NationStates Jolt Archive

Well tell the people in Congress and in the White House to fight this war with winning in mind! Ladies and gentlemen, and some transsexuals we are fighting what is known as a "limited war". What is a "limited war"? It's where you don't have the objective of winning the war, your objective instead is to force your enemies into a stalemate! That's what happened in Korea, that's what happened in Vietnam, and that's what happening now. We went into Iraq with less troops than we needed, we when in there with less equipment than we needed, hell we went in there expecting nothing but sunshine and kitten farts! We were not prepared for this war! We should've opened up the Gates of Hell on Afghanistan and Iraq! We know where Osama is, he's in the mountains near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. We should do hourly carpet bombing over the mountain range! God knows we have the equipment and manpower to do so! We don't need to take baby steps in war, what we need to do is go in with winning in mind, we can't just go into war thinking that it'll be easy and that we'll easily win over our enemies, and if not we can always push them into a stalemate. No! No matter where the US Military goes, the native of the occupied country will always hate us! Why, well, I doubt you would like it very much if 4 guys came into your house uninvited and told you that they were going to redecorate your house. Here is my plan for Iraq.

Plan for Iraq

1. Increase troop levels. I know yall are going to hate this, but let's face it. Colin Powell was right. We needed to go in there with more troops in the first place. If we put in more troops, then we stand a better chance of securing the hot spots in Iraq.

2. Curfew. Have a Nationwide curfew for Iraq, anyone caught outside after curfew will either be arrested, shot, or arrested then shot.

3. Always expect hostility. One of the big mistake was that Rummy told Bush that we would be greeted with open arms, *psh* we all saw how well THAT turned out.

4. Plants. We need to hire the few Arabs, and Muslims that are on our side, train them in the CIA and implant them into the terrorist organization and have them send us back data.

5. Freeze all assets. Terrorist got to have fundings for their operations, and one of the job our plants will do is find out their source of funding, then we will freeze it.

6. Better and stronger equipment. Alongside with sending in more troops, we'll send them in with more equipment, better equipment and stronger equipment. We'll do anything that is needed so that they can do their job well.

7. Established a positive economy. If the economy is good, and people are able to find work, then the hostility should decrease, because why risk everything when you have everything?

8. Slowly but surely, over time, let the grasp over the country decrease as things are stabilized.

Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat.

Well tell the people in Congress and in the White House to fight this war with winning in mind! Ladies and gentlemen, and some transsexuals we are fighting what is known as a "limited war". What is a "limited war"? It's where you don't have the objective of winning the war, your objective instead is to force your enemies into a stalemate! That's what happened in Korea, that's what happened in Vietnam, and that's what happening now. We went into Iraq with less troops than we needed, we when in there with less equipment than we needed, hell we went in there expecting nothing but sunshine and kitten farts! We were not prepared for this war! We should've opened up the Gates of Hell on Afghanistan and Iraq! We know where Osama is, he's in the mountains near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. We should do hourly carpet bombing over the mountain range! God knows we have the equipment and manpower to do so! We don't need to take baby steps in war, what we need to do is go in with winning in mind, we can't just go into war thinking that it'll be easy and that we'll easily win over our enemies, and if not we can always push them into a stalemate. No! No matter where the US Military goes, the native of the occupied country will always hate us! Why, well, I doubt you would like it very much if 4 guys came into your house uninvited and told you that they were going to redecorate your house. Here is my plan for Iraq.

Plan for Iraq

1. Increase troop levels. I know yall are going to hate this, but let's face it. Colin Powell was right. We needed to go in there with more troops in the first place. If we put in more troops, then we stand a better chance of securing the hot spots in Iraq.

2. Curfew. Have a Nationwide curfew for Iraq, anyone caught outside after curfew will either be arrested, shot, or arrested then shot.

3. Always expect hostility. One of the big mistake was that Rummy told Bush that we would be greeted with open arms, *psh* we all saw how well THAT turned out.

4. Plants. We need to hire the few Arabs, and Muslims that are on our side, train them in the CIA and implant them into the terrorist organization and have them send us back data.

5. Freeze all assets. Terrorist got to have fundings for their operations, and one of the job our plants will do is find out their source of funding, then we will freeze it.

6. Better and stronger equipment. Alongside with sending in more troops, we'll send them in with more equipment, better equipment and stronger equipment. We'll do anything that is needed so that they can do their job well.

7. Established a positive economy. If the economy is good, and people are able to find work, then the hostility should decrease, because why risk everything when you have everything?

8. Slowly but surely, over time, let the grasp over the country decrease as things are stabilized.

Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat.

Wonderful idea. I agree with you 100%.

While I disagree with the war itself, the proposed ideas make the most sense at this point.

Wonderful idea! We also need to ask local priests to bless our men/equipment. An evil nation would never ask for that. :)

Well tell the people in Congress and in the White House to fight this war with winning in mind! Ladies and gentlemen, and some transsexuals we are fighting what is known as a "limited war". What is a "limited war"? It's where you don't have the objective of winning the war, your objective instead is to force your enemies into a stalemate! That's what happened in Korea, that's what happened in Vietnam, and that's what happening now. We went into Iraq with less troops than we needed, we when in there with less equipment than we needed, hell we went in there expecting nothing but sunshine and kitten farts! We were not prepared for this war! We should've opened up the Gates of Hell on Afghanistan and Iraq! We know where Osama is, he's in the mountains near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. We should do hourly carpet bombing over the mountain range! God knows we have the equipment and manpower to do so! We don't need to take baby steps in war, what we need to do is go in with winning in mind, we can't just go into war thinking that it'll be easy and that we'll easily win over our enemies, and if not we can always push them into a stalemate. No! No matter where the US Military goes, the native of the occupied country will always hate us! Why, well, I doubt you would like it very much if 4 guys came into your house uninvited and told you that they were going to redecorate your house. Here is my plan for Iraq.

Plan for Iraq

1. Increase troop levels. I know yall are going to hate this, but let's face it. Colin Powell was right. We needed to go in there with more troops in the first place. If we put in more troops, then we stand a better chance of securing the hot spots in Iraq.

2. Curfew. Have a Nationwide curfew for Iraq, anyone caught outside after curfew will either be arrested, shot, or arrested then shot.

3. Always expect hostility. One of the big mistake was that Rummy told Bush that we would be greeted with open arms, *psh* we all saw how well THAT turned out.

4. Plants. We need to hire the few Arabs, and Muslims that are on our side, train them in the CIA and implant them into the terrorist organization and have them send us back data.

