Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/22/2005 7:47:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 8:02:24 PM EDT by HKS]
I was wondering what our currrent goals are in Iraq.


Is it to rebuild?

Kill all the resistance?

Setup government? A specific type of government?

Train Iraqi's to defend themselves from Iran and Syria and leave?

Stay there for a certain amount of time and hope that all these things fall into place on their own and in our favor?


I am really confused to what our goals and motives are right now.


There seems to be alot of fighting. Anyone have any idea on how many Iraqi Resistance Fighters have died? I hear alot about IED's going off everyday, but I dont hear about much about how many Iraqi bad guys we kill. Do we just patrol and try to pick fights and get hit with planted bombs? Or are we taking out targets and being affective?

Any and all answers are appreciated.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 7:50:14 PM EDT
Thats the $64,000 question..

I am still trying to figure out what the reason for going in the 1st place was.. 1st it was WMDs, then they said Terrorists, then freedom for the Iraqis.. It seems to change every week.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 7:51:19 PM EDT
Protect Israel

Steal oil

Enrich Halliburton
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 7:52:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 11:59:08 AM EDT by Desert_Cowboy]
I was pretty sure our goal was to kill terrorists in revenge for 9/11. Who fuckin cares about the wmd fiasco and freedom for iraq. We killed a lot of terrorists and havent been attacked at home as a result, thats all i care about.

ETA: our goal is to leave someday when our missions accomplished.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 7:53:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 8:07:52 PM EDT by fight4yourrights]
A BASE in the middle east for when Saudi Arabia falls.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 7:54:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 7:55:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stottman:
Thats the $64,000 question..

I am still trying to figure out what the reason for going in the 1st place was.. 1st it was WMDs, then they said Terrorists, then freedom for the Iraqis.. It seems to change every week.



Nope it was to topple a very weak unfriendly regime, to put in a frendly (but still week) regime that would allow us to use the country as a base to invade its stronger neighbors, Syria and Iraq, and overthrough their regimes that are even more active in supporting terrorists and pursuing WMD.

Keep doing this untill there are no longer any who support using violenct to spread Islam.

The alternative was a tit for tat of terrorist attacks on the US, and retalitory strikes against the host countries with both the US and and Islamic populations getting increasingly incensed untill we were finally driven to exterminate 25% of the worlds population with our nuclear weapons and have our country potentially become a international outcast and certianly forced to live in a much more contaminated world.

And at this stage, there is sill no guarentee that that wont still happen.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:00:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 8:12:38 PM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By HKS:
I was wondering what our currrent goals are in Iraq.


Is it to rebuild?

Kill all the resistance?

Setup government? Is there a specific type of government we want to setup? Does Iraq have free will to setup a government no matter what?

Train Iraqi's to defend themselves from Iran and Syria and then leave?

Stay there for a certain amount of time and hope that all these things fall into place on their own?



You answered your own question. Its all of them and the main one is to WIN. Not go crying home to momma.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:06:08 PM EDT
to stop islamic extremists from beating there wife and kids
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:07:08 PM EDT
God, another one of these threads?

You guys need to turn off the fucking tv. You are starting to sound just like the talking head leftists reporting on Iraq with all the "why are we there" bullshit.

We are in Iraq because the enemy of the United States is in Iraq. It's that simple. If the terrorists hadn't come there and started shit, our troops could have been home by now.

But they are there. They have chosen Iraq as the battleground in which to fight us. So we either accept the challenge or we fold like a bunch of little bitches and give up.

Iraq is no longer about Saddam. It's no longer about WMD's. It's about securing the place until the Iraqis can take care of the nation themselves and not let it fall to the terrorists who want to kill us all...you, me and our families. That's why we are there. We'll come home when we have succeeded in stopping their quest to derail getting a goverment and suitable military in place (or when we wuss out and give up, depending on which happens first). If that's next year or the next decade, then so be it. It's a do or die situation.

Come on folks, let's grow a sack and see this through. We have been through far worse before. We somehow managed to deal with Normandy, Okinawa, The Chosin Reservoir, etc. We can handle this.....if we have the same guts and determination of those who fought in the before mentioned places.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:10:18 PM EDT
To get some top quality playground sand
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:11:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Come on folks, let's grow a sack and see this through. We have been through far worse before. We somehow managed to deal with Normandy, Okinawa, The Chosin Reservoir, etc. We can handle this.....if we have the same guts and determination of those who fought in the before mentioned places.



Shit im with ya.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:13:43 PM EDT
permanent bases
just like japan and germany
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 8:55:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 8:57:02 PM EDT by MST2]
To kick terrorist ass.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:52:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 8:53:37 AM EDT by Manic_Moran]
At this point, I submit that our goal is to get the heck out of that country in the most expedient manner possible which does not result in the US looking like it got sent home with its tail between its legs. Unfortunately, that probably means hanging around long enough for the government to be stable. Won't be soon.

NTM
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:01:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
At this point, I submit that our goal is to get the heck out of that country in the most expedient manner possible which does not result in the US looking like it got sent home with its tail between its legs. Unfortunately, that probably means hanging around long enough for the government to be stable. Won't be soon.

