With Troop Rise, Iraqi Detainees Soar in Number

[yesman065]

tw, Do you remember the posts you are conveniently avoiding answering? I do.

[9th Engineer]

Why was Kuwait a justified war? Just because we won? As long as our interests had stayed safe what justification did we have for attacking Iraqi forces back then?

[yesman065]

My recollection is that we defended a sovereign nation.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Why was Kuwait a justified war? Just because we won? As long as our interests had stayed safe what justification did we have for attacking Iraqi forces back then?

Kuwait was a sovereign nation. A member of the UN. A country that threatened no one. A country whose borders and principles required UN response.

Yes, it was also essential to our interests since Kuwait was a major producer of oil. Kuwait also was a friend and supporter of America. But that was secondary to something more significant.

How much of a smoking gun was it? Who paid for Desert Storm? Never forget important numbers. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was so much a smoking gun that America paid little for that war (demonstrating again how smart George Sr was and how dumb George Jr is). Who contributed most money that war? Japan. Why did European nations go out of their way to organize hundreds of trains moving American VIIth Corp out of Europe? The same effort to get out of Iraq today is predicted at 12 or 21 months. Europeans did the most important work in weeks. Conquest of Kuwait was that much a smoking gun to the entire world.

I am disappointed you did not appreciate the extent of world response and widespread support for Desert Storm even from Latin American nations. World response was so massive in response to a smoking gun that even American extremist conservatives finally conceded the cold war with Russia and China really was over. Who paid for that war? The most damning indication how serious that smoking gun event was. America paid little of those costs because Desert Storm was justified by a smoking gun that massive.

Exactly. Protecting Kuwait was fine.
The last time we invaded and occupied Iraq there was NO REASON for it.
They were no threat, attacked no one, DID NOTHING... except have oil and natural gas to steal.

[9th Engineer]

I'll cede the issue of Kuwait for the moment, although protecting sovereign nations recognized by the UN is not always a surefire recipe for a clean and popular war (Israel fulfills both, but we still take heat from lots of groups). I'm particularly worried about the possibility of future involvement in Darfur. As much as I despise the acts committed, if we go in there we will once again be putting ourselves between two tribes of Muslims determined to wipe each other from the face of the Earth. More guerrilla warfare. More UED's. More indefinite patrolling of vast civilian areas with no chance of engaging the enemy on our own timetable. No way, no how, not again.

I'm back on campus for the fall, and the activist groups are in full chest-beating mode.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by yesman065

My recollection is that we defended a sovereign nation.

Originally Posted by tw

Kuwait was a sovereign nation. A member of the UN. A country that threatened no one. A country whose borders and principles required UN response.

Yes, it was also essential to our interests since Kuwait was a major producer of oil. Kuwait also was a friend and supporter of America. But that was secondary to something more significant.

How much of a smoking gun was it? Who paid for Desert Storm? Never forget important numbers. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was so much a smoking gun that America paid little for that war (demonstrating again how smart George Sr was and how dumb George Jr is). Who contributed most money that war? Japan. Why did European nations go out of their way to organize hundreds of trains moving American VIIth Corp out of Europe? The same effort to get out of Iraq today is predicted at 12 or 21 months. Europeans did the most important work in weeks. Conquest of Kuwait was that much a smoking gun to the entire world.

I am disappointed you did not appreciate the extent of world response and widespread support for Desert Storm even from Latin American nations. World response was so massive in response to a smoking gun that even American extremist conservatives finally conceded the cold war with Russia and China really was over. Who paid for that war? The most damning indication how serious that smoking gun event was. America paid little of those costs because Desert Storm was justified by a smoking gun that massive.

Blah blah blah - It took you four paragraphs to say what I said in 9 words. Further example .....oh never mind your too dense to get it.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I'll cede the issue of Kuwait for the moment, although protecting sovereign nations recognized by the UN is not always a surefire recipe for a clean and popular war (Israel fulfills both, but we still take heat from lots of groups). I'm particularly worried about the possibility of future involvement in Darfur. As much as I despise the acts committed, if we go in there we will once again be putting ourselves between two tribes of Muslims determined to wipe each other from the face of the Earth. More guerrilla warfare. More UED's. More indefinite patrolling of vast civilian areas with no chance of engaging the enemy on our own timetable. No way, no how, not again.

I'm back on campus for the fall, and the activist groups are in full chest-beating mode.

The problem with situations like that are there is no defined sides to be on.
I was against getting involved with Rwanda politically. UN forces policing refugee camps, sure.
Who were we going to be helping, both sides were equally screwed-up and wanted the same thing.... to kill everyone.
Not our place.

[minnmirman]

I'm not at all familiar with the policies of my country concerning immigration, so There's no way that I can comment on that.

As far as "Your assumption is that withdrawal is a cut and run out this month." goes, I'm not that naive. I know firsthand what it would take to clear all of our troops and equipment out of the country, but as (during that time) our efforts wold cease to focus on the rebuilding of the country and instead on us leaving, the length of time it would take seems negligible.

Al qaeda is not an organization of all colors who often hate each other. It is an international extremist group of Sunni militants. They are a very small percentage of the general population. The path that we seem to be taking in Iraq right now is to turn the general populace against these extremists. Whether or not its working on a larger scale I do not know. I do know that in the sector my Company will be covering when I go there are more than 6000 sunni....I guess the word would be vigilantes who were anti American but are now patrolling their neighborhoods and informing the military. I believe this shows that the plan is working (no matter how late or on what a trivial or small scale its on).

On a different note, Ive been seeing growing similarities in the publics call for (virtually) isolationism today and that which formed the policies after WWI which kept us out of WWII for so long.