5. Freeze all assets. Terrorist got to have fundings for their operations, and one of the job our plants will do is find out their source of funding, then we will freeze it.

6. Better and stronger equipment. Alongside with sending in more troops, we'll send them in with more equipment, better equipment and stronger equipment. We'll do anything that is needed so that they can do their job well.

7. Established a positive economy. If the economy is good, and people are able to find work, then the hostility should decrease, because why risk everything when you have everything?

8. Slowly but surely, over time, let the grasp over the country decrease as things are stabilized.

Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat.

And if the government wants us to get out before we can do all this?

Or if the government becomes somewhat like it was when Saddaam was in power? What'll we do? Throw a hissyfit because it didn't pan out like we wanted? They have a right to have the government be the way they want it. If it happens that their default government is a dictatorship and it'll always end up that way without interference from a superpower's military, then fuck it.

And if the government wants us to get out before we can do all this?

Or if the government becomes somewhat like it was when Saddaam was in power? What'll we do? Throw a hissyfit because it didn't pan out like we wanted? They have a right to have the government be the way they want it. If it happens that their default government is a dictatorship and it'll always end up that way without interference from a superpower's military, then fuck it.

True, but at least we can say that we tried. If they elect another dictatorship, then frankly I'm with you, fuck it.

True, but at least we can say that we tried. If they elect another dictatorship, then frankly I'm with you, fuck it.

As long as we can agree there, I'd be willing to try your methods.

Well tell the people in Congress and in the White House to fight this war with winning in mind! Ladies and gentlemen, and some transsexuals we are fighting what is known as a "limited war". What is a "limited war"? It's where you don't have the objective of winning the war, your objective instead is to force your enemies into a stalemate! That's what happened in Korea, that's what happened in Vietnam, and that's what happening now. We went into Iraq with less troops than we needed, we when in there with less equipment than we needed, hell we went in there expecting nothing but sunshine and kitten farts! We were not prepared for this war! We should've opened up the Gates of Hell on Afghanistan and Iraq! We know where Osama is, he's in the mountains near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. We should do hourly carpet bombing over the mountain range! God knows we have the equipment and manpower to do so! We don't need to take baby steps in war, what we need to do is go in with winning in mind, we can't just go into war thinking that it'll be easy and that we'll easily win over our enemies, and if not we can always push them into a stalemate. No! No matter where the US Military goes, the native of the occupied country will always hate us! Why, well, I doubt you would like it very much if 4 guys came into your house uninvited and told you that they were going to redecorate your house. Here is my plan for Iraq.

Plan for Iraq

1. Increase troop levels. I know yall are going to hate this, but let's face it. Colin Powell was right. We needed to go in there with more troops in the first place. If we put in more troops, then we stand a better chance of securing the hot spots in Iraq.

2. Curfew. Have a Nationwide curfew for Iraq, anyone caught outside after curfew will either be arrested, shot, or arrested then shot.

3. Always expect hostility. One of the big mistake was that Rummy told Bush that we would be greeted with open arms, *psh* we all saw how well THAT turned out.

4. Plants. We need to hire the few Arabs, and Muslims that are on our side, train them in the CIA and implant them into the terrorist organization and have them send us back data.

5. Freeze all assets. Terrorist got to have fundings for their operations, and one of the job our plants will do is find out their source of funding, then we will freeze it.

6. Better and stronger equipment. Alongside with sending in more troops, we'll send them in with more equipment, better equipment and stronger equipment. We'll do anything that is needed so that they can do their job well.

7. Established a positive economy. If the economy is good, and people are able to find work, then the hostility should decrease, because why risk everything when you have everything?

8. Slowly but surely, over time, let the grasp over the country decrease as things are stabilized.

Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat.
Too little. Too late. Too long. Too messy. Too bad, so sad.

BTW, why do you hate Iraqis? They were no threat to the US, yet you still want to punish them and piss them off more.

And you want to carpet bomb Pakistan? Are you nucking futs?

Plan for Iraq

Which is flawed on several levels.

1. Increase troop levels. I know yall are going to hate this, but let's face it. Colin Powell was right. We needed to go in there with more troops in the first place. If we put in more troops, then we stand a better chance of securing the hot spots in Iraq.

The problem that most people have with this line of thinking is that "more = better". In this situation, it's nonsense. Fundamentally the united states is the most powerful army in the world. We have firepower like nobody else. We have projection capabilities like nobody else. We have technology like nobody else. We have communication like nobody else. We can defeat any army in the world.

So why are we having problems?

Because while our army is built on, focused on, trained on, and developed on is military to military warfare. We are FANTASTIC at disabling and destroying enemy military capabilities.

We, however, suck at maintaining peace. We're not built for it, we're not trained for it. Other nations are. France has pretty good peacekeeping forces, germany to an extent. The UN does it mainly exclusivly. No what we SHOULD HAVE DONE is gotten nations who KNOW HOW TO DO THIS involved, instead we went in with the typical american attitude of "well, if we have enough guns, it'll all work out".

Wrong. Wrong in Vietnam, wrong here.

2. Curfew. Have a Nationwide curfew for Iraq, anyone caught outside after curfew will either be arrested, shot, or arrested then shot.

Yeah, let's demonstrate to the people of Iraq that we're not an invasion force, we're not taking over their country, and we're not intent on occupying them by shooting little Mohammed in the head because he went looking for his kitten after 7pm.

Wrong. This is not our job. This is the job for the Iraqi police. What we SHOULD be doing is giving THEM training, giving THEM money, giving THEM support and letting IRAQI police handle IRAQI law and order.

3. Always expect hostility. One of the big mistake was that Rummy told Bush that we would be greeted with open arms, *psh* we all saw how well THAT turned out.

Well...duh.

4. Plants. We need to hire the few Arabs, and Muslims that are on our side, train them in the CIA and implant them into the terrorist organization and have them send us back data.

What a brilliant idea, it's a wonder the CIA isn't doing this. Except...they are, in fact that's EXACTLY what they do. They've been doing it for 20 years. This suggestion demonstrates an entire lack of knowledge about how these cells work. You're not going to be able to have CIA walk in there and go "hello, you don't know me, you've never heard my name, I'm nobody's son that you know, I've never attended any camp, been to any mosque that you know of, nobody's observed me, nobody knows me but um...death to the infidels, where do I sign up. I swear I'm not a spy."

No. These cells are closed off, insular. You don't join them, they recruit you. And then once you're in you don't exactly get all the information. You're told what to do when they decide you to do it, that's it. Getting an operative into a place where they have any kind of useful intel is a process that takes YEARS, is very dangerous, and has an extremely low success rate. We can't even get it to work with the mafia much, you think it's gonna work with al qaeda?

