There are two necessary components of a war - tactics and strategy. Tactical is blowing up Nazi vehicles, strategic is bombing the ball bearing factories in Schweinfurt so the trucks can't run. The war on terrorism IS a war. Afghanistan was tactical - Iraq is strategic.

Iraq was and is necessary. Unfortunately our success in Afghanistan seemed so swift and overwhelming that we may have gone into Iraq too soon

Originally posted by Brooks
There are two necessary components of a war - tactics and strategy. Tactical is blowing up Nazi vehicles, strategic is bombing the ball bearing factories in Schweinfurt so the trucks can't run. The war on terrorism IS a war. Afghanistan was tactical - Iraq is strategic.

Iraq was and is necessary. Unfortunately our success in Afghanistan seemed so swift and overwhelming that we may have gone into Iraq too soon

Why do you think Iraq is a strategic move in the "war on terror"?

What makes you say we were successful in Afghanistan, when we haven't captured Osama, or even Mullah Omar?

Iraq is necessary, because if it were ever to resemble something closer to a western style democracy, it would change the whole region. I know at this point that's a huge "if". Right now no one remembers how we were greeted at the end of the major military campaign there, but the Iraqis WERE optimistic. The "insurgency" is actually from other countries in the region who had the foresight to see what would happen to their power if were were successful in Iraq.

As far as Osama is concerned, it would be good for morale, and the election, to get him, but from a military standpoint, he's irrelevant.

Originally posted by Brooks
The "insurgency" is actually from other countries in the region who had the foresight to see what would happen to their power if were were successful in Iraq.

So what you're saying is that the war in Iraq is not a war aginst Iraq, it's a war against other countries in the region being fought inside Iraq.

As far as Osama is concerned, it would be good for morale, and the election, to get him, but from a military standpoint, he's irrelevant.

hmmm...and here I thought we should be going after Osama because he was responsible for 9-11. The war against terror will never be won by the military, so we should stop setting military goals in the war.

Come on pagan, you cant tell me you see no strategic value in Iraq. It sits smack dab in the middle of the middle east. From there we can strike out in any direction with land or air forces. WE have Iran effectivly sandwiched in between us in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syrias eastern border is exposed, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq is the prime stategic location in the middle east. It is also a reason saddan was a threat. He had a large army and access to all of his neighbors directly, and was a known invader. he was an unstable leader in an unstable region.

I dont really see afghanistan as a "tactical" victory, as when you take over a country it ius usually a large undertaking, a campaign. campaigns are strategic, battles are more tactical. but, sticking with the original posters idea, I will try to argue why A-stan was tactical, and a tactical victory even if we ahvent captured the big 2 there. the main reason is thae al qeada training bases, which were just out in the open and operating like an assembly line are gone. The taliban, who allowed al qeada to be there, are gone. SUre, tehy are stilla round in little bands in the mountains, but they dont hold the seat of power. I guess though that destroying the terrorists training camps is close to taking out the ball bearing factorys.

strategic value is not a reason to go to war !! to democracize that region ? that is so condescending. we were suppose to be getting the guys that did 911......reason after reason after reason ! strategic value is what our guys and mothers are fighting for !@? my god.....

Originally posted by Brooks
, but the Iraqis WERE optimistic. and you were there to know this ? i can show you a clip of a thousand white people marching in a klan rally, is that to assume that all white people are in the klan ? we show what we want you to see. to say that the majority were optimistic, is taking an arrogant point of view. THE ONES THEY SHOWED US, may have given the idea that they are with us, but you dont know that and cant speak for them.

Korg, Lack of strategic thinking is why 9-11 happened in the first place. After the 1993 WTC bombing, the administration celebrated and high fived each other because they put 4 Muslims in jail. That's tactical.

Realizing that they just a small part of a bigger picture would have been strategic.

Originally posted by Brooks
Iraq is necessary, because if it were ever to resemble something closer to a western style democracy, it would change the whole region.

Brooks, that is an absurd statement to make. Islamic ideals and fundamentals are very anti-western. Until they are willing to accept Western Ideals, there will not be a stable Democracy in Iraq or the Middle East. In order for a Democracy to stay in the Middle East, they have to fight for it. And once they do, they will defend it. We fought for our Democracy, and that is exactly why we defend it so much. Until they do that in the Middle East, a Democracy will not take place. So until they fight for it, it will never last.