NTM



+1 That does seem to be the case.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:02:13 AM EDT
Kill bad guys.

Install a government we like better than Sadam, which doesn't support terrorism like Sadam did.

Show the other Arabs we are good at killing bad guys.

Leave when we feel it is stable enough.

Have a base for killing Syrians and Iranians if we see fit.



Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:07:51 AM EDT
+1 to centralized permenant bases in the region - sauidi is no longer stable, and not centrally located enough.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:08:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mousehunter:
+1 to centralized permenant bases in the region - sauidi is no longer stable, and not centrally located enough.



No! Conan...
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:49:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MST2:
To kick terrorist ass.



Actually, that is the correct response.

Nixon (Viet Nam), Carter (general fuck wit), Reagan (Beruit), Bush I (didn't finish), Clinton (too numerous) gave our enemy the impression we were weak and would "cut and run."

Well Bush II said, no more - a show of force (I'm gonna monkey stomp every mother fucker I want to). And it was working, until our leftist press brainwashed America.

Seriously, does no one remember that terrorists thought it was OK to kill 3,000 Americans with our own airliners? WTF? Does no one remember that Bin Laden's written words said we wouldn't react and we wouldn't do anything? Jeez, people.

G
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:51:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 9:52:02 AM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By glock23carry:

Originally Posted By MST2:
To kick terrorist ass.



Actually, that is the correct response.

Nixon (Viet Nam), Carter (general fuck wit), Reagan (Beruit), Bush I (didn't finish), Clinton (too numerous) gave our enemy the impression we were weak and would "cut and run."

Well Bush II said, no more - a show of force (I'm gonna monkey stomp every mother fucker I want to). And it was working, until our leftist press brainwashed America.

Seriously, does no one remember that terrorists thought it was OK to kill 3,000 Americans with our own airliners? WTF? Does no one remember that Bin Laden's written words said we wouldn't react and we wouldn't do anything? Jeez, people.

G



What did Bush1 not finish?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:57:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
Protect Israel

Steal oil

Enrich Halliburton

lol. Excellent riposte. It's the answer he expects to hear.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:00:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:01:42 AM EDT
Bush I thought the "Highway of Death" was a message. To the average Arab it was a yawn. Their own rulers kill that many people a year. Why would a couple of burned out Mercedes impress them? He should have gone all the way to Baghdad and monkey stomped Saddam back in '91.

G
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:03:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 10:03:33 AM EDT by skpp108]
Our current goal should be to get the FO and figure out how not to do something that stupid again (without the "smoking gun", that is), and find out who created this colossial fuck up and kick their asses. And get some free friggin oil out of it.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:03:52 AM EDT
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq


Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;....




Shok

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:05:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glock23carry:
Bush I thought the "Highway of Death" was a message. To the average Arab it was a yawn. Their own rulers kill that many people a year. Why would a couple of burned out Mercedes impress them? He should have gone all the way to Baghdad and monkey stomped Saddam back in '91.

G



We were there to get Iraq out of Kuwait. That is all and we did a good job too.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:54:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
God, another one of these threads?



Oh come on you know what is going on in this thread, you have in this thread part of the concerted effort to undermine the war effort… started by a troll.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:13:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By glock23carry:
Bush I thought the "Highway of Death" was a message. To the average Arab it was a yawn. Their own rulers kill that many people a year. Why would a couple of burned out Mercedes impress them? He should have gone all the way to Baghdad and monkey stomped Saddam back in '91.

G



We were there to get Iraq out of Kuwait. That is all and we did a good job too.



No, we went there to protect the Saudis. They even paid for the war.

G
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:17:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 11:22:13 AM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By skpp108:
Our current goal should be to get the FO and figure out how not to do something that stupid again (without the "smoking gun", that is), and find out who created this colossial fuck up and kick their asses. And get some free friggin oil out of it.



Colossal fuckup? Been listening to CNN again, huh.

Some of you people have never been in a war. Fuck it, many of you "colossal fuckup" types have never even been in the military.

It's all about the "quick fix" with you guys. Wars don't run on a timetable and plans are subject to change at any moment. The enemy doesn't always play by your rules.

I am glad that people like you and Cindy weren't around in WWII. Half the country would be speaking Japanese and the other half would be speaking German.

You people would be calling the war in the Pacific a "colossal fuckup" if it wasn't over in 6 months. You people seem to forget September 11, 2001, and before you say it has nothing to do with Iraq, well I guess what the Nazis were doing was none of our business either, huh!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:49:51 AM EDT
+1 Larry.

G
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:58:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glock23carry:
+1 Larry.

G



+2 well said.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:59:08 AM EDT
It was a package deal that could be sold to the American public. The ROI on an invasion of Iraq was thought to be worth it. Here's the package. However, the main payoff is 1, 3 and 5. The rest was icing on the cake to sell the deal to the American public.


1. Terrorist ties.
2. Humanitarian mission: Saddam is a bad man and kills his own people as well as invades and kills in other countries.
3. Promotes stability and democracy in the region
4. Everyone thought he had WMDs
5. Gives US a position to impact the oil market in ME
6. Helps protect Israel
7. Potential threat against US and it's allies down the road.

Top Top