5. Freeze all assets. Terrorist got to have fundings for their operations, and one of the job our plants will do is find out their source of funding, then we will freeze it.

That's great...as long as they're using american banks. How exactly are we gonna go in there are freeze bank accounts that are in say...switzerland? Or the caymans? They haven't been exactly forthcoming when it comes to releasing private bank information to foreign entities. Which is to say nothing of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. They have banks too ya know.

6. Better and stronger equipment. Alongside with sending in more troops, we'll send them in with more equipment, better equipment and stronger equipment. We'll do anything that is needed so that they can do their job well.

All the equipment in the world isn't going to make for proper training in nationbuilding. See point 1

7. Established a positive economy. If the economy is good, and people are able to find work, then the hostility should decrease, because why risk everything when you have everything?

Work...where? What are you going to say? Hey McDonalds, Pepsi, Walmart, come open shop here and get people jobs...ignore the fact that you're likely to get blown the hell up. Investors come when the risk of investment doesn't include being caught in a civil war. Simply waving the magic wand of economy and saying "poof, there are jobs" aint gonna cut it, you need investors to MAKE the jobs first, and there needs to be more stability than that.



Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat.

Wrong. That's how we have been doing it, and the more we choke the harder they hit back. The way to win this war is to give the Iraqi people the capability to deal with the situation on their own. That includes time, training, resources, and LISTENING to countries and organizations that do this kind of operation BETTER than us.

Too little. Too late. Too long. Too messy. Too bad, so sad.

BTW, why do you hate Iraqis? They were no threat to the US, yet you still want to punish them and piss them off more.

And you want to carpet bomb Pakistan? Are you nucking futs?

1. I don't hate Iraqis. but one of the thing we need to do is weed out the terrorist from the innocent Iraqis. The intelligence gathering, the curfew, and strategic military operations will do that.

2. Not the entire Pakistan, just the mountain range where Osama is hiding.

1. I don't hate Iraqis. but one of the thing we need to do is weed out the terrorist from the innocent Iraqis. The intelligence gathering, the curfew, and strategic military operations will do that.
Most of the things you mentioned in the OP has already been tried and it didn't pan out. The US to be successful, needs to have less presence in Iraq rather then more.

2. Not the entire Pakistan, just the mountain range where Osama is hiding.
All that will do is piss off another nation that is 90% Muslim. You should stick to other "manly" topics.....you suck as a keyboard General. :p

2. Not the entire Pakistan, just the mountain range where Osama is hiding.

And when pakistan says "thank you for your planes in our airspace, but we'd rather you didn't"?

And when pakistan says "thank you for your planes in our airspace, but we'd rather you didn't"?

Well obviously we can't just bomb whatever the hell we want (if we did, the entire Middle East would be a smoldering crater right about now filled with radioactive gases), we'll have to work with the Pakistan government to get us to allow bombing of the mountain range so that we can either get Osama or at least kill him.

Most of the things you mentioned in the OP has already been tried and it didn't pan out. The US to be successful, needs to have less presence in Iraq rather then more.

Not really, we went into Iraq with less troop levels than we needed, we went in there with poor and less equipment than we needed, we went in there thinking that it would be a walk in the park. We went in there with few good plans, we went in there thinking that this would be a quick and easy war.


All that will do is piss off another nation that is 90% Muslim. You should stick to other "manly" topics.....you suck as a keyboard General. :p

Eh we basically piss off the entire Muslim world, so eh.

(if we did, the entire Middle East would be a smoldering crater right about now filled with radioactive gases),

So would most of the East Coast by the way. Countries don't like it when you start flinging nuclear warheads into their backyards.

we'll have to work with the Pakistan government to get us to allow bombing of the mountain range so that we can either get Osama or at least kill him.

I'll restate my question.

And when Pakistan says "thank you for your planes in our airspace, but we'd rather you didn't"?

And when Pakistan says "thank you for your planes in our airspace, but we'd rather you didn't"?

Pakistan currently has some dirt on them, and we'll tell them if they allow this, then we'll turn our backs. If that fails, well, everyone has their prices.

Pakistan currently has some dirt on them, and we'll tell them if they allow this, then we'll turn our backs. If that fails, well, everyone has their prices.

Cute. Want me to tell you what happens?

Pakisan says "no, we don't want you dropping bombs in our airspace, please." And you're suggesting we play hardball with one of our only allies, who happens to be a military dictator...ok.

You now have two options, do what they say, or don't. If you do...well we're exactly where we were, so let's say you don't and go ahead and bomb anyway.

OK, now you've violated sovereign airspace. Pakistan now withdraws its support for the US, and removes its permission to move troops through its country, use its nation as a staging operation, denied access to its intel, blocked us from its airspace, kicked of out of its country shut down our embassy,

Now we have to supply our missions in Iraq and Afghanistan the hard way. Or we can ignore Pakistan's demands and do it anyway.

OK, if we give in, we've now made the war in Iraq and Afghanistan a hell of a lot harder, we're now having supply shortages, trouble with deployment, lack of intel, lack of allies in the muslim middle east, and a general tough time of it.

OR we ignore them. OK, you've now declared war on Pakistan. You've now pissed off one of our best muslim allies, given credibility to al qaeda's claim that the US is set to conquer the muslim world, increased terrorist recruitment 10 times, and pissed off a military dictator with nuclear warheads who has been itching for an excuse to bomb Kashmir.

Congratulations, you've just triggered an arms race in Asia.

Oh, and by the way, you still don't have Osama.

Pissing off Pakistan is a tremendously bad idea, HORRENDOUSLY bad. It would hurt 100 times more than any benefit we'd get. At absolute best, you get what you want, MAYBE you find a 75 year old man hooked up to dialisis, and in exchange you've got resentment and possibly a missed opportunity to look like the good guys for ONCE.

And at worst you've killed 10 million indians and pushed the doomsday clock about 5 minutes forward.

Step back from the rhetoric being used by political groups, and analyze the situation like this:

1. What constitutes a victory in Iraq?

2. What are we unwilling to do to win?

3. Are we still able to win, keeping #2 in mind?

4. Is winning worth the price?


I put to you that there is merely one way to win against an armed insurgency and that is to take away its cover. That means winning the hearts and minds of the people, so that they are not willing to ignore terrorist actions in their home city (Using NIMBY to your advantage). The other important factors to eliminating the insurgency are getting rid of its money, and getting rid of its leaders. Killing grunts is unproductive; 10 more just jump up to replace them.

