Now, I'm going to wonder if everyone here can unconditionally agree that it's a good thing. I expect not. "Sure, it's kinda good, but..."
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, woohoo. Now what do we get to do, chop off his head and parade it around on a pike? Oh wait, we already did that with his sons. Maybe drawing and quartering?
Yeah, this is so incredibly wonderful. We captured one man out of a botched operation. I'm sure that's just a rousing success.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argent, that's because few events are totally good or totally bad.
There is triumph here, yes. There is also a nagging feeling that things are not, and cannot be resolved by the capture of one man. The questions left are "How did this happen? How can we keep this from happening again?"
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I am stunned. I ask all you who think this is no big deal to go to your newspapers from last winter. The media kept trying to pin Bush down to the physical destruction of Saddam as a success. Now we have him in captivity. If you don't see this as a success, I am very sorry for you.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see it as a success in the goal of capturing Saddam, but capturing him will alone will not sway my decision on whether or not our operations in Iraq are a success.
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps if he was the tarrorist that was to blame for the 9-11 attacts, we would be more enthoseastic (sorry, cant spell) about his capture. But as it was he had nothing to do with the attacts, in fact Husain and Ben Laudin detested each other. I suppose it is good they finally found him, i just resent the way this whole war has been presented as a way to get back at terrorists and to stop future tarrorist attacts form happening. The difference between a terrorrist and a govermnent going to war, is that one has control and soverinty over a section of land, w/ people on it. The other dosn't, it can move from place to place.
Posts: 150 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh.... I suppose for those thought we should go into Iraq just so we could kill Saddam, the war's a success. But for those who thought we should do it to help the Iraqis, it's still marginal, and for those who thought we should do it as an attempt to fight terrorism, it couldn't possibly be more of a failure.
posted
I see it as something that might make achieving those other goals easier, as Saddam's continued work as the figurehead of the opposition made it harder for us to stabilize the country. It's not victory, but it's a victory, and good news all around.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, woohoo. Now what do we get to do, chop off his head and parade it around on a pike? Oh wait, we already did that with his sons. Maybe drawing and quartering?
Yeah, this is so incredibly wonderful. We captured one man out of a botched operation. I'm sure that's just a rousing success.
What exactly did we do to his sons, again? Hyperbole much?
Downplay, downplay, downplay. We captured "one man" out of a "botched operation". Might as well call the first moon landing, "We sent a bunch of guys up to that rock up there." (And no, I'm not saying this is as momentous as Apollo, just that the downplay is enormous, Human.)
Slacker,
quote:I see it as a success in the goal of capturing Saddam, but capturing him will alone will not sway my decision on whether or not our operations in Iraq are a success.
Then you must also admit that you regarded the capture of Saddam Hussein as a non-issue then, right? I'm unsure if you've ever said that before or not, that's what you're saying now. If you thought capturing Saddam and putting him on trial was one of the goals of our war, then you just misspoke. If you didn't, then I don't understand at all.
Valkyrie,
quote:The difference between a terrorrist and a govermnent going to war, is that one has control and soverinty over a section of land, w/ people on it. The other dosn't, it can move from place to place.
There is such a thing as state-sponsored terrorism. Which Saddam Hussein was guilty of.
Tresopax,
quote:But for those who thought we should do it to help the Iraqis, it's still marginal, and for those who thought we should do it as an attempt to fight terrorism, it couldn't possibly be more of a failure.
You think the Iraqis aren't happy about this, Tresopax? Do you read the news? Tell me, how many Iraqis were still afraid of Saddam and that he'd come back into power and take revenge against Coalition supporters?
How is this a failure in the War on Terrorism? The figurehead of resistance of America, the man who encouraged jihad, who told people to fight till the death no matter the odds, was captured with his pistol still in its holster, cowering in a basement, looking like an Arabic Charles Manson...that's a failure?
posted
The real victories of the day are the hopeful yet cautious speech by Bush, and the intelligent response from Dean. This could have been an opportunity for raucous gloating and biting sarcasm, respectively, but both parties seem well-focused on the limited relevance this event will have on American security efforts.
