I shouldn't have said "producing" in my post. That data I provided is stock, not production. Yes, weekly supplies went up that particular week, but it's not higher than the beginning of the year.
This wasn't a holy war for us. It was intervention into a genocide. NATO took the side of the oppressed only to stop the ethnic cleansing, not to support muslims. Can you document this? I realize individual atrocities will happen in any war, but the Serbia aggressions in Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Kosovo were characterized by mass instances of rape of women and murder of men in order to make the population more "Serbian ". This was too Nazi-like for the Europeans to tolerate. We didn't "pick the side of the muslims". The Croatians weren't Muslims. We supported our European allies in an successful effort to prevent the communist Milosovic from committing genocide. And he died in prison as a war criminal. Stopping a genocide wasn't right? This wasn't a religious war, Salty. On this we can agree. The Iraqis, with the exception of the Kurds, have not cooperated and have been killing our troops. They have forfeited any support we owe them. I'm interested in what you are saying here. Tell me more. There is bound to be evidence online if it is true. Where, what kind, and how many atrocites were committed against Serbs? What is the land that the muslims wanted to capture from the Serbs?
Sure there is a difference but some basic things are similar. And some of this wasn't going on in Iraq? I won't argue about false pretenses or we shouldn't have gone in, I'll reluctantly agree with you here although I think all the wmd's could be in Syria just like his air force from 1991. I'm also one to be reluctant about the Soviet Union being dissolved btw. I just read the other day that they are back to cold war levels for spying on us or something like that. I agree but also disagree with you here. I remember after the Gulf War many were saying we should've went into Baghdad and toppled Saddam. Because we didn't do it in 1991 is the reason we did it in 2003. I'm convinced it would have happened sooner or later "Unfortunatly" because even if Saddam had died of natural causes his sons would've took over and been far worse for the world. The problem I see here is whether or not you were for or against this war you should support the president, the troops and the country. No one person or president is perfect, Clinton, Bush 41 even Reagan made mistakes. What I am saying is that we are there and everyone should want us to succeed not fail, yes, I believe some people want us to lose. Whether or not we should have gone doesn't mean a hill of beans, we are there! To clear up my position on this whole Iraq situation: I supported it from day one and still support it however knowing what I know now I WISH we wouldn't have went in 2003 in the first place but we are there so lets make the best of it and find a way to succeed.
Good post, and I can see why you feel the way you do. As far as supporting the pres., there is no need to support the president in pursuit of goals where the cost is much higher than the benefits to be obtained. That is why we have free speech. It can save lives of those in the military. Bob McNamara, defense sec. under Johnson, recently wrote his book and apologized for pushing the war in Vietnam, despite having been told in the Pentagon Papers study that there was no way to win the war at a price the public would be willing to pay. That was in 1966 and we had lost 24K lives. Nixon pulled out in 1973 and we had lost an additional 34K killed. If the public had not protested so forcefully, how many more would have been lost? So, why were the politicians unwilling to listen to the Pentagon experts straight talk. It turned out just like they said in 1966. "We're in there so lets make the best of it so we can succeed". There is what the US wants, a stable democratic Iraq, an example to the rest of the middle east. Think this way, you are a Sunni, what do you want to have happen in Iraq; you are a Kurd, what do you want to happen, and you are a Shia, what do you really want to happen? What are you prepared to do about it? What allies do you have? Guesses: Shia, I'm the majority, I want a democracy, because my folks will win all block votes and we will run the country, and I can get back at those nasty Sunni who persecuted us the last 30 years. Kurd: We have oil in the north, we've been persecuted by the Iraqi's and in southern Turkey, we want our own country, along with the Kurds in S. Turkey. We don't want to fight the Americans, they are too strong. We'll keep our mouths shut, and when they leave, we'll just set up our own country and help the Turkish Kurds join us in "Kurdistan". Sunni, we're probably screwed, we got no oil, we're a minority, we don't want to obey any democratic block votes from the Shia, so we'll revolt and win through intimidation and peace talks what we can't win at the ballot. This civil war is just our way of "negotiating" for influence we would not otherwise get. Iran and Syria have regional aims, and support groups that ally with their aims. Just how much control does the US have? What is the best we can do? Sometimes you only have bad options and worse options. Suppose we stay 10 or 20 years, what are the odds that when we leave, the aims of the Sunni, Shia and Kurds are still the same basically as today? There is a good chance of that, so why would we spend anymore lives, if the outcome has a good probability of being the same as if we pull out now? That is really the question. If I saw some well thought out analysis showing we had a very good probability of success for a stable sustainable democracy in Iraq in 3 years, say, then I'd be right there with you. The Iraq Study Group did study the problem, and they were for redeployment of the troops, give security over to the Iraqi's, and come home. There has not been a creditable study yet indicating that there is a reasonable plan for a stable Iraq that survives intact after a US pullout, at any time in the future. If that's true, we are just wasting our time and resources there. Why hasn't this been figured out and presented to the American people 4 years after going in?
Make the best of it? How exactly do we do that? How do we measure success? More of the same old strategy has only resulted in more casualties and now POW's. Now they are even backing off their September promise to have things under control or go to "plan B". It ain't our fight. We win by letting them fight it out, they have a 1,000-year-old feud to settle. Then we tell the winner how its going to be.
This is what I don't understand? :dis: Bush was so bold to go into Iraq and didn't secure the borders in the first place and because we didn't we sure aren't protecting our interests in Iraq with Iran and Syria supporting and participating with those fighting us. Personally I don't know, this is why we have military leaders that run wars. We lost Vietnam because the politicians lost the war and Walter Cronkite said so. I don't put all my trust in the Iraq study group, personally anything with too many politicians in it is corrupt. I go by what military people are saying like the marine commander the other day not the American people or any politician.
See my post above. Just because the military screwed up doesn't mean they will screw everything up again and again. Remember the training event for D-Day that killed just as many if not more troops in one exercise than we've lost for 4 years in Iraq.