At this point, I would assert that we have lost the hearts and minds of the people, and so we have lost. All we can do now is watch more people suffer and die as we leave our troops in harm's way.

That means winning the hearts and minds of the people, so that they are not willing to ignore terrorist actions in their home city (Using NIMBY to your advantage).

Bingo, and placing the country, THEIR COUNTRY, under martial law, guarded by AMERICAN soldiers aint gonna do it. It will make us look less and less like allies trying to help and more and more like the armed conquerers cementing their invasion.

The best way to do it is to help the iraqi government handle their ONW concerns. People will resent the Iraqi police telling them to stay indoors.

That will piss them off. But AMERICAN soldiers telling them to stay indoors gets them to strap bombs to their chests and walk into the market.

Not really, we went into Iraq with less troop levels than we needed, we went in there with poor and less equipment than we needed, we went in there thinking that it would be a walk in the park. We went in there with few good plans, we went in there thinking that this would be a quick and easy war.
You cannot re-do the war. The strategy failed big time. Trying to redouble the efforts now would only look like wanting to punish Iraq more.

Eh we basically piss off the entire Muslim world, so eh.
The idea is to decrease terrorism not make even more enemies, which is what happened when the US invaded Iraq.

Step back from the rhetoric being used by political groups, and analyze the situation like this:

1. What constitutes a victory in Iraq?

2. What are we unwilling to do to win?

3. Are we still able to win, keeping #2 in mind?

4. Is winning worth the price?


I put to you that there is merely one way to win against an armed insurgency and that is to take away its cover. That means winning the hearts and minds of the people, so that they are not willing to ignore terrorist actions in their home city (Using NIMBY to your advantage). The other important factors to eliminating the insurgency are getting rid of its money, and getting rid of its leaders. Killing grunts is unproductive; 10 more just jump up to replace them.

At this point, I would assert that we have lost the hearts and minds of the people, and so we have lost. All we can do now is watch more people suffer and die as we leave our troops in harm's way.
Exactly!!

I'm essentially in agreement with everyone who's posted something to the effect that what we need now is not force, but finesse.

Wars in the century to come are more and more no merely a matter of strong-arming one's way to victory.

1. Increase troop levels. I know yall are going to hate this, but let's face it. Colin Powell was right. We needed to go in there with more troops in the first place. If we put in more troops, then we stand a better chance of securing the hot spots in Iraq.

You'll need more than just additional bullet stoppers. You need an overall strategy other than Rummy and his generals "shoot em all" policy. That one's been beaten to death without much success.


2. Curfew. Have a Nationwide curfew for Iraq, anyone caught outside after curfew will either be arrested, shot, or arrested then shot.

Maybe, maybe not beneficial. Much of the killing in Iraq takes place in broad daylight nowadays. Generates unrest. Probably not beneficial.


3. Always expect hostility. One of the big mistake was that Rummy told Bush that we would be greeted with open arms, *psh* we all saw how well THAT turned out.

Anyone in Iraq not expecting that is probably dead by now.


6. Better and stronger equipment. Alongside with sending in more troops, we'll send them in with more equipment, better equipment and stronger equipment. We'll do anything that is needed so that they can do their job well.

Not specific enough. What the heck is stronger equipment? Giving your average infantryman a 75mm cannon each? Assuming they don't break their backs lugging it that is.


7. Established a positive economy. If the economy is good, and people are able to find work, then the hostility should decrease, because why risk everything when you have everything?

Commendable, but is a what, not a how. How to improve the economy?

I understand where you are coming from for the most part. However, if we sent in more troops at the beginning, we would have lost even more troops. This is logical and to be expected, but wars have to be waged differently now because of the media. Believe it or not, people don’t react well to hearing about thousands of deaths in a matter of days. Curfew sounds like a good idea, yet for some reason I don’t believe the people of Iraq that we came to liberate will enjoy the added regulation. As for the plants, I believe we already tried that in the Iraq-Iran war and the result was Osama. If I’m wrong please let a history buff correct me. As to the better equipment, I whole-heartedly agree with you, but better equipment costs more money and the last thing this unpopular war needs is a tax increase. For the last two parts of your plan, that is a good objective and I sorely hope that was part of the plan.

To address the threat of terrorists though, I remember hearing somewhere that a general came up with a brilliant plan for dealing with the extremists. Bullets were soaked in pig blood, and terrorists that were killed, were taken and buried with pig entrails and the like. Again, if I’m wrong please correct me.

Don’t get me wrong, I am glad that we went into Iraq when we did. If we didn’t deal with Saddam now we would have had to deal with him later after he actually got WMDs.

Plan for Iraq

1. Increase troop levels. I know yall are going to hate this, but let's face it. Colin Powell was right. We needed to go in there with more troops in the first place. If we put in more troops, then we stand a better chance of securing the hot spots in Iraq.
And you propose to do this how? By enlisting the Foreign Legion? US forces are stretched out enough as they are.

2. Curfew. Have a Nationwide curfew for Iraq, anyone caught outside after curfew will either be arrested, shot, or arrested then shot.
Let's take out the "shot" part there, because then that would make us just as bad as Saddam. Actually, never mind, we already are.

3. Always expect hostility. One of the big mistake was that Rummy told Bush that we would be greeted with open arms, *psh* we all saw how well THAT turned out.
I agree with you there.

4. Plants. We need to hire the few Arabs, and Muslims that are on our side, train them in the CIA and implant them into the terrorist organization and have them send us back data.
We did. We had intelligence before 9/11. Too late now, though.

5. Freeze all assets. Terrorist got to have fundings for their operations, and one of the job our plants will do is find out their source of funding, then we will freeze it.
Who's to say that they have just one source of funding? They're terrorists, not a centralised government. If at all, they're bound to have more than one source of power.

6. Better and stronger equipment. Alongside with sending in more troops, we'll send them in with more equipment, better equipment and stronger equipment. We'll do anything that is needed so that they can do their job well.
We've given them better tanks, better bombs, better fighters, better guns, and better night-vision goggles. It ain't working.

7. Established a positive economy. If the economy is good, and people are able to find work, then the hostility should decrease, because why risk everything when you have everything?
Great idea. Now, you propose to do this how? Our own treasury is in the red.

8. Slowly but surely, over time, let the grasp over the country decrease as things are stabilized.
Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat.
So what's "slowly but surely"? Within 5 years? 10? 20?
The Iraqi people aren't going to wait that long. They're already burning flags, shooting guns, and picketing "DOWN WITH THE USA" all over the place.

