Learn from history.

[iloveyourclit]

Lesson number 1. Dont steal oil from iraq or your ass will be kicked.

[gerry301]

The only one who has gotten thier fingers burned from stealing oil from Iraq has been Sadr. He lost huge revenues when the Iraqi army took back Basra.

[gerry301]

The lessons that should be remembered from Vietnam is 1) Not to lose, 2) Let the Generals fight the war to win. 3)Never use the draft again.

[mrsoza]

4) Do not underestimate thy enemy. This seems to be forgotten already.

That was a really good video.

[gerry301]

Refer to lesson number 1). Not to lose.

[mike4ty4]

Actually, don't try to win when winning is no longer possible.

[gerry301]

McNamara never fought to win militarily. He fought for political consessions by gradually increasing pressure and severely limiting military action in the North, thinking that the North would see the errors of thier way. Refer to lesson 1 and 2.

[mike4ty4]

Then what's all this stuff about "let the generals fight the war to "win"", anyway? What does "win" mean there? If it means military victory, then what I say still holds. When a military victory is no longer possible or likely, don't keep throwing more troops and resources at it.

[gerry301]

We have won in Iraq, if thats what you are refering to. The Iraqi army trained by the US is finally standing up with confidence and numbers that will allow our combat troops to come home and refit and get a rest. They have taken over much if not most of the fighting that remains and are doing very well. What "victory not possible" are you talking about?

[mike4ty4]

So then what's all this stuff about being in Iraq for "a hundred years" or more? Why do we _need_ such a long-term meddling presence, anyway?

[gerry301]

You read into the news media what you want to hear and take it as written in stone. I seriously doubt McCain meant 100 years or more. (I'm not necessarily for McCain either), but I do understand rhetoric. Why stay on? It takes a while to train logistics people, tank mechanics, communications specialists, intell people, etc.etc. Then the issue of Iraqi security from outside forces. Modern airforce, satellite survailence, etc.etc. and to checkmate Syria and Iran as well as Russia and China.

[mike4ty4]

So you think we should stay in a very long time then?

"You read into the news media what you want to hear"

So I want to hear we're stuck in the war forever? Why would that be?

"and take it as written in stone."

Huh? I didn't say it MUST be 100 years+, I was asking if we should be in there a long time. Even 25 years is a looong time.

[gerry301]

The point is that while the war is winding down and the Iraqis can now do thier own fighting, the majority of the combat troops can come home. We should stay as long as it takes and when the country is at peace and prosperous it would behoove us to stay for political reasons. War forever? you mentioned 100 years, not me. We have been in Germany and Japan for over 55 years and many other countries as well as guests. It provides a polititical umbrella and helps provide for thier security.

[mike4ty4]

So we should just keep staying and fighting even if it "as long as it takes" is 100, 200, 300, or more years? I think we need to be reducing our meddling right now, reducing our troop levels and perhaps even more significantly, changing our role from a dominator and governor to an aid, if they want our aid, that is.

[gerry301]

I 'm not sure you are reading what I am writing. A.We are winning, so the combat troops can start coming home now. The Iraqi army is taking over the fighting and taking over thier own security countrywide. B. They will require our help (training) and security from outside interference, for some time. How long? until they can do it themselves. 2-3-5 years. C.Yes, they want our aid, (thats why we have a SOFA being negotiated). It is in our political interest to stay and stablize the region.

[mike4ty4]

Yes I'm reading, not sure if I'm agreeing, though. Especially as to whether or not we are _being_ an aid, as opposed to an empire. To be an aid we must stop putting our interests ahead of those of the People of Iraq in their own country -- land which we do not rightfully own, and so our "interests" there are _behind_ those of the People there.

[gerry301]

I was not for the invasion. I thought it was a mistake and unwarrented. But we did invade, toppled the government and disbanded thier military. The US made the conditions possible for the insurgents, the Sunni uprising, and the Sadr death squads to enter the fray. To have abandoned Iraq under those conditions would have meant genocide on a large scale. The US surged, defeated the insurgents, Sunnis, Sadrs death squads, and built a government. We never "owned" Iraq. The Iraqi people come first.

[mike4ty4]

Then what was all this stuff about imposing _American_ "democracy" on them?

[gerry301]

LOL, beats the hell out of me. After they couldn't find weapons of mass destruction I guess they needed another excuse. Regardless, the military situation, at that time, only got worse. Its a matter of being able to separate the politics from what was actually happening. They are two different wars, fought on two different continents. I'm more interested on the one in Iraq, being fought by the US troops. Most Americans fight the war politically in the US depending on party affiliation.