The situation on the ground in Iraq has comparatively little to do with, well, anything (save the lives of the soldiers trying to make the best of a shitty situation).
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said that I see capturing Saddam as a non-issue. I see it as an important issue, but I don't think that capturing Saddam will mean that everything is done and taken care of in Iraq. There are still people in Iraq that are running loose that are killing others in terror attacks (as I write this, there's a news blurb about another suicide bombing in Baghdad). We still have a long way to go before I'm willing to say that the campaign was a success (if for no other reason than the fact that it's still going on and things can still go wrong).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the doubters and Bush haters on this forum have made a point of proving OSC right when OSC writes that there is absolutely no way that Bush can succeed in anything in their eyes. No matter how well any of these combat operations are conducted, you people will still find something to whine and cry about. Saddam Hussein was captured alive without firing a shot. Thats been the ace in your sleeves for months: 'They didnt even find Saddam, just like they didnt find bin ladin, the bumbling idiots'. Now Saddam is found and youre still finding fault. Not a single rational measure of success can be found in your arguments.
Here's a kleenex, go cry somewhere else.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all fairness, odouls, I don't recall anyone on this forum saying that the success of the operation in Iraq could be measured by the capture of Saddam. In fact, most of the arguments I've heard along that line came from conservatives prior to the invasion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that this isn't the objective, or the end of it all. More like a delightful bonus, and hopefully something that will make the Iraqis people stop blowing themselves up. What I think, though, is that at some point human rights just don't manner. And that point lies somewhere around genocide and mass murder. So I think that sitting around in a hole with a pistol and a camouflage briefcase full of money, beaten and dejected, was the least of his problems.
[ December 14, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the doubters and Bush haters on this forum have made a point of proving OSC right when OSC writes that there is absolutely no way that Bush can succeed in anything in their eyes.
Somebody missed the post just above him.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'd be a bit more impressed if Dubya'd whacked Saddam with that display turkey he was wavin' around to impress the photographers while in Iraq. Or Cheney had chosen to prove his manhood by huntin' down Hussein than shotgunning some tame birds.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't remember anyone here criticizing Bush on the basis that Hussein hadn't been captured yet. No one ever cited his capture as one of the main objectives of the war.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I certainly remember that, of the Democratic presidential contenders who voted to authorize the war, all said that failure to catch Saddam was proof of a failed war policy. As did an overwhelming majority of normally Democrat-supporting columnists&commentators, as well as a surprisingly large minority of reflexively Republican-supporting columnists&commentators .
I've never seen war as a game of Stratego/chess; or of scoring points by body count and objectives taken. To me, the only true measure of victory is that the killing and destruction stops.
posted
I agree, aspectre, which is one reason I think the capture of Saddam will be a hollow victory. I suspect the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq will only continue.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theyve already made it very clear that Iraq is still a dangerous place, and the violence will likely continue
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Odouls said: Thats been the ace in your sleeves for months
Did you get the funny in what he said? He said not capturing Saddam was the Ace in our sleeves, and Saddam is also the Ace in the deck of playing cards they pass out. They got the Ace today, removing the Ace from our sleeves! Good one, dude!
It may not have been on purpose, but I thought it was funny... Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You think the Iraqis aren't happy about this, Tresopax?
I just saw a couple news reports on this and they said the reaction was pretty variable - jubiliation some places, continued fear in other neighborhoods, anger from the bathists, and sadness among some at the loss of a major Arab leader. Obviously, many who have been oppressed with be happy. But the people still live in a war zone with an uncertain future that could very well end up worse than it started. I'd think that would be much more important to them than the fate of a man in a hole. Thus as I said, the war has only had a marginal effect on their welfare.
quote:How is this a failure in the War on Terrorism? The figurehead of resistance of America, the man who encouraged jihad, who told people to fight till the death no matter the odds, was captured with his pistol still in its holster, cowering in a basement, looking like an Arabic Charles Manson...that's a failure?
No, the war as a whole is a utter failure to the war on terror. The capture of Saddam is just irrelevant to it. After all, you don't think the terrorist threat tommorrow is going to be any less than it was yesterday do you? We've already seen a number of new attacks in Iraq, just since his capture earlier.
quote:Thats been the ace in your sleeves for months: 'They didnt even find Saddam, just like they didnt find bin ladin, the bumbling idiots'.