Sorry, man. Your plan might have worked 3 years ago, but it's too late. We've spent too much, we've accumulated too much scorn. The Arabs aren't going to stand for it any longer. Face it, man - we've lost. And you know what they say about that:

Godmoding is:

Refusing to take any losses. Or lose. Ever.

EDIT: Oops - forgot to log in as Hakeka. Oh well. :p

Well tell the people in Congress and in the White House to fight this war with winning in mind!

...

Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat.

Quality satire like that takes effort.

Want this war to be over? huh? do ya?

Then fuck off back to your own countries.

Someone remind me what this war in Iraq is on, would ya?

Quality satire like that takes effort.

How come when someone writes something they don't agree with, they call it "satire", like a person couldn't actually believe the stuff he writes? I see it alot on this forum, and I just want it answered.

How come when someone writes something they don't agree with, they call it "satire", like a person couldn't actually believe the stuff he writes?

Because that is what the word 'satire' means.

If you are asking for the roots of the word, then I believe they are obscure.

How come when someone writes something they don't agree with, they call it "satire", like a person couldn't actually believe the stuff he writes? I see it alot on this forum, and I just want it answered.


Mind if I take a stab at this?

If say, you advocate the bombing of a allied nation, like say, Pakistan, in hopes to kill or flush out Osama Bin Laden, and actually think that its a good idea, then you must be retarded.

Since I do not believe you are retarded, then I can only assume you dont actually think bombing an allied nuclear nation is nothing like a good idea.

This means that the "plan" you had must be satire, since you cant possibly be serious.

Shed some light?

Someone remind me what this war in Iraq is on, would ya?

Because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and could use them at any minute.

No..wait...

To liberate the Iraqi People who will welcome us heroes.

Hmm...

Uh...

To give the Iraqi People the democracy they so desperately want.


Hmm...

Err...

Oh! I got it!

Becuase George Bush has the foresight of your average mongloid, and wanted to secure a Holy Fuckton of crude oil, and make his "base" a fuckton of money from war-profiteering, at the cost of billions of dollars every day, and over 200,000 dead human beings.

Oh! I got it!

Becuase George Bush has the foresight of your average mongloid, and wanted to secure a Holy Fuckton of crude oil, and make his "base" a fuckton of money from war-profiteering, at the cost of billions of dollars every day, and over 200,000 dead human beings.I thought that it was because the US put Saddam in power and now he became too uppity and needed to be bitch slapped.

-snip-

Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat.
Do you call yourself Christian? We're supposedly of the same religion, but why are there no similarities between our values?

I value human life; you want to destroy it.

Because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and could use them at any minute.

No..wait...

To liberate the Iraqi People who will welcome us heroes.

Hmm...

Uh...

To give the Iraqi People the democracy they so desperately want.


Hmm...

Err...

Oh! I got it!

Becuase George Bush has the foresight of your average mongloid, and wanted to secure a Holy Fuckton of crude oil, and make his "base" a fuckton of money from war-profiteering, at the cost of billions of dollars every day, and over 200,000 dead human beings.
Did you just say Asian people are as stupid as George Bush? -.-

Well tell the people in Congress and in the White House to fight this war with winning in mind! Ladies and gentlemen, and some transsexuals we are fighting what is known as a "limited war". What is a "limited war"? It's where you don't have the objective of winning the war, your objective instead is to force your enemies into a stalemate! That's what happened in Korea, that's what happened in Vietnam, and that's what happening now. We went into Iraq with less troops than we needed, we when in there with less equipment than we needed, hell we went in there expecting nothing but sunshine and kitten farts! We were not prepared for this war! We should've opened up the Gates of Hell on Afghanistan and Iraq! We know where Osama is, he's in the mountains near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. We should do hourly carpet bombing over the mountain range! God knows we have the equipment and manpower to do so! We don't need to take baby steps in war, what we need to do is go in with winning in mind, we can't just go into war thinking that it'll be easy and that we'll easily win over our enemies, and if not we can always push them into a stalemate. No! No matter where the US Military goes, the native of the occupied country will always hate us! Why, well, I doubt you would like it very much if 4 guys came into your house uninvited and told you that they were going to redecorate your house. Here is my plan for Iraq.

Plan for Iraq

1. Increase troop levels. I know yall are going to hate this, but let's face it. Colin Powell was right. We needed to go in there with more troops in the first place. If we put in more troops, then we stand a better chance of securing the hot spots in Iraq.

2. Curfew. Have a Nationwide curfew for Iraq, anyone caught outside after curfew will either be arrested, shot, or arrested then shot.

3. Always expect hostility. One of the big mistake was that Rummy told Bush that we would be greeted with open arms, *psh* we all saw how well THAT turned out.

4. Plants. We need to hire the few Arabs, and Muslims that are on our side, train them in the CIA and implant them into the terrorist organization and have them send us back data.

5. Freeze all assets. Terrorist got to have fundings for their operations, and one of the job our plants will do is find out their source of funding, then we will freeze it.

6. Better and stronger equipment. Alongside with sending in more troops, we'll send them in with more equipment, better equipment and stronger equipment. We'll do anything that is needed so that they can do their job well.

7. Established a positive economy. If the economy is good, and people are able to find work, then the hostility should decrease, because why risk everything when you have everything?

8. Slowly but surely, over time, let the grasp over the country decrease as things are stabilized.

Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat.
So since you could not convince the Iraqis by force to love you, you want to use more force? And I find it appalling that you make your suggestions NOW that your country has already made a peaceful future for Iraq impossible.
.

"Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat."

But 9 times out of 10 the guy will elbow you in the stomach, and start beating you up

Ok, i just had an idea, im not sure it wouldnt just make things worse, and im sure all of you will just dismiss it, but think it over:
Why dont we go all Nazi occupation on them? Rather than just having a few checkpoints we could let our troops break into and search random houses
Rather than controlling certain areas we could bomb areas of resistance and kill resistance leaders and anyone who has a gun
Our troops need to be the ones demonstrating power, not letting certain areas of baghdad be run by militia and become recruiting grounds
If people think resistance is futile then they're less likely to try...
Oh, but no concentration camps...

And that would be a platform to get to work on improving the economy, creating jobs etc.

Did you just say Asian people are as stupid as George Bush? -.-

No no..

Mongolian....

Mongoloid.

Big difference.

Besides....Asians are good at math.
Bush....not so much.

No no..

Mongolian....

Mongoloid.

Big difference.

Besides....Asians are good at math.
Bush....not so much.
Yes, that's what I assumed you meant. Asians are of the Mongoloid race, are they not?

