1. SPS Accounts:
    Do you find yourself coming back time after time? Do you appreciate the ongoing hard work to keep this community focused and successful in its mission? Please consider supporting us by upgrading to an SPS Account. Besides the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting a good cause, you'll also get a significant number of ever-expanding perks and benefits on the site and the forums. Click here to find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You are currently viewing Boards o' Magick as a guest, but you can register an account here. Registration is fast, easy and free. Once registered you will have access to search the forums, create and respond to threads, PM other members, upload screenshots and access many other features unavailable to guests.

BoM cultivates a friendly and welcoming atmosphere. We have been aiming for quality over quantity with our forums from their inception, and believe that this distinction is truly tangible and valued by our members. We'd love to have you join us today!

(If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you've forgotten your username or password, click here.)

Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says

Discussion in 'Alley of Lingering Sighs' started by Ragusa, May 31, 2005.

  1. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
  2. Cúchulainn Gems: 28/31
    Latest gem: Star Sapphire


    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,956
    Likes Received:
    1
    The British probably said the same thing about militant Republicans during the early 80's...

    Silly people and silly views!
     
  3. AMaster Gems: 26/31
    Latest gem: Diamond


    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,495
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    50
    Following Cheney's statement, the North Vietnamese violated the truce in place for the holiday and launched what is now being refered to as the "Tet Offensive"

    Oops, wait, wrong war.
     
  4. LKD Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    6,284
    Likes Received:
    271
    Gender:
    Male
    Pro American that I generally am, I have to say, to my dismay . . .

    Cheney is a moron.

    The reason they're having problems, IMHO, is they are not being aggressive enough. They could be, but all the bleeding hearts here and abroad would cry like a rainstorm and howl like the wind (as the lovely Linda Ronstadt put it.)
     
  5. Chandos the Red

    Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    8,252
    Media:
    82
    Likes Received:
    238
    Gender:
    Male
    They can't afford to be anymore agressive than they are. The generals suggested that it would take about 300,000 soldiers to execute the war. They were slapped down by the civilians in the Pentagon (neocons) who believed, like our genius president, that the war would be a cake walk; that the "primtives" in Iraq would be "shocked and awed" by American technology and its ruthlessness to use its vast arsenal on such a puny state. Well, more ruthlessness breeds more ruthlessness, especially on a "primitive" level.
     
  6. LKD Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    6,284
    Likes Received:
    271
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, Chandos, you know me -- I'm vicious, cruel and really don't have a lot of respect for rogue states. If the States were to REALLY use their superior weaponry and flatten a few major cities (with conventional weapons, I know they can do it) I truly believe that more terrorists would think twice before suicide mission.

    Sadly, there are many Americans (and others) who would rather have more 9/11 or Moscow theatre incidents than crush the problem ruthlessly. So without sufficient political will, we're doomed to more terrorism.
     
  7. Chandos the Red

    Chandos the Red This Wheel's on Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Messages:
    8,252
    Media:
    82
    Likes Received:
    238
    Gender:
    Male
    The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Even those who thought up the war admit that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. But to say "9/11" everytime America does something in the Middle East is politically useful for the prez and his minons.

    BTW, what exactly is a "rogue state" anyway?
     
  8. AMaster Gems: 26/31
    Latest gem: Diamond


    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,495
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    50
    Well, the war was a cakewalk. It's the keeping the peace part that's been a PITA.
     
  9. Gnarfflinger

    Gnarfflinger Wiseguy in Training

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,423
    Likes Received:
    30
    And the people would rather weep over their dead than to avenge them.

    There has to be something that Saddam did that was a big one fingered wave to the US at a time when they were still smarting from an unwarranted, unexpected kick in the nuts. If you poke a wounded lion with a sharp stick, you're going to get mauled...
     
  10. Charlie Gems: 14/31
    Latest gem: Chrysoberyl


    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    640
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which was what? That apparently wasn't clear. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Those were the touted reasons. We can't just assume there must have.

    unwarranted - I think it was but to others, the losses in 9/11 were insignificant to the losses they had through the decades.

    unexpected - I thought that there was (correct) intel saying that such a threat was present. The different agencies just didn't share info with each other.
     
  11. Ragusa

    Ragusa Eternal Halfling Paladin Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2000
    Messages:
    10,140
    Media:
    63
    Likes Received:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    Some news first:
    US 'losing its grip' on Baghdad's political process

    Gnarff,
    for the neo-cons the tragedy of 9/11 signified a unique opportunity. A war to liberate Iraq promised to change the face of American grand strategy.
    By irrevocably committing the United States to a broader and heavily militarized campaign aimed at liberating the entire Islamic world, it would signify the triumph of principles that people like Wolfowitz had long espoused:

    No more compromises with dirty leaders like Stalin or Mao - but to regain moral purity through the force of military arms. Never again would raison d’etat oblige presidents to soil themselves by associating with execrable tin-pot dictators. Through military power, the United States could recapture the innocence sullied in the aftermath of the nation’s rise to great-power status.

    The point that directly killing civillians through the wars you start for such an ideology might dirty you too, didn't dawn them. Details, schmeetails.

