Debate on the War in Iraq

A discussion about the Global War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq on the streets of Reno, Nevada.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• debate
• war
• terrorism
• iraq
• richard
• disney
• eric
• odom
• candidate
• nevada
• assembly
• 26
• military

[randyjsing]

I meant to say, "but when was true peace ever achieved without civilian casualties". Sorry about that. Peace follows victory, not trying to "hold the peace together" while a bunch of people (Iraqis) are deciding whether or not to get along with each other after centuries of hate. To me, this seems crazy. Thank you for your posts disneyr!

[disneyr]

I agree with you. Thanks for your comments randy.

[disneyr]

Cont. Iran is putting resources into getting U.S. forces out of Iraq because Iran can create a puppet state there and again render a large percieved defeat to the U.S. If we leave too early we duplicate the conditions that existed in Iraq when the British left in 1926 and ultimately resulted in Saddam's Baathists assuming power. U.S. decision makers have made a grave mistake by not fighting this war "World War 2 style" from the beginning.

[randyjsing]

cont... Excuse my ignorance, but if it depended on the Iraq people to get along with each other, then we shouldn't have gone to war, because that's not an accurate way to measure success. How long does it take for Iraqi men to be trained to defend their country? At what point is it up to THEM? Just curious...Educate me please...

[disneyr]

Cont. Our winning does not depend on the Iraqis "getting along" with each other. The central front in the war against the Jihadists is now Iraq. The Jihadists are putting most of their resources into getting U.S. forces out of Iraq which will create a large percieved defeat for American forces and allow the Jihadists to have a much better base than Afghanistan to wage their global Jihad (oil reserves and seaports).

[randyjsing]

I am speaking from the heart...no political agenda here with this question...When it comes to winning or losing the war, why does our "success" or "failure" in Iraq depend on whether or not the peoples of that country get along? To me, that seems like an objective that is out of our control. We cannot make anyone get along. We can only control what we do. I'm just trying to get SOLID feedback without some political pundant trying to push junk...just the truth.

[disneyr]

There is a miltary term called the "Center of Gravity" which means that if you defeat the Center of Gravity you eliminate or severely damage an enemy's ability to fight. The Center of Gravity for the Jihadists has been Iran since 1979. Iran has been and still is the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism. From a military perspective, I thought we should have gone to war with Iran after 9/11. Obviously the polititians didn't think there was enough political will to do so.

[randyjsing]

Seems like peace occurs only when you TOTALLY destroy the enemy. Unfortunately, there will be civilian casualties, but when was true whenever peace was achieved in history without that sad truth? (minus the cold war)

I know this is different because the enemy is not limited to one country, but it doesn't seem like the U.S. decision makers will follow through with the resolve they had after 9/11 against terrorists.

[randyjsing]

Thanks for your time...I believe that fighting it "World War 2 style" was the way if would be fought based on the apparent quagmire of Vietnam. I thought that way of waging a war would be avoided at virtually all costs. I am in total agreement about the perceived victory, because that's all it would be. It seems like the world along w/much of America is falling for this.

[Kris312]

I also have encountered the source of this post as well as many others playing the same hidden game. They tend to use words and slogans relating to the world we face, but those are not the message extended. The real communication is encoded in its manner. That is an attempted contest to determine who was somehow better than another. Your reply is a typical example to escape the real meaning.