And as far as being successful in Iraq? You've got to be kidding me! We had almost no world support, and the support we did have, was so minor we are taking 95% of the casualties and spending 95% of the money. We need three times the amount of troops to secure Iraq from terrorists (something Bush did not think about) the Iraqi Security Forces are very small, and we were expecting more. To think Democracy is possible in Iraq, with the way George Bush has managed this war is insane. Car bombings are occurring daily, fights are breaking out, deformities are prone, and things are not looking up.

And honestly, this is a war on terrorism not giving them a "Democracy” There are many countries in the Middle East that have horrible leaders. The fact is, this is a war to make us safer. Saddam was not a threat; he had no WMD’s. His ties to terrorism were weak according to the 9/11 Panel, and many countries were far more linked to terrorism.

Originally posted by Brooks
Korg, Lack of strategic thinking is why 9-11 happened in the first place. After the 1993 WTC bombing, the administration celebrated and high fived each other because they put 4 Muslims in jail. That's tactical.

Realizing that they just a small part of a bigger picture would have been strategic. mr brooks.....not doing anything or allowing what they had an idea of happening, happen, is what the problem was. did you see the script as to how that day went.....it was put in chronological, and its not partisan........a lot of weird stuff and unanswered questions man.....i have a post here called " more liberal propaganda ? " in the world news section......just read some of it. some of bushs own people quoted a lot of this stuff, and its very weird.......so i cant fully buy what your saying at this point. it makes sense to have done things the way you think they did......but they didnt .....i assume that was the clinton admin ? well , to me, they didnt have anything to high five about because THE BOMBS WENT OFF ! they just didnt do the intended damage.....nothing to be proud about with that

also, why are they so atrategic over there, but anyone can just get on our planes here ? thats where the problem began isnt it ?

I think it's our impatient generation that makes strategy so foreign to us. If I told you today Iraq would require a 7 year occupation you would scream, but from 1945 to 1951 we understood that it was necessary in Japan.

It's so hard to judge if we really believe what we are saying or if we're all tainted by the upcoming election. Here's just one small example from this thread: "strategic value is not a reason to go to war"

************ ***********

"Until they do that in the Middle East, a Democracy will not take place. So until they fight for it, it will never last." Overdose, could they have ever fought for it with Saddam Hussein in power.

************* *************

"Saddam was not a threat; he had no WMD’s. His ties to terrorism were weak..." - Overdose, both candidates disagree with you. Voting for Nader?

Korg, I think you make good points and I enjoy the civil exchange with you, but I honestly don't understand your last 2 posts. I'm not even saying I disagree, I literally don't understand. Sorry

The only thing that's gonna get changed is this administrations underwear when they see the results of this so-called war at the polls in November.

Dop

Okay...:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Brooks
I think it's our impatient generation that makes strategy so foreign to us. If I told you today Iraq would require a 7 year occupation you would scream, but from 1945 to 1951 we understood that it was necessary in Japan.

It's so hard to judge if we really believe what we are saying or if we're all tainted by the upcoming election. Here's just one small example from this thread: "strategic value is not a reason to go to war"

************ ***********

"Until they do that in the Middle East, a Democracy will not take place. So until they fight for it, it will never last." Overdose, could they have ever fought for it with Saddam Hussein in power.

************* *************

"Saddam was not a threat; he had no WMD’s. His ties to terrorism were weak..." - Overdose, both candidates disagree with you. Voting for Nader? first, brooks, i think you are absolutely right, there is a degree of impatience, thus, we would cry if you said 7 years, but you are right. and, sometimes i go off on a tangent, trying to answer 2 or 3 post at once, so i can see why it wouldnt make sense. i guess i was disagreeing with the lack of strategic planning, because it seems to me, it was more of trying to hide something, than lack of strategic planning. i mean, all of the things that are normal procedure for , like, norad, didnt happen, and its fishy to everyone , even some republicans. not taking heed to the warnings of planes being used by tightening up security before hand, but it seems more that people didnt want to do it for some reason, as oppose to just bad planning.

I agree and could have written that myself, Korg (this is meant to be a compliment, but is probably an insult in most circles).

