No, you did nothing of the sort. But, your last sentence shows what you really are--just a Bush-basher and not interested in facts--so I won't continue to argue with you.

All of that is fine, and if you want to discuss why we went to either place or what the political motivations were, that's ok too. But neither of those things really has much to do with how succesful a military campaign these conflicts have been.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

OK, I just can't stand it to read 'Succesfull' and 'military' in one sentence. How to link murder with succesfull ?

Only maybe in this : Military action can only be succesfull after all peacefull means have been used.

In Iraq they were not.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fuck a duck and try to fly

"I just can't stand it to read 'Succesfull' and 'military' in one sentence. How to link murder with succesfull ?"

I'm sorry you feel this way. Military action is not always, or even usually "murder." Military action may not even involve any actual killing, but that's another discussion. Regardless, if you set military objectives, and accomplish them, the campaign has to be considered succesful to some extent or another.

"Military action can only be succesfull after all peacefull means have been used."

That's not very practical or realistic. Exhausting every peaceful option would include allowing your opposition to do what they want without taking any action to stop them. Force is simply a necessary component of any national strategy. Whether or not you believe the appropriate options were exhausted prior to military action in Iraq is certainly a discussion many people are having right now. However, to think any nation would actually exhaust every possible peaceful means prior to taking military steps is naive.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Hi Tribedebie,

Thanks for reading the lavender room posts.

I presume that since you are on this forum you may be an athlete.

Let's try this: You go to a triathlon in Central America, Southern Europe, South Africa or Asia. It's a destination race and you stayin a nice resort, maybe travel with a triathlon travel group with some of your friends.

The place is beautiful, the weather warm and you're looking forward to a great race.

You're having dinner one night near your hotel in whereever this is and a van pulls up. eight guys with masks and guns jump out, and before you know it My Dear, you are a star on CNN. You've just gone from tourist to hostage.

Now, while you sit in this country, denied of bathroom facilities, sleep, proper food and subject to intimidation and abuse and you are exploring your newfound faith in God Almighty to save your tourist-turned- hostage behind at any cost, a group of young men and women, quite a large group, are plotting around the clock for your rescue.

And after ten days of living hell they either do actually rescue you, or the threat of them rescuing you and exacting a terrible toll on your captors causes them to release you.

Put yourself in that position.

Now, what do you think of the military?

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Tribedebie
So you mean we should have to wait for the UN to give us their permission to act in a military way. The same UN that is guilty of being bribed in the scandolous oil for food program? Get real. You don't like the US to act in our own best interest in a way we feel neccessary to protect ourselves. Too bad.

Dear Tom and slowguy,

I really do not have to imagine myself being in that position to have an opinion upon 'the military'. At this very moment, here in Belgium, people are remebering 'the battle of the bulge' 60 years ago. One of the hardest battles ever. So of course I realise the absolute necessity of the military. Thanks to those heroes we don't speak german, here :-).

I do not have to imagine myself in that position, if you know that part of my family died in the concentration camps in '43.

So, I consider myself to be wise and experienced enough to tell you that 'succesful' and 'military' do not match in one sentence.

If you do not believe me. Imagine yourself in a position where an officer rings at your doorbell. You open the door. The officer says : Mr. Demerly, our operation in Falujah was succesfull, but your son died. It's just not worth it, when it isn't for 'the good cause'.

Greetings

BTW. An 'athlete' is too much honour for my tri results, but I enjoy it.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fuck a duck and try to fly

Well, I'm sorry about your family, but you aren't on the right track here. Just because you don't think the loss of life in Iraq is worth the objective doesn't mean that every military operation is a failure. For instance, many fathers and mothers received letters during WWII telling them that their sons had died. that doesn't mean it wasn't worth fighting Hitler, or that specific military campaigns or operations weren't succesful in obtaining their objectives. A purely moral discussion of whether or not loss of life is ever worth the goal is another thing altogether, and probably a different thread.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"So you mean we should have to wait for the UN to give us their permission to act in a military way."

Yes, I do and strongly I do.



"You don't like the US to act in our own best interest in a way we feel neccessary to protect ourselves."