Yes, that's what I assumed you meant. Asians are of the Mongoloid race, are they not?


Yes, but no one realy uses that term, as it practically has come to mean "retarded".

I was using the term to mean "retarded", certainly not "Asian".

Yes, but no one realy uses that term, as it practically has come to mean "retarded".

I was using the term to mean "retarded", certainly not "Asian".
Really? I've never heard of it used that way before, although it's not a particularly common term from what I hear. Ah well, you learn something new every day.

Great ideas, for the jackboot alternate reality you live in.

Someone remind me what this war in Iraq is on, would ya?
Apparently the war was on Saddam Hussein, and it appears that after spending $300 Billion, killing a few hundred thousand people and destroying most of the country, they have succeeded. The 2nd part of the plan of trying Saddam by kangaroo court and having him found guilty also seems to have been successful. The 3rd part of the plan, having Saddam executed, is on standby until the appeal process is completed.

Do you call yourself Christian? We're supposedly of the same religion, but why are there no similarities between our values?

I value human life; you want to destroy it.
Didn't you know that there are Grade A and Grade B Christians? Grade A Christians should have very little trouble making atonement, whereas Grade B Christians got a lot of 'splainin to do. :p

Do you really think just by posting anything on a message board, it will truly do any good? Get real. What's the point? Like the officials in Washington have nothing better to do than sit around reading these posts and say, "HEY!! That sounds like a good idea! Let's impliment that into our International Policies!!" Wow.

Plus everyone is forgetting we are dealing with a fanatical religious faction. Kill one, another steps up to take his place.

While I agree that we should basically turn this stretch of land into a huge glass ashtray, my opinion doesn't count. And we certainly wouldn't want to upset the entire Muslim community because we allow so many of them into our country, there would be an instant uprisal of terrorism within our own borders.

And for all of you Anti-Bush assholes. Think you can do a better job in office? Then by all means, run for President. You can't. That's why you sit back on your pathetic little computers and play a game.

Sounding off against something when you are angry is both a stress reliever and puts your opinions out for the public to view. Well, guess what. All it does is cause controversy as not everyone agrees with it. That's because of the arrogance of all these wonderful little people who think they are right because they don't agree with this policy or that. Well, one thing for you. Suck America's ass as most of you don't live here and stand even less chance of changing any world policy than anyone on here.

The Armed Republic of Wartimethings

Didn't you know that there are Grade A and Grade B Christians? Grade A Christians should have very little trouble making atonement, whereas Grade B Christians got a lot of 'splainin to do. :p

Can I suggest a Grade F (fundie) Christian? I think they are a class all by themseves. :D

Suck America's ass as most of you don't live here and stand even less chance of changing any world policy than anyone on here.

What exactly is America's ass? Looking at a map I would guess Texas.

Do you really think just by posting anything on a message board, it will truly do any good? Get real. What's the point? Like the officials in Washington have nothing better to do than sit around reading these posts and say, "HEY!! That sounds like a good idea! Let's impliment that into our International Policies!!" Wow.

Plus everyone is forgetting we are dealing with a fanatical religious faction. Kill one, another steps up to take his place.

While I agree that we should basically turn this stretch of land into a huge glass ashtray, my opinion doesn't count. And we certainly wouldn't want to upset the entire Muslim community because we allow so many of them into our country, there would be an instant uprisal of terrorism within our own borders.

And for all of you Anti-Bush assholes. Think you can do a better job in office? Then by all means, run for President. You can't. That's why you sit back on your pathetic little computers and play a game.

Sounding off against something when you are angry is both a stress reliever and puts your opinions out for the public to view. Well, guess what. All it does is cause controversy as not everyone agrees with it. That's because of the arrogance of all these wonderful little people who think they are right because they don't agree with this policy or that. Well, one thing for you. Suck America's ass as most of you don't live here and stand even less chance of changing any world policy than anyone on here.

The Armed Republic of Wartimethings
Do you feel relieved now and all warm and fuzzy?





Just what we need.......another sockpuppet :rolleyes:

Can I suggest a Grade F (fundie) Christian? I think they are a class all by themseves. :D
Oh, I am sure that there are several classes but Class F sounds just about right for the Fundies!! :D

Do you feel relieved now and all warm and fuzzy?





Just what we need.......another sockpuppet :rolleyes:

well... they gotta keep busy somehow... ;)

Actually I do feel all warm and fuzzy about posting. It stands to reason that one man's opinion is another's war.

I am quite tired of seeing people who have little knowledge of what Bush's real intentions are of complaining about him on a daily basis. Heck, I don't agree with every policy he passes but I do my job to the best of my ability as he does his. I'm a very patriotic American who sees an insult directed towards my president as a personal insult to me. I didn't vote for Clinton because I didn't particularly care for his positions on a few subjects but he did the best he could do. Got to admit, loved the part about the cigar though.

If others can become sanctimoneous, so can I. I love my country and respect those in power enough that I don't bash them. They are decent people just trying to perform the job they are elected (or appointed to).

If that makes me a bad person, well, so be it. At least I feel better about backing up my government regardless of right or wrong.

So roll your eyes if you want big boy. I'm here to open people's eyes to what it means to support the government you are given. And speaking of support. I'm ashamed of the fact that most would rather sit back and criticize the government rather than show the men and women of our military how great we feel about them performing their duties. I make sure every one of them I run across know I appreciate their efforts.

And let a Texan hear someone making wise ass comments and you'll see a fight coming. They are a breed of their own with a pride for not only their country but for their state as well. I'm not from Texas but do like the state. They have virtues you could only wish to have Bodies Without Organs.

The Armed Republic of Wartimethings

I say pull out now and stop killing Muslims, but hell what do I know:confused:

I'm a very patriotic American who sees an insult directed towards my president as a personal insult to me.

A somewhat idiosyncratic brand of patriotism, but that's your choice.


So roll your eyes if you want big boy. I'm here to open people's eyes to what it means to support the government you are given.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the American government elected, rather than given? (Debates concerning the electoral college notwithstanding)

And let a Texan hear someone making wise ass comments and you'll see a fight coming. They are a breed of their own with a pride for not only their country but for their state as well. I'm not from Texas but do like the state. They have virtues you could only wish to have Bodies Without Organs.

What virtues are those, and how are you so implausibly well informed about exactly what set of vices or virtues I myself possess?

No no..

Mongolian....

Mongoloid.

Big difference.

Besides....Asians are good at math.
Bush....not so much.

Mongoloid refers to bone structure commonly found in Asian people. Or Down Syndrome, but not so much anymore. Asians didn't like it too much.