Originally posted by Brooks
I agree and could have written that myself, Korg (this is meant to be a compliment, but is probably an insult in most circles). not in my circle....thanx man, and thanx for good clean debating

Originally posted by Overdose
Brooks, that is an absurd statement to make. Islamic ideals and fundamentals are very anti-western. Until they are willing to accept Western Ideals, there will not be a stable Democracy in Iraq or the Middle East. In order for a Democracy to stay in the Middle East, they have to fight for it. And once they do, they will defend it. We fought for our Democracy, and that is exactly why we defend it so much. Until they do that in the Middle East, a Democracy will not take place. So until they fight for it, it will never last.

And as far as being successful in Iraq? You've got to be kidding me! We had almost no world support, and the support we did have, was so minor we are taking 95% of the casualties and spending 95% of the money. We need three times the amount of troops to secure Iraq from terrorists (something Bush did not think about) the Iraqi Security Forces are very small, and we were expecting more. To think Democracy is possible in Iraq, with the way George Bush has managed this war is insane. Car bombings are occurring daily, fights are breaking out, deformities are prone, and things are not looking up.

And honestly, this is a war on terrorism not giving them a "Democracy” There are many countries in the Middle East that have horrible leaders. The fact is, this is a war to make us safer. Saddam was not a threat; he had no WMD’s. His ties to terrorism were weak according to the 9/11 Panel, and many countries were far more linked to terrorism.

This is a reaccuring theme in overdoses posts. if they dont fight and die for it they dont want it. He has yet to explain all the iraqi police fighting and dying everyday, and the government officials getting asses blown away everyday, and the fact that they keep volunteering and serving!!! in his sour mind these people dont count. they are not trying to make their country safe and free, they are not patriots. only iraqis who protest the american invaders are patriots right? only those who reject democracy re patriotic right overdose?

and I like how he says they just are not built for democracy. How sad is that? the natural state of all humans in freedom. free will, free mind, free expression. no one is made to be oppressed. given a choice, all people will choose freedom. It is really sad that for a little peace in his world he will willingly subjugate half the world to oppression, and pass it off as their choice. pathetic and small minded overdose.

Let us not forget that the average person in middle eastern countries are decended from centuries of religious dictorial oppression. The quest for personal freedom has been bred out of them more or less. The average person is uneducated and has no idea of the workings of the rest of the world. Only the teachings of their religions.
If a central base of seeds of freedom is established it can grow into other countries. This is the education I have spoken of before in other posts. Education that there are other ways of life and chances for personal expansion. These people are not used to such. They and their forefathers have been opressed as long as their collective memory can be recalled.

Not until they, as a people, know of such personal freedoms can they unite to fight for a democracy.

Trust does not come easy for a people that have been (kept in the dark) for centuries.

damn good post dan.....

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Let us not forget that the average person in middle eastern countries are decended from centuries of religious dictorial oppression. The quest for personal freedom has been bred out of them more or less. The average person is uneducated and has no idea of the workings of the rest of the world. Only the teachings of their religions.

Couldn't we say this was true of any group of people that fought to obtain their liberty? Wasn't America built by mostly uneducated people who had been braiwashed in the christian ideals for centuries?

I am not sure brainwashed is a good way to put it. beliee it or not, some people actually want to be christians!

Originally posted by Travh20
I am not sure brainwashed is a good way to put it. beliee it or not, some people actually want to be christians! i respect what you say echo but, good one travh

Originally posted by Travh20
He has yet to explain all the iraqi police fighting and dying everyday, and the government officials getting asses blown away everyday, and the fact that they keep volunteering and serving!!!
Trav, only 5,000 are apart of the Iraqi Security Force. We were expecting over 100,000. You're point is false.

Originally posted by Travh20
and I like how he says they just are not built for democracy. How sad is that? the natural state of all humans in freedom. free will, free mind, free expression. no one is made to be oppressed. given a choice, all people will choose freedom. It is really sad that for a little peace in his world he will willingly subjugate half the world to oppression, and pass it off as their choice.
I never said they are not "built" for it, but if you Trav, would look at their religion, you'd see it's highly unlikely it would be possible. But, if they were to fight for it, we would know they wanted it. Handing them a Democracy by gun point, will cause it to fail.

And even if it could work, how do you expect us to give them a Democracy when we need three times the amount of troops? Honestly, we are not giving them a Democracy.

But with that set aside, this is a war on TERRORISM. Not giving them a free Government. Saddam was not a threat, period.