Did you copy that out of a speech of Kim Il Sung ? Switched North-Korea into US ? That is too bad.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fuck a duck and try to fly

Dear slowguy,

Go back to my first 'simple' post. Action in Afghanistan was OK, I wrote. I meant some military action (like in Afghanistan, Bosnie, WW2) is necessary but please do not call it 'succesful'.

In Iraq it was not necessary, so it can never be considered being succesful. More, it was and is still a dramatic mistake.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fuck a duck and try to fly

"In Iraq it was not necessary."

Ask a Kuwaiti, Israeli or Iranian.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

[reply]No, you did nothing of the sort. But, your last sentence shows what you really are--just a Bush-basher and not interested in facts--so I won't continue to argue with you.[/reply]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Your original claim that no one "in charge" had said OBL was no longer a priority can only be true if you believe the president is not in charge. Since most of us think he is (your words) someone in charge, your statement is untrue.

If this is Bush-bashing so be it.

 
"Ask a Kuwaiti, Israeli or Iranian."

Oesje, do you mean that according to your opinion, Iranians are happy that US attacked Iraq ? In your dreams, maybe. They hate Iraq, but they also hate the US. More, they expect to be next. They don't like you to be so close to them.

Do you mean that the Kuwaitis are happy US attacked Iraq ? In your dreams. They learnt from 1991 (when the US-mission was legitimed tough) that US had a different (oil) agenda and wasn't there for 'the kuwaiti cause'.

Do you mean that the Israeliis are happy US attacked Iraq ? Yes. Now they have a fellow nation that does not give a damn for international rules and law.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fuck a duck and try to fly

Tribedebie,
I'll say it again, necessary or not. argument can be made that Operation Iraqi Freedom was successful as a military operation. success is not measured by whether or not you think it was the right thing to do, but by how well the forces chosen accomplished their objectives. try to separate the politics from the objective analysis of whether or not the operation was successful.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You can be argumentative all you want. My point is simple. Take a look at the military operations without allowing your judgement of policy cloud your analysis. I'm not talking about whether or not it was right, appropriate, or moral to go into Iraq. Look at what the military was asked to do, and look at how well those aims were accomplished. You can certainly make the argument that there were severe planning mistakes, poor force alocations, and overconfidence in the operation, as I stated in an earlier post. However, these judgements are made separately from the judgements about the policies of the administration.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

No air force? The 4 RAR Special Air Service unit of the Australian contigent of the Coalition Forces captured an air base with intact MiG combat aircraft including MiG 25 Foxbats, MiG 29 Fulcrum K's and other combat aircraft.

Some combat aircraft were concealed in revetments, others by camouflage nets, some were even buried intact presumably for retrieval at some point.

That is just one instance I know of available in the general media.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

You have got to be kidding. The difference b/t having planes that nobody can ably fly, and having an active airforce, are miles apart. I don't believe that our planes patrolling the no-fly-zone for the past 11 years before GWII had much to fear in the means of air-to-air combat. An incredibly weak argument.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

You are factually correct re Armed Service vs Nat Guard--I mistatkenly grouped them together.

Re losses "insensitive & insulting to families"; oh please--attacks on our troops aren't even front page news & unless there are 5 or more killed, they don't even make the national evening news. That the public is fascinated with Scott Peterson & the upcoming Blake trial & not with what is happening on a daily basis in Iraq is sad. My comment had nothing to do with the families--just our nation's poor collective focus on unpleasent facts. Nice attempt at deflection though.

Re my 4th paragraph: what part is untrue or unsubstantiated? Does the Green Zone have electricity & the majority of Baghdad not? Yes. Is the infrastructure of Iraq destroyed & are the people of Iraq CURRENTLY (for nobody can predict what the future holds) living under worse conditions than under Sadam when he was under containment? Yes. Are our troops under attacks that have grown in frequency over the last six months? Yes. Are more Americans dying on a per-daily basis now than during the war or at any time since occupation began (on a rolling 30-90 day average)? Yes. Have more Americans died since "major combat operations" have ceased then during the actual invasion? Yes. Is our current administration despised/loathed/hated (sorry, but disliked is just not strong enough) by the everyday population of the majority of the middle-east? Yes (and sorry, this is not personal opinion--read any daily from outside the US or actually talk with someone who interacts daily with these people & you'll get a much different story than Fox is feeding you).