Actually I do feel all warm and fuzzy about posting. It stands to reason that one man's opinion is another's war.

I am quite tired of seeing people who have little knowledge of what Bush's real intentions are of complaining about him on a daily basis. Heck, I don't agree with every policy he passes but I do my job to the best of my ability as he does his. I'm a very patriotic American who sees an insult directed towards my president as a personal insult to me. I didn't vote for Clinton because I didn't particularly care for his positions on a few subjects but he did the best he could do. Got to admit, loved the part about the cigar though.
Patriotism doesn't mean "render unto caesar". It means that you support the ideals of your country. The leader of the country =/= the country.

If others can become sanctimoneous, so can I. I love my country and respect those in power enough that I don't bash them. They are decent people just trying to perform the job they are elected (or appointed to).
Common decency? Pah. This is a democratic system. It was invented so you could question the authority of those in authority and, when necessary, replace them with better leaders. If you don't like it, don't vote, or move to North Korea.

So roll your eyes if you want big boy. I'm here to open people's eyes to what it means to support the government you are given. And speaking of support. I'm ashamed of the fact that most would rather sit back and criticize the government rather than show the men and women of our military how great we feel about them performing their duties. I make sure every one of them I run across know I appreciate their efforts.
And I'm here to open your eyes to what it means to have a democratic system of government. It was so we could make changes; so we could criticise authority and, if necessary, replace them, something we couldn't do under the rule of the British in the 1700's. It was so we could improve. Tell me one way your blatant policies of adherence and nationalism has ever helped us in the past.
I'm ashamed of the fact that some would rather sit back and let someone else speak for them, let their minds be washed and controlled by the government that they supposedly had the ultimate power over.

And let a Texan hear someone making wise ass comments and you'll see a fight coming. They are a breed of their own with a pride for not only their country but for their state as well. I'm not from Texas but do like the state. They have virtues you could only wish to have Bodies Without Organs.
And what virtues are those? Pride? More like arrogance, from what you're telling me.

I'd just like to start off by saying that you have no idea what the hell is going on on the ground in iraq and obviously have no military backround. First i am going to discredit your plan and then give you the one that i know a lot of my collegues agree with.


1. Increase troop levels. I know yall are going to hate this, but let's face it. [QUOTE=Wilgrove;11935996]Colin Powell was right. We needed to go in there with more troops in the first place. If we put in more troops, then we stand a better chance of securing the hot spots in Iraq.
Increased troops levels= extremely counter-productive to any credible plan. All it does is provide more targets for sunnis and emboldens the shiites to commit religious attacks.

2. Curfew. Have a Nationwide curfew for Iraq, anyone caught outside after curfew will either be arrested, shot, or arrested then shot.
Eh, night isn't thatt much of a different environment for us that day is. All of our surveillance and enforcement techniques are highly capable of operating at night.


3. Always expect hostility. One of the big mistake was that Rummy told Bush that we would be greeted with open arms, *psh* we all saw how well THAT turned out.
I don't even know wtf ur talking about here.


4. Plants. We need to hire the few Arabs, and Muslims that are on our side, train them in the CIA and implant them into the terrorist organization and have them send us back data.
Wow, welcome to ground intel 101.

5. Freeze all assets. Terrorist got to have fundings for their operations, and one of the job our plants will do is find out their source of funding, then we will freeze it.
Gee, you'd think someone would have thought of that b4.:rolleyes: Do you really think that we havn't frozen bank accounts b4?

6. Better and stronger equipment. Alongside with sending in more troops, we'll send them in with more equipment, better equipment and stronger equipment. We'll do anything that is needed so that they can do their job well.
I don't even want to know what you mean or your plan for implementation.
7. Established a positive economy. If the economy is good, and people are able to find work, then the hostility should decrease, because why risk everything when you have everything?
Yeah, that's pretty much the fundamental idea behind us not going all-out against poppy fields in afghanistan and its obviously an already implemented idea. You're just saying that we should do what we are doing and passing it off as revolutionary.

Now for something that makes sense and isn't already in effect. The situation in iraq is much more complicated than troop numbers. There are implications to every action that you take and raising the number of troops has considerable ones. Right now, the Shias are using us to hold back the sunni insurgency while they commit attacks against sunni civilians. The Sunnis feel that b/c of this relationship, that everyone is against them and that they should grow the insurgency. Increasing the number of troops just means, for the shias, that they should continue their attacks w/ more ferocity b/c they have even more protection and the sunnis grow their insurgency even more to deal with the added troops. There is no way that that would work.

However, there is a lot of talk among officers of a completely new strategy. It entails ending most of the patrols. What we would do instead would be to conduct raids on suspected insurgent and sectarian killer locations. This would significantly reduce U.S. casualties in the area. In addition, the shiias would start getting hit by sunni attacks and would most likely be driven to a bargain with us. That bargain would entail an end to all sectarian violence, an end to the insurgency by the sunnis in return for that, and a commitment to the democratic process. Notice how there are no changes in troop numbers which is apparently the only way that civilians can think.

In most Arab conflicts with Israel, you can see a pattern. High rhetoric, heavy violence even when the outcome is pretty much known, only when the high point of violence and death is reached, the different players would sit down for talks. I suspect the same will happen with the Shia-Sunni violence we are seeing in Iraq.

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and the Baathist civilian infrastructure in the early days after the active war was a huge blunder. The sectarian militant groups have taken to settling millenia old scores and they are not about to stop now. Only a mass bloodhsed will bring the leaders of both communities together for peace. I fear we are yet to see the worst.

At this point, there is pretty much nothing that the US can do to improve the situation. It is like being in quicksand. If you try to pull up one leg, the other leg will go down and there is no getting out.

In most Arab conflicts with Israel, you can see a pattern. High rhetoric, heavy violence even when the outcome is pretty much known, only when the high point of violence and death is reached, the different players would sit down for talks. I suspect the same will happen with the Shia-Sunni violence we are seeing in Iraq.

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and the Baathist civilian infrastructure in the early days after the active war was a huge blunder. The sectarian militant groups have taken to settling millenia old scores and they are not about to stop now. Only a mass bloodhsed will bring the leaders of both communities together for peace. I fear we are yet to see the worst.

At this point, there is pretty much nothing that the US can do to improve the situation. It is like being in quicksand. If you try to pull up one leg, the other leg will go down and there is no getting out.
But then again, you obviously have no idea what the situation is on the ground. It isn't about settling old scores, it is about jockeying for position in the new iraq and the plan that i outlined avoids mass bloodshed.