Actually, on the other thread, I just posted yesterday a list of 23 things to complain about in relation to Iraq and the failure to catch Saddam wasn't on it. It's not that I think it's a bad thing that we caught him. Of course not. I just think it's largely irrelevant, and might be made to serve as a distraction to real problems.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My apologies about my...inflammatory post. I should know better than to post when I'm angry, my arguments are neither coherent, logical, or calm. Rants help noone.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll acknowledge "victory" when our soldiers are safely home, the Iraqis can lead their lives in relative safety and govern themselves, and we can get to a point where we discuss war and suffering without bringing up their impact on presidential campaigns.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see it as something that might make achieving those other goals easier, as Saddam's continued work as the figurehead of the opposition made it harder for us to stabilize the country. It's not victory, but it's a victory, and good news all around.
That so many people can't even admit this is what has me chuckling. I don't even support the implied profiteering that's going on over there, nor the fact that there is little emphasis on the death toll being higher since the campaign than during it. However, this was definitely a victory. A victory, not the victory, but it is a major one.
quote:I'll acknowledge "victory" when our soldiers are safely home, the Iraqis can lead their lives in relative safety and govern themselves, and we can get to a point where we discuss war and suffering without bringing up their impact on presidential campaigns.
So that means never, right? You can go ahead and say it.
posted
Argent, are you saying that you think the Bush administration is incapable of finishing what it started? Because that's what it seemed like with your last statement.
Please note that I am not stating any sort of opinion on the topic. Just asking for clarification.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, I am stunned. I ask all you who think this is no big deal to go to your newspapers from last winter. The media kept trying to pin Bush down to the physical destruction of Saddam as a success. Now we have him in captivity. If you don't see this as a success, I am very sorry for you.
Yes, but really, what they should have been hammering him on was the location of Osama Bin Laden.
Remember him? He was the guy who Dubya was going to bring to justice ... right before he attacked Iraq instead and placed us into a record deficit. So hundreds of American casualties later, with the Iraqi people not embracing the Americans the way Dubya had predicted, with more people dying every day because we attacked Iraq, with national unemployment soaring (except in in a select few sectors), we caught one man.
Whoopee. My only hope is that the capture of Hussein will take some of the wind from the Iraqi resistance's sails.
And now, perhaps, we can catch Osama Bin Laden. That is, when we're not too busy bombing Afghan children ...
quote:Iraq is facing its gravest test since the US-led invasion more than a decade ago, after its army capitulated to Islamist insurgents who have seized four cities and pillaged military bases and banks, in a lightning campaign which seems poised to fuel a cross-border insurgency endangering the entire region. ... Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers – roughly 30,000 men – simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq's second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting. ... The developments seriously undermine US claims to have established a unified and competent military after more than a decade of training. The US invasion and occupation cost Washington close to a trillion dollars and the lives of more than 4,500 of its soldiers. It is also thought to have killed at least 100,000 Iraqis.
quote:Who are Isis? A terror group too extreme even for al-Qaida The Islamic State of Iraq in Syria has a reputation for being even more brutal than the main jihadi group of inspiration
posted
Yeah so much for our bragging about how fast we took over all the major cities.
ISIS probably can't take Falujah and Baghdad, but still, that was ridiculous. The Kurds had to step in and fortify Kirkuk after the government forces fled.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the iraqi national guard beat feet comically fast in places like kirkuk and mosul
most servicepeople i have known, even the ones I just hear from off and on, who served in iraq are all like "hahahaha called it"
after whatsisface dissolved the iraqi military (still the dumbest mistake we made there, honestly) there was just too much challenge involved in cobbling together a competent national guard
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In some instances there were literally thousands of government forces running from a few hundred ISIS fighters.
It's time to get out. I really hate to waste so much money, blood, and time, but there's just no way the US has a combat role in propping up that government anymore.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: In some instances there were literally thousands of government forces running from a few hundred ISIS fighters.
It's time to get out. I really hate to waste so much money, blood, and time, but there's just no way the US has a combat role in propping up that government anymore.
right, it's like, the question right now is how do you help nouri al-maliki? between his authoritarianism and his sectarianism, he's the problem. we can't help the problem. whatever assistance we give him, at our expense, will pass like sand through his hands and iraq will still be a shitpile tomorrow.
he needs to leave office.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ricree101: It's an ongoing story, I like the title, and I think the predictions are interesting in retrospect.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yeah so much for our bragging about how fast we took over all the major cities.
ISIS probably can't take Falujah and Baghdad, but still, that was ridiculous. The Kurds had to step in and fortify Kirkuk after the government forces fled.
"Had to" makes it sound like they were reluctant.
I'll sure the head of the Peshmerga was pretty gleeful when he sailed into Kirkuk. The Kurds have been bitter about losing that city for decades, since Saddam kicked them out and forcibly moved in tens of thousands of non-Kurdish Arabs to dilute Kurdish influence.
They almost went to war over it a couple years ago when they were given semi-autonomy, and also because it's a huge oil resource, but it stayed in Iraqi government hands.
They basically just got a freebie, and I'll be surprised if they let it go.
Depending on how this thing goes, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Kurdish state declared in the next year. I think that's part of why Iran is sending troops to help Iraq fight off the ISIL.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Yeah so much for our bragging about how fast we took over all the major cities.
ISIS probably can't take Falujah and Baghdad, but still, that was ridiculous. The Kurds had to step in and fortify Kirkuk after the government forces fled.
"Had to" makes it sound like they were reluctant.
I'll sure the head of the Peshmerga was pretty gleeful when he sailed into Kirkuk. The Kurds have been bitter about losing that city for decades, since Saddam kicked them out and forcibly moved in tens of thousands of non-Kurdish Arabs to dilute Kurdish influence.
They almost went to war over it a couple years ago when they were given semi-autonomy, and also because it's a huge oil resource, but it stayed in Iraqi government hands.
They basically just got a freebie, and I'll be surprised if they let it go.
they get it by virtue of stepping up and holding ground where the iraqi guard is folding and fleeing at the slightest. i wouldn't necessarily write that off as a freebie, they just get to be the highest bidder for virtue of the fact they're not going to stand down Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone who currently lives in the K.R.G., I can give a bit of insight into some local attitudes.
The Kurds were definitely glad to step into Kirkuk, both because of a genuine desire to protect its people as well as their own long-term irridentist and economic designs on the city. My best guess is that ISIL will eventually be pushed out by a combination of peshmerga and Iraqi forces supported by U.S. airstrikes. If that happens, the Kurds will be in a very strong position to demand the annexation of Kirkuk.
I'm less convinced that the K.R.G. will declare independence any time soon, though this has more to do with their relationship with Ankara than with Baghdad. Turkey is getting a lot of oil from the Kurds, and northern Iraq is in turn a huge market for their goods--many things for sale here, from soda to paper towels to bathroom fixtures, come from Turkey. Given this (and the Turks' delicate situation with their own Kurds), I don't think Turkey will be in a hurry to encourage an independent Kurdistan. And I don't think the Iraqi Kurds are in a position to declare independence without that approval (or at least acceptance). Yet.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a fair point I hadn't considered. An independent Kurdistan riles up the PKK, which Ankara would like to keep quiet.
Boy is that a tangled mess of alliances.
Sam -
I didn't mean freebie in that it doesn't cost them anything, I guess I meant a political freebie. They've been chomping at the bit for a long time, and in the space of days the political calculus is totally upended.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the flip side that the US just left the equipment sitting there because we didn't want to bring it home. Vehicles, weapons, you name it. We had a troop withdrawal, and we just left the stuff. These ISIS clowns are using much of our equipment.
Then again, I say we just stay out of it completely and let them figure it out themselves. Without any monetary aid whatsoever.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We broke it. I would say that we have a responsibility to fix it except that the only thing we know how to do is keep breaking it. Like trying to fix a broken vase when all you have is a hammer.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thanks for not disappointing.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
ooh ooh me! pick me! i know!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
