Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Nah, leaving Iraq isn't the cause of the problem.............
Federal Coalition Government 2013-?
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
- Status
Nah, leaving Iraq isn't the cause of the problem.............
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Ground war.
Like LBJ, the Generals in Iraq had their own agenda. They'd had a decade to pacify and train, it wasn't working. Ex-Generals sit high on the boards of many Defense Contractors, because its easier to get contracts when a former understudy of yours is still inside the Pentagon.
Military-Industrial Complex classic.
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
Thats just a conspiracy theory concept. Doesn't mean that Obama's decision to leave early didn't lead to what he now faces
It also doesn't mean the decision by George W Bush to go in the first place was right. None of it really matters now. The situation is the situation and pointing fingers won't change it.
Pfitzy
George Gregan (70)
Let me go a little further with this on Sully:
Your assertion that I'm citing a conspiracy theory ignores the known circumstances of the Military Industrial Complex completely. The numbers are staggering - trillions spent on building hardware via the private sector, the most visible of which are hardly suitable for more than a drive in the country, like the Humvee (hillbilly armour anyone?).
A lot of the weaponry failed in the desert at what was considered a high rate, which surprised no-one, given that most US hardware Post-WW2 has been developed for a land war in Europe and not sand storms.
Probably the only place they really hit a home run was drones. But that is no help to the bloke on the ground getting shot at.
War is good for the MIC because it means more contracts. Meanwhile, DARPA are operating on an annual budget of "only" $3B, trying to cherry pick the technology they're going to need to fight the next war.
Since the end of the Korean conflict, the military hierarchy in many Western nations (including ours) has become a ladder climbing exercise. If anyone can get hold of a copy (I'm not letting mine go) I suggest you read this by a now-deceased former US Colonel. Its a good read to understand how things changed from the WW2 veterans through to the military in the Vietnam era, and into today:
http://www.booktopia.com.au/about-face-hackworth/prod9780671695347.html
Define the circumstances under which you consider the Iraq conflict, known as the Second Gulf War, and subsequent occupation over nearly a decade,would have come to anything resembling a successful conclusion.
Make particular reference to how "early" is defined in the context of your statement above. Or how long you think Coalition/US forces should have stayed in-theatre in order to achieve a specific aim (please also define that aim).
----------------------
From my point of view, the US Command had a vested interest in saving face by seeking an aim that was probably unobtainable. Their need to keep racking up tactical success in the face of public outcry at home was only in part to do with helping Iraq; the primary goal was to prevent it looking like another Vietnam. Hell, they'd have settled for another Korea if anything.
They're also very aware that they've got a stockpile of ordnance that needs a home inside an enemy, and CT and anti-insurgency operators that would benefit from the high level of readiness provided by combat missions. Not to mention the feedback you get from using the new toys in a non-training environment. Very useful.
They balanced that against the knowledge of the PTSD cases that were exploding back home as troops were mustered out or discharged as unfit. Tough decision - why keep feeding more young men into the grinder? The mental and physical scars of the returned were probably more damaging to the public eye than the deaths.
The CIA's failure to retain the existing military hierarchy in Iraq was their first big mistake, as it could have led to a quiet re-organisation of the internal domestic policing, with some semblance of order retained. There would have been a necessary compromise on just how that order is maintained long-term; the depradations of Saddam's generals are seen by us in the West as horrendous and corrupt. In the MidEast this is just how things work - the bribes are paid, the wheels are greased, and you move on.
Provided they stuck to bribes and simple corruption, and stopped the torturing and dictating bit, it could have provided an even earlier withdrawal and less damage to the country. IS/ISIS/ISIL wouldn't have a philosophical leg to stand on when it came to hating foreign invaders.
All this ignores entirely the belief that they should not have been there at all, based on the flimsy search for any form of NBC weaponry.
Obama bears ZERO responsibility for that, and ultimately for anything that followed. In looking after the interests of his nation by withdrawing the sons of America to their home turf, he is now being criticised for doing what the people want.
That's the problem with politics: can't please all the people all the time.
Obama knows if he doesn't agree to the demands to go back in, he'll be seen as weak for the remaining year and a bit he has in office. The way things are going, who knows if he'll even last that long?
American politics is mired in the same self-interest that ours is, though we haven't quite reached a comparable level of lobby funding yet. The Military Industrial Complex is a big player in that, and in concert with the NRA give Americans a very false sense of "might is right" will solve conflicts, just like it did back in WW2.
Again, this completely ignores the cultural differences in the Iraq/IS situation, for which they have no point of reference due to the inward-looking Western capitalism, under which the haves keep the have-nots just satisfied enough with cheap big screen TVs, fast food, and Chevy V8s.
And to reiterate: its only a problem now when journalists and aid workers are being murdered on TV. Never mind the thousands of Iraqi citizens also caught up in it.
Hence my call for a lightning campaign to smash IS in the forehead, then get out. If another snake rises, do it again. Keep doing that - much cheaper and less "invaderish" - until they just fucking quit.
They'll be so busy raising campaigns to try and establish a base, they'll not have the resources for external terrorism.
Your assertion that I'm citing a conspiracy theory ignores the known circumstances of the Military Industrial Complex completely. The numbers are staggering - trillions spent on building hardware via the private sector, the most visible of which are hardly suitable for more than a drive in the country, like the Humvee (hillbilly armour anyone?).
A lot of the weaponry failed in the desert at what was considered a high rate, which surprised no-one, given that most US hardware Post-WW2 has been developed for a land war in Europe and not sand storms.
Probably the only place they really hit a home run was drones. But that is no help to the bloke on the ground getting shot at.
War is good for the MIC because it means more contracts. Meanwhile, DARPA are operating on an annual budget of "only" $3B, trying to cherry pick the technology they're going to need to fight the next war.
Since the end of the Korean conflict, the military hierarchy in many Western nations (including ours) has become a ladder climbing exercise. If anyone can get hold of a copy (I'm not letting mine go) I suggest you read this by a now-deceased former US Colonel. Its a good read to understand how things changed from the WW2 veterans through to the military in the Vietnam era, and into today:
http://www.booktopia.com.au/about-face-hackworth/prod9780671695347.html
Define the circumstances under which you consider the Iraq conflict, known as the Second Gulf War, and subsequent occupation over nearly a decade,would have come to anything resembling a successful conclusion.
Make particular reference to how "early" is defined in the context of your statement above. Or how long you think Coalition/US forces should have stayed in-theatre in order to achieve a specific aim (please also define that aim).
----------------------
From my point of view, the US Command had a vested interest in saving face by seeking an aim that was probably unobtainable. Their need to keep racking up tactical success in the face of public outcry at home was only in part to do with helping Iraq; the primary goal was to prevent it looking like another Vietnam. Hell, they'd have settled for another Korea if anything.
They're also very aware that they've got a stockpile of ordnance that needs a home inside an enemy, and CT and anti-insurgency operators that would benefit from the high level of readiness provided by combat missions. Not to mention the feedback you get from using the new toys in a non-training environment. Very useful.
They balanced that against the knowledge of the PTSD cases that were exploding back home as troops were mustered out or discharged as unfit. Tough decision - why keep feeding more young men into the grinder? The mental and physical scars of the returned were probably more damaging to the public eye than the deaths.
The CIA's failure to retain the existing military hierarchy in Iraq was their first big mistake, as it could have led to a quiet re-organisation of the internal domestic policing, with some semblance of order retained. There would have been a necessary compromise on just how that order is maintained long-term; the depradations of Saddam's generals are seen by us in the West as horrendous and corrupt. In the MidEast this is just how things work - the bribes are paid, the wheels are greased, and you move on.
Provided they stuck to bribes and simple corruption, and stopped the torturing and dictating bit, it could have provided an even earlier withdrawal and less damage to the country. IS/ISIS/ISIL wouldn't have a philosophical leg to stand on when it came to hating foreign invaders.
All this ignores entirely the belief that they should not have been there at all, based on the flimsy search for any form of NBC weaponry.
Obama bears ZERO responsibility for that, and ultimately for anything that followed. In looking after the interests of his nation by withdrawing the sons of America to their home turf, he is now being criticised for doing what the people want.
That's the problem with politics: can't please all the people all the time.
Obama knows if he doesn't agree to the demands to go back in, he'll be seen as weak for the remaining year and a bit he has in office. The way things are going, who knows if he'll even last that long?
American politics is mired in the same self-interest that ours is, though we haven't quite reached a comparable level of lobby funding yet. The Military Industrial Complex is a big player in that, and in concert with the NRA give Americans a very false sense of "might is right" will solve conflicts, just like it did back in WW2.
Again, this completely ignores the cultural differences in the Iraq/IS situation, for which they have no point of reference due to the inward-looking Western capitalism, under which the haves keep the have-nots just satisfied enough with cheap big screen TVs, fast food, and Chevy V8s.
And to reiterate: its only a problem now when journalists and aid workers are being murdered on TV. Never mind the thousands of Iraqi citizens also caught up in it.
Hence my call for a lightning campaign to smash IS in the forehead, then get out. If another snake rises, do it again. Keep doing that - much cheaper and less "invaderish" - until they just fucking quit.
They'll be so busy raising campaigns to try and establish a base, they'll not have the resources for external terrorism.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
I certainly got a laugh out of this post. Made my day,
Hope it wa a horse laugh
GaffaCHinO
Peter Sullivan (51)
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Yep, stoopid Tony should have asked himself why no other PM succumbed to the temptation.
It's all about the short term for him.
Why didn't Turnbull take him on for the leadership when the mad monk fucked up negotiations with the independants last time around?
It's all about the short term for him.
Why didn't Turnbull take him on for the leadership when the mad monk fucked up negotiations with the independants last time around?
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
But where does it stop? The trend of the West arming today's allies only for them to be tomorrows enemies and terrorists is long and alarming. The trend of repeating yesterdays mistakes is alarming.
Spewing out blame is schoolyard, hand bag throwing nonsense but foreign policy review is a must.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
The unprecedented step of handing over Cabinet documents is a massive stuff up and abuse of power.
The thing is despite the "politicalness" of the insulation commission there was clear lessons to be learned at looking at the decision making and the process (or lack of it)
But the reality is neither party will learn a thing
On the union one? For every dodgy union leader there was a business enabling them, both need to be smited.
It factors inefficiencies into the market to pay the vig and despite the clearly political agenda to start the thing any improvement/ smiting helps the economy
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
This adds further weight to the argument that the budget emergency/crisis was/is a political construct used by the Coalition to scare people.
'Budget emergency' denied by 63 leading Australian economists
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-63-leading-australian-economists?CMP=ema_632
'Budget emergency' denied by 63 leading Australian economists
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-63-leading-australian-economists?CMP=ema_632
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
The statement is signed by economists including former treasury secretary Bernie Fraser. Academics from the University of Sydney, University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne are represented, as well as former trade minister Craig Emerson.
Clearly independent and unbiased economists
Clearly independent and unbiased economists
A very long bow with that statement mate. And not addressing the main point.
- Status