Now for something that makes sense and isn't already in effect. The situation in iraq is much more complicated than troop numbers. There are implications to every action that you take and raising the number of troops has considerable ones. Right now, the Shias are using us to hold back the sunni insurgency while they commit attacks against sunni civilians. The Sunnis feel that b/c of this relationship, that everyone is against them and that they should grow the insurgency.

Excuse me, but did not the sunnis fire the first salvo (targetting shia civvies)?

The Shias are just retaliating because the attacks on their civvies are not stopping due to American inability to enforce security.


However, there is a lot of talk among officers of a completely new strategy. It entails ending most of the patrols. What we would do instead would be to conduct raids on suspected insurgent and sectarian killer locations. This would significantly reduce U.S. casualties in the area.

Yep, that would significantly reduce US casualties and significantly increase Iraqi civilian deaths because of the emboldening of militia due to the absence of US presence in the streets.

What have the earlier "raids on suspected insurgent and sectarian killer locations" achieved that you are hoping will repeat now with this "new strategy?

The death squads can easily hide amongst the sympathetic or fearful locals and use religious places like masjids to hide stuff and operate. How will this new strategy work?

In addition, the shiias would start getting hit by sunni attacks and would most likely be driven to a bargain with us. That bargain would entail an end to all sectarian violence, an end to the insurgency by the sunnis in return for that, and a commitment to the democratic process.

With all due respect, that is BS.

Shias are already being hit by sunni attacks and their response is their own death squads. This is the result of US inability to rein the sunnis. By withdrawing from the streets, the violence will only explode not subside.

Sunni insurgency has the primary aim of denying shias controlling Iraq. They are not looking for peace. They are mad because the power they enjoyed for millenia over the majority shia is so swiftly and brutally taken away. Their sense of frustration is so strong that they are still in denial.

And no mention has been made in this thread of the external powers jockeying for leverage in Iraq. The sunni Arab countries like Syria, Jordan, KSA etc and the Iran on the other side.

But then again, you obviously have no idea what the situation is on the ground. It isn't about settling old scores, it is about jockeying for position in the new iraq and the plan that i outlined avoids mass bloodshed.

see above post.

Really? I've never heard of it used that way before, although it's not a particularly common term from what I hear. Ah well, you learn something new every day.

Mongoloid stopped being an accepted term for Asians precisely because it developed the rather nasty connotation as also meaning mentally retarded.

100% agree. Victory is the only option.

My suggestion for this war... seperate the Sunnis, Shiites and other factions. Until they can learn to play nice, you keep them apart. completely and separately. rebuild the seat of the Government to be in the center and you keep the others separate. you have Sunni officers patrol only the sunni areas etc. maybe have one section of the city for those who can live together without violence.

then you slowly intergrate the others.

I know it sounds like the Berlin wall all over again, but the problem is not the Americans, but the fact that they cannot work together.

so you keep em apart and slowly intergrate them. those that can work and live together, keep em together, those that cant, wall em away so that they can be happy.

100% agree. Victory is the only option.

No matter what the cost?

No matter what the cost?

Yes. When we get into a fight we are in it to win it. Superpowers ought not get into the business of losing. It is bad for our image. And in International Relations and Security issues, image is everything.

The US government never defaulted on a debt ever. The only thing that even came close was when the US government decided not to assume the debt of the Confederate Sates as a punishment to all who supported the Confederate States by buying CSA debt. This makes our bonds the safest in the world. We need to have our "military credit" as good as we can make it. Otherwise, others will not be threatened by us and will consider us to be a paper tiger (That is what Mao Tse Dong called our military).

Unfortunately when we pulled out of South Vietnam and Somalia we really f****d ourselves over here and it is time to pay the price for these mistakes and correct them as much as possible. This means we need to surprise ourselves and the world with a demonstration of how persistant we can be. I think we will fail as a superpower unless we adopt the same dedication to victory as the Japanese people had in WWII.

No matter what the cost?

Yes. But I think we could and should do a lot to lower the price tag of our efforts. Also, it would be nice for other countries to chip in or for the new Iraqi government to enter into like a 100 year 0% interest debt whereby they would repay us for most or all of the money we spent liberating them from a horribly oppressive regime.

Yes. But I think we could and should do a lot to lower the price tag of our efforts. Also, it would be nice for other countries to chip in or for the new Iraqi government to enter into like a 100 year 0% interest debt whereby they would repay us for most or all of the money we spent liberating them from a horribly oppressive regime.

That's the stupidist idea I have EVER HEARD.

Yeah, let's let's invade their country, kill their civilians, and then charge them for the effort?

Way to instil the whole "we swear, we're not invaders" mentality.

Plan for Iraq

1. Increase troop levels. I know yall are going to hate this, but let's face it. Colin Powell was right. We needed to go in there with more troops in the first place. If we put in more troops, then we stand a better chance of securing the hot spots in Iraq.

2. Curfew. Have a Nationwide curfew for Iraq, anyone caught outside after curfew will either be arrested, shot, or arrested then shot.

3. Always expect hostility. One of the big mistake was that Rummy told Bush that we would be greeted with open arms, *psh* we all saw how well THAT turned out.

4. Plants. We need to hire the few Arabs, and Muslims that are on our side, train them in the CIA and implant them into the terrorist organization and have them send us back data.

5. Freeze all assets. Terrorist got to have fundings for their operations, and one of the job our plants will do is find out their source of funding, then we will freeze it.

6. Better and stronger equipment. Alongside with sending in more troops, we'll send them in with more equipment, better equipment and stronger equipment. We'll do anything that is needed so that they can do their job well.

7. Established a positive economy. If the economy is good, and people are able to find work, then the hostility should decrease, because why risk everything when you have everything?

8. Slowly but surely, over time, let the grasp over the country decrease as things are stabilized.

Fighting this war should be like taking a guy by the throat, choking him hard, but slowly but surely releasing your grip on the guy's throat.
Worked beautifully in South Vietnam, no reason it shouldn't here, eh?

100% agree. Victory is the only option.

Define "Victory".

Then try to explain to me how much it is worth in terms of how many more tens of thousands Iraqi civilian casualties.

While i disagree with this whole war engagement in the first place, this sounds like a splendid plan... if only some large corporate force were backing it.. then it might actually happen.

mostly because you used the phrase "kitten farts"

Excuse me, but did not the sunnis fire the first salvo (targetting shia civvies)?

The Shias are just retaliating because the attacks on their civvies are not stopping due to American inability to enforce security.
No they are not just retaliating. That is one misconception that comes from not understanding the situation. The Shiias are jockeