<<Yes, that road out of Kuwait was a beautiful example of an organized retreat. So were the thousands of white-flagged waving surrendering conscripts. >>
Like it or not, Pooch, that's what an organized retreat looks like in real life and by Middle Eastern standards of organization. Dunquerque wasn't much better. At the end of the day what counts is whether or not the mission was accomplished. The main force did pull out of Kuwait and back into Iraq as ordered. In this case, BTW, the chaos was compounded when the Americans (once again!) covered themselves with glory by shooting up a retreating column that pointed its guns away from them.
<<No, [no, we didn't "break anyone's back"] since you claim that the insurgency is all just dispersed elements of the Iraqi army. >>
No, it's a combination of dispersed army and popular resistance forces, at least some of whom seem to be following army planning for guerrilla warfare using caches of weapons and ammo deployed by the army for just such purposes. The point being the utter silliness of your attempting to isolate the various components of Iraqi resistance to your invasion, so that you can claim a partial victory when in fact you are fighting a losing battle overall. "We beat the army now we have to beat the insurgents." Bullshit. You invaded Iraq with the intention of conquering and (through a puppet government) ruling it. You haven't conquered it and you can't rule it. And never will.
<< Of course, Canada has never actually defeated the Original Inhabitants since there are still Indian warriors fighting against Canadian incursions on their soil. Thank goodness for that, 'cuz from everything I've seen the Indians appeared to have pretty much been whipped.>>
The Indians HAVE been whipped. I'm certainly not proud of it and it's a very sordid part of Canadian and American history, but there it is. The situation in Iraq is nothing like the situation here. The Iraqis have not been whipped. As for the Iranians - - I would love to see the U.S. try to invade them, for reasons I've already stated. They just aren't that crazy. Their pattern is to attack the weak and the obvious pushover, then when the victim fights back, they get scared and seem - - temporarily at least - - to have learned a lesson, until years go by and their natural stupidity reasserts itself, and they pick another underestimated victim and get their ass kicked yet again.
In terms of the classic cycle, Iran is too close to Iraq for them to get feisty with. Time has to pass, and myths similar to the Vietnam/Weimar Republic myth need time to develop. "Our glorious and invincible army of heroes was not beaten by Vietnamese/Iraqi/Taliban forces, we were WINNING the war but then we were stabbed in the back by traitorous journalists and Amerikkka-hating politicians [i.e., Democrats] and the American people were tricked into letting down our fighting men." Then they pick another intended victim and THIS TIME it's gonna be different because of better communication strategies with the media, it will be impossible for the media to spread their dishonest and defeatist lies and the whole miserable circus starts up all over again. Until one day the peoples of the world will come to the realization that something really does have to be done about the U.S.A.
<<This is an example of mature debate? As it happens, I'm a soldier talking about military history and doctrine. You are trying to support a position of bigotry and turning to middle school tactics to do so. I suppose a rational analysis is overly technical when compared to BWAHAHAHAHA or name calling, but I'll take the chance.>>
I get it, when you run out of substantive arguments, begin attacking your opponent's style. Oh well, let me know if you are able to develop any rational response to to the point I was making (that your efforts are a failure because the objective was not achieved) and respond or not to the BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA as you see fit. It's actually just a very graphic way of saying, "What you just said was
literally ridiculous," which is IMHO quite within the acceptable limits of debate. I just shortened it up a bit - - seems to be the Internet way.
<<I haven't lost anything. My response to this thread was to give a REALISTIC assessment of the risks of a US invasion of Iran. The Iranian military threat is minimal. The political threat is real and far greater. >>
Frankly I'm interested in overall results. Bottom lines. If I ask you, is it safe to swim here, it's not reassuring to hear that the pirahhas are few and far between but the alligators will probably have my ass for breakfast. Bottom line is that swimming is strongly discouraged. Whether it's the Iranian military, the popular resistance or a mixture of both, the essential point I was making is that you will not succeed any better in Iran than you have in Iraq, and the drubbing that you will received will be many times worse than Iraq.
<<Your wild-eyed ranting about the US getting it's "ass kicked" and having the world "laugh at them" is just so much sibling rivalry. We're used to it from you. But it doesn't substitute for substantive debate.>>
Substantive debate? I just told you my predicted result of any invasion of Iran, and it's not "substantive" debate because of my language and style??? Do you even know the meaning of "substantive" as in "substantive debate?"
<<That's pretty much what roaches do. You have to kill a lot of them and then they go crawl into holes. After a while they start to show up again and you have to kill some more. >>
Oh, I get it. They're just roaches. Like the British 7th Armoured were just "desert rats." When they crawl out of their holes, you just kill them. No problemo. You Americans are getting more and more like the Nazis all the time. You talk a great fight. You have "the mightiest army on the face of the earth" (if you say so yourselves) which for some mysterious reason never seems able to accomplish its objective. When faced with a determined group of enemies whose courage and initiative dwarfs your own, think up an animal metaphor (hint: repulsive vermin works) and tell the world you're gonna squash them like a bug. Works every time. Not.
<<The Chinese whipped us so badly that we are still there half a century later. >>
Last time I checked, the area from the Yalu River to just north of the 38th Parallel was completely free of U.S. soldiers. By some extraordinary coincidence, that is exactly the route of the American military retreat from the PLA. Yet you claim "we are still there half a century later." What am I missing?
<< The section of the peninsula we control is a functional, viable nation. The section the Chinese control is a "workers paradise" of economic insignificance. With more "ass-whippings" like that, we might just take over the world after all.>>
Nice rationalization. Almost like plane's rationalization of Viet Nam. A little off topic though. We were discussing, not the economic abilities of the South Koreans, but the military prowess of the U.S.A. and its supposedly invincible status, which China (which whipped your ass in the 1950s) is supposedly "working on." Adhering strictly to the issue of military invincibility, your factual recall seems to have missed the fact that the PLA drove your forces (including the USMC) from the Yalu River to the 38th Parallel. That sure as hell looks like an ass-whipping to me. (Although, admittedly, not to the USMC, which famously claimed "Retreat, hell! We're just advancing in a different direction.")
<<People's war. There ya go. You have a world view that is interesting to watch. >>
It's the war of the Iraqi people. Teenagers, old men, youths, mothers - - they plant roadside bombs, act as lookouts and spies, coordinate attacks on the invaders, fire grenade launchers, hide weapons and ammo, care for the wounded and bury the dead. What would you call it, if not people's war?
<<The religious enmity between the Shi'ites in Iraq and the Sunni's in Iraq is different from the general interfactional rivalry. The Ba'athists persecuted, indeed slaughtered the Shi'ites during their decades in power. When the Ba'athists were toppled the Shi'ites wanted the Sunnis dead and the Sunnis wanted to retain their power over the Shi'ites. >>
There was a lot of persecution of Shi'ites suspected of affiliation with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and even of those who merely had Iranian ancestry. This took in a lot of prominent Iraqi Shi'ites, who suffered horrible torture, murder or simple disappearances. Even mothers who merely protested the fate of their children were targeted for torture, rape and murder. Since the Ba'ath Party was resolutely secular, the persecution was of perceived or potential political opponents. I think on reflection, you're probably right in assessing the Ba'ath Party's role under Saddam in creating or exacerbating Shi'ite hatred of Sunnis along religious lines. It was inevitable, given the close identity of the victims with the Shi'ite religion. It was definitely a perversion of Ba'ath Party ideals, but the persons responsible were in fact the Ba'ath Party leadership in Iraq, so the result is the Ba'ath Party's responsibility.
