predictions were wrong?
-if you did not predict that the iraqis would be holding successful elections in less than two years after the war... you were wrong. rejoice.
-if you thought the war would unstabilize the region and spiral into an uncontrollable regional conflict... you were wrong. rejoice.
-if you thought that it would cost 10,000 American lives... you were wrong. rejoice.
-if you thought that the result of insurgent destabilization would be an iraqi civil war... you were wrong. rejoice.
and I KNOW that many of you were in hysterics because you were SO SURE this was all going to happen. well, it hasn't... yet nothing but negativity is heard from many. it's unfair to judge such a dangerous operation on such untested ground a failure because there are obvious problems. rather, think of this operation and match it against all plausible outcomes... i see a strong case for labeling it a success.
|
"A monumental achievement was made" ??? Where ?
By whom ? Here is today's news. It is what it is:
1.)The U.S. force, 150,000 strong, is still unable or unwilling
to provide SECURITY for it's best hope of relief for itself in
Iraq; an Iraqi defense force that is large enough in size,
skill, and resolve to provide internal security and protect Iraq's
borders from foreign military and insurgent incursion. The
U.S. military, despite it's unique resources has been unable
to accomplish these things itself.
2.)U.S. troops continue to take casualties and have amassed
1400 dead and 10,000 wounded to facilitate what is described
in the bottom of today's AP story;<b>"a Kurdish ticket had moved into second place behind a coalition of Shiite religious parties, relegating a faction led by U.S.-backed interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi to third place."</b>
Quote:
Suicide bomber kills 21 Iraqis at army recruiting center in Baghdad
By Jason Keyser, Associated Press, 2/8/2005 12:07
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) A suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd of Iraqis outside an army recruitment center Tuesday, killing 21 other people and injuring 27 more, the U.S. military said. It was the deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital since last week's election.
There were conflicting reports about the attack, which occurred at an Iraqi National Guard headquarters at the Muthana airfield. Iraqi officials blamed the explosion on mortar fire and officials at Baghdad's Yarmouk Hospital said they had received 16 bodies from the scene, all of them army recruits.
But witnesses reported only one explosion, and the U.S. military said the blast was caused by a suicide bomber.
The al-Qaida in Iraq terror group, led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, claimed responsibility for the attack in an Internet statement.
''This is the beginning of the escalation we promised you,'' said the statement posted on an Islamic Web site. The claim's authenticity couldn't be verified.
Elsewhere, three police officers were killed in clashes in Baghdad's western Ghazaliya neighborhood, scene of numerous clashes and assassinations over the past six months.
Also Tuesday, assailants sprayed a politician's car with gunfire, killing two of the man's sons, an Interior Ministry official said. The politician, Mithal al-Alusi, who heads the Nation party, escaped unhurt.
He gained notoriety last year after he was expelled from the Iraqi National Congress party for attending a terrorism conference in Israel. Al-Alusi is one of the candidates who ran in Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 elections.
On Monday, gunmen killed an Iraqi chef employed by U.S. forces at Baghdad International Airport, hospital officials said Tuesday. In Mosul, two Kurdish politicians were also gunned down Monday, said an official from the Kurdistan Democratic Party.
The violence is picking up again in the Iraqi capital following the elections, when a massive security crackdown prevented insurgents from launching major attacks. Iraqis chose a 275-member National Assembly and provincial councils, as well as a regional parliament in the Kurdish-controlled north.
Final results of the election are expected this week. The latest partial returns released Tuesday showed a Kurdish ticket had moved into second place behind a coalition of Shiite religious parties, relegating a faction led by U.S.-backed interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi to third place
|
Irate, I did respond to your thread topic and it's questions
in my last post:
Quote:
.............Since I can find no rational basis for the signifigant numbers of people
offering unwavering and almost unquestioning support for Bush and his policies, ...............
.......I doubt that Bush's supporters perceive what is obvious to many of us.
1400 Americans and possibly many more have died fighting to facilitate the
formation of a fundamentalist Islamic republic in Iraq, a country that was
formerly a secular dictatorship with a highly educated population where
women enjoyed societal equality perhaps second only to that of women in
Israel.
|
I am looking for answers as to why you post statements and
opinions that are uncoupled from reality. America apparently
voted for an administration that does the same thing.
You suppose that this confirms that Bush has said things
and taken actions in his war on terror that are mostly correct.
The facts don't support that. Put yourself in my place. If
you believed that the president and his supporters practiced
military and political policies that were uncoupled from reality
and caused these casualties to American troops and innocent
Iraqis, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and strengthened
the fundamentalist Islamic movement, instead of weakening
it, how would you view the motivation for a thread like this
and the irrational comments in the first post? It may seem
partisan or antagonistic, but you owe it to yourself to face
and process details presented on here and from sources like
the AP.
Quote:
<a href="http://www.psychohistory.com/reagan/rp36x50.htm">http://www.psychohistory.com/reagan/rp36x50.htm</a>
This typical incident illustrates one of the problems with using politics as a way of solving internal problems. For those who externalize their own anxieties, action is more often taken to solve current personal problems than to deal with actual situations in the real world. A vast gulf separates the anti-communist crusade of Reagan and others and rational actions taken to reduce real threats by communists and others. The crusading anti-communist sees dangers when his or her own feelings are about to get out of control rather than when reality is actually becoming dangerous. Orgies at student dances could hardly be considered one of the major dangers to the State of California in 1966. Reagan's political actions are far more likely to stem from current dangers in his own inner life than from dangers in the real world. Because of his severe personal problems-ones which he shares with many Americans-he is likely to overlook reality conditions which need attention in favor of situations which represent wishes of his own which are giving him problems.
|