    But for that triumph to occur, the war needed to happen.

    In this sense, the yearnings for a peaceful resolution expressed by Wolfowitz and other senior Bush administration officials during the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom surely qualify as disingenuous.

    Gnarff, you're naive to believe that U.S. ever intended not to use force against Iraq - the object of the exercise was never to disarm Saddam peacefully.

    The aim was always to demonstrate the invincibility of American arms, thereby resetting in a fundamental way the international correlation of power globally, and especially in the Islamic world. Violence as such was a sine qua non, its use expected to endow the United States with greater reserves of leverage, influence, and respect.

    Insofar Wolfowitz strategy was like imperial Germany's Schlieffen plan that required Germany to attack and to invade neutral Belgium under violation of international law - when the emperor suggested a defensive posture in the west, the General staff refused in awe, crying: 'But what about our plan then?!' A set plan took the decision out of the leader's hands - it had to be followed because it was there, and no one seriously thought about alternatives.

    Insofar, the only thing Saddam did, was to provide a target to prove some neo-con theology.

    Look where we are now: The US is friendly with torture countries like Musharaf's Pakistan or Karimov's Uzbekistan, in Iraq they put some Baathists back in power - a lot of compromising - and not at all the moral purity Wolfie imagined. His new job at the world bank actually indicates his defeat, his strategy failed.

    [ June 01, 2005, 14:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]
     
  12. Oxymore Gems: 13/31
    Latest gem: Ziose


    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    0
    quote: There has to be something that Saddam did that was a big one fingered wave to the US

    Which was what? That apparently wasn't clear. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs. Those were the touted reasons. We can't just assume there must have.


    Pricing oil in euros? Who knows? :rolleyes:
     
  13. T2Bruno

    T2Bruno The only source of knowledge is experience Distinguished Member ★ SPS Account Holder Adored Veteran New Server Contributor [2012] (for helping Sorcerer's Place lease a new, more powerful server!) Torment: Tides of Numenera SP Immortalizer (for helping immortalize Sorcerer's Place in the game!)

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    Messages:
    9,740
    Media:
    15
    Likes Received:
    436
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting. I have a great deal of respect for Cheney -- he's not one to make a Dan Quail. Maybe he knows something we don't. I think as the Iraqi people continue to take control of their government the insurgency will dissipate. There will always be fighting, especially as long as there are American troops in Iraq.

    Whoa, there partner... I think this is a little off:

    Saddam was no babe in the woods. He is guilty of attempted genocide and more homicides than the khmer rouge. The world is a better place without men like him in power (but then there will be people who will say the same about the US in 2008).

    The press went nuts on the anti-terrorism bandwagon and Bush just let them go. In the beginning of the war he was very careful to not tie the anti-terrorist campaign and the anti-Iraq campaign together. Bush repeated over and over that the war was about Saddam's failure to abide the UN rulings -- granted he was wrong, but he did not jump on the anti-terrorism=anti-Iraq thing until later (by then most of the American public had equated the two). I disagreed with the reasons at the time and felt the UN process was working -- but I didn't disagree with removing Saddam from power.
     
  14. Gnarfflinger

    Gnarfflinger Wiseguy in Training

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,423
    Likes Received:
    30
    So you've eliminated two possibilities. Something pissed the Americans off enough to fight.

    So all they have to show for it is a picture of Saddam in his skivvies...

    I didn't figure he'd go peacefully either. They just wanted him out.

    Wasn't that when he wasn't supposed to be selling oil in the first place?

    49 point something percent of voters thought that the US would be a better place without George W in the whitehouse in 2004. Back on topic, though, Saddam did a lot of terrible things. Some BS report about Treaty violations was just a convenient excuse to invade and beat the crap out of them, and remove Hussein from power. I say give the new leaders a chance to see what they will do...

    If they've got the public demanding Hussein's head on a pike on the White House lawn, why stop the press when the President wants to do it anyway?

    That's the official story that works for the US, Great Brittain and a few other countries that got involved...

    A fact conveniently left out until after the war had started...
     
  15. AMaster Gems: 26/31
    Latest gem: Diamond


    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,495
    Media:
    1
    Likes Received:
    50
    Uh, what? The public didn't demand that the government invade Iraq, the government demanded that the public support an invasion of Iraq. Did a damned fine job of it, too.
     
  16. LKD Gems: 31/31
    Latest gem: Rogue Stone


    Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Messages:
    6,284
    Likes Received:
    271
    Gender:
    Male
    Everyone in the world knew that Saddam was evil -- that's never been a discussion item, really. We also knew that he wanted WMD, and he was not cooperating with UN inspectors. Frankly, I'm glad that Saddam was stopped before he did get such weapons. I'd rather lock the gun store and arrest the fellow trying to pick the lock rather than have to deal with him once he's inside and a real danger.
     
Sorcerer's Place is a project run entirely by fans and for fans. Maintaining Sorcerer's Place and a stable environment for all our hosted sites requires a substantial amount of our time and funds on a regular basis, so please consider supporting us to keep the site up & running smoothly. Thank you!

Sorcerers.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk. Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.