Where do I get my facts? As I stated, my uncle works & has lived in the middle east for most of his life. He is a US citizen & is no liberal--he spent 10+ years with state & CIA as an independent contractor (no, not Tom Clancy like). In addition, my fraternity roomate from college is a translator with the state dept & stationed in the Green Zone. We email each other daily & the reports he sends over are depressing at best--I would not want to be a soldier in Iraq right now as most are resigned that they are there for the duration regardless of when their enlistment ends. It is both the opinion of State's & CIA's analysts that right now the best that the US can hope for is to avoid a civil war; forget nation or democracy building--you are going up against centuries of distrust & clan-like allegiances. Again, our gov't's record in puppetering is really, really awful (not just MHO--I'll be happy to debate on this issue all day long). As far as #s--yes, most come from the NY Times--but while their opinion page may be just that, their facts & percentages are accurate.

Please be specific with what you disagree with me on? I'll be happy to cite sources to backup my statements.

I'm not anti-war--I tried to join the SEALs upon graduation from college--but this military action has turned into a disaster. Again, we are past the rationale for war (which was completely incorrect unless you believe Chaney is correct & we will still find WMDs (and no, a 15 y.o. warhead at the bottom of a pit does not constitute WMDs (sorry Ann Coulter))); just trying to gloss over the truth about what is happening in iraq is irksome to say the least.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

When I was in the Middle East immediately following the 9/11 attacks there was a substantial undercurrent of anti-American sentiment. One Palestinian I met in Amman, a bus driver, told me we deserved the attacks, but was sorry for our loss of life.

My trip there is profiled in the May 2002 issue of Penthouse magazine in an article by Soldier of Fortune contributing editor Robin Postell on page 19 and was covered in a worldwide circulated photo on Associated Press of me shaking hands with an Iraqi- both of us holding the flags of our countries.

Robin and I both noted animosity toward the U.S. during our time there. Another member of our party, a female, was a prosecutor for the US Justice Department. She also commented on a mix of reactions to our visit.

I haven't been back to the Middle East since then that I can recall. But I can only imagine it hasn't become much different in light of recent events.

One statistic I do remember reading- although I am at a loss to cite where from- was some sort of poll of Saudi 19 year olds that, if my memory serves me correctly, 50% of whom in the poll said they wanted to emigrate to the U.S.

Also, I noted with a fair bit of irony that yesterday or the day before Saddam Hussein met with his attornies to discuss his defense.

Contrast that with the way high level justice was administered in Iraq during Saddam's regime.

Suffice it to say, the people arrested by Saddam's secret police likely were afforded little opportunity to meet their attorney.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Oh, by the way, The "K" variant of the MiG 29 Fulcrum is specifically designed for rough field, forward area deployment such as the area where these aircraft were concealed.

In lieu of starting its engines with an APU, it can be started with two small explosive charges inserted into an oriface aft the intakes. The explosion of the charges initiates the rotation of the turbine staders and assists in starting the engine- no matter where you are.

The tires of the Kilo variant of the MiG 29 are special low pressure, rough field versions that are flat resistant and specifically intended to operate from rough terrain when airfield access is denied.

Even the intakes have retractable "shudders" to prevent FOD during rough field operations and the primary avionics (what few there are in the Fulcrum) are located in a ventral spine on the aircraft's back.

For target acquisition the Kilo Fulcrum uses the IRST system, a completely autonomous, almost non-electronic Infra Red Search and Track system.

The Kilo Fulcrum is like a prison shiv: a dirty weapon designed to be employed by desperate people in a bad environment. Even a hack pilot could have launched one with two assistants from a forward operating area with little or no technical support.

Of course, once airborne, then his lifespan would be about the flight time from "Fox one" from a nearby FA-18, F-14, F-15 or whatever happened to be with AWACS call.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

Here's a fun photo of me in sand-land:

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com