Quote: DaButt @ June 19 2008, 11:56 PM BSTI've still yet to see any of this oil we've supposedly snatched up.
Yes well I think that was probably a bit of miscalculation on the part of the Neo Con war planners, who believed that with handful of troops they would have the whole country under control within days. But the objective was always as much to provide a military bridgehead to protect US interests in the event of the Saudi regime being toppled in an Islamist coup.
Quote: Alan C @ June 20 2008, 12:06 AM BSTA scenario for you.
The democratic government of Iraq says thank you, America, now please leave our country. We want to determine our own future and the people have voted for an Islamist state. What would the US led coalition do if they then allied themselves to Iran?
1) Leave.
2) What are the chances? Iran and Iraq have been enemies for a long time. The entire reason that Iraq wants us to maintain our presence there is because they fear the Iranians and don't trust them. The same goes for most of Iran's neighbors. Ever wonder why the other countries in the region allow us to maintain bases on their soil and are almost completely silent when it comes to Iran's nuclear program? They're afraid of Iran and they're looking to the U.S. to protect them. They might not hug us in public, but they won't complain while we try to contain Iran and put an end to their nuclear dreams.
^ You could replace "Iran" with "Iraq" in the above paragraph and it'd still hold true.
Quote: DaButt @ June 20 2008, 12:12 AM BSTEver wonder why the other countries in the region allow us to maintain bases on their soil and are almost completely silent when it comes to Iran's nuclear program?
yes they are frightened of Israel as well but I believe it is just as important to America to have a base there because, whether we like it or not, Oil is THE biggest commodity on the planet and without it armies and economies would grind to a halt.
Quote: Alan C @ June 20 2008, 12:15 AM BSTwhether we like it or not, Oil is THE biggest commodity on the planet and without it armies and economies would grind to a halt.
Absolutely. It's one of the most vital areas on the planet and it's important that regimes like those in Iran and Iraq don't interrupt the world's lifeblood.
Quote: DaButt @ June 20 2008, 12:18 AM BSTAbsolutely. It's one of the most vital areas on the planet and it's important that regimes like those in Iran and Iraq don't interrupt the world's lifeblood.
And for that very reason, the bluff that the US/GB etc are in Iraq for democracy insults intelligent minds?
Quote: DaButt @ June 19 2008, 11:56 PM BSTWe have about 30,000 troops there on constant alert - care to join us?
Not until they've done something to warrant it.
Quote: DaButt @ June 20 2008, 12:18 AM BSTAbsolutely. It's one of the most vital areas on the planet and it's important that regimes like those in Iran and Iraq don't interrupt the world's lifeblood.
Particularly that of the west, who having squandered their own resources would not otherwise be able to continue living in luxury undreamt of by the rest of the world.
I have no more desire to be cold and hungry than any other bloated westerner, but let's not try and claim the high moral ground.
Quote: DaButt @ June 19 2008, 11:08 PM BSTAs long as their stated destiny is the ultimate destruction of me, my family and my nation, then I'll be happy for the punitive action to go on indefinitely. Perhaps we'll find it in our hearts to treat them in a "civilized" fashion once they stop the rather uncivilized practice of sawing off heads.
God I hate reading American neo-conservative posts about these types of topics. Never rational only hard headed reactionary responses makes it difficult for me to agree when there are points that I do agree with, like the overall mission in Afghanistan.
Really one of the reasons I like these forums so much is because there is usually none of this American "I know so much because I'm so patriotic" crap.
Something tells me this debate is about to take a new slant
Quote: Timbo @ June 20 2008, 12:08 AM BSTwar planners, who believed that with handful of troops they would have the whole country under control within days.
Interestingly, I was talking to some veterans of D-Day and the Normandy Landings a couple of months ago, and they said that whilst they were individually pretty lovely chaps, the American military had very little discipline, and NO specific plan at all. Their strategy was just to bombard the coast with every single troop they had. Numbers rather than tactics.
Whilst I gave up trying to follow the war in Iraq long ago, I get the distinct impression that they still operate on the same principle.
Quote: Aaron @ June 20 2008, 12:31 AM BSTInterestingly, I was talking to some veterans of D-Day and the Normandy Landings a couple of months ago, and they said that whilst they were individually pretty lovely chaps, the American military had very little discipline, and NO specific plan at all. Their strategy was just to bombard the coast with every single troop they had. Numbers rather than tactics.
Whilst I gave up trying to follow the war in Iraq long ago, I get the distinct impression that they still operate on the same principle.
I'm afraid the British war planners were equally inept during WWII so it is a bit unfair to blame the US for military ineptitude there. The most efficient and inventive fighting force in WWII lost the war because it fought on too many fronts... thank God.
Ever see the 'Band of Brothers' series from HBO? Probably my favorite military movie/tv series ever. You see how chaotic it was for everyone not just the Americans.
Quote: Alan C @ June 20 2008, 12:36 AM BSTI'm afraid the British war planners were equally inept during WWII so it is a bit unfair to blame the US for military ineptitude there.
That may very well be the case - but I'm just stating observation, not blaming anyone for anything.
Quote: Alan C @ June 20 2008, 12:22 AM BSTAnd for that very reason, the bluff that the US/GB etc are in Iraq for democracy insults intelligent minds?
Wars are seldom single-issue events. Hence our support of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war wasn't because he was our pal, it was because he was keeping Iran in check at a time when they were taking our citizens hostage and holding the world's oil hostage. The same goes for support of rebels in Afghanistan while they were fighting the USSR, the Colombian government while it battles narcotics traffickers, etc.
I'd agree with you about Iraq if coalition troops had only gone as far as the oil fields and hadn't bled while supporting free elections and the dismantling of the Hussein regime.
Quote: Aaron @ June 20 2008, 12:42 AM BSTThat may very well be the case - but I'm just stating observation, not blaming anyone for anything.
No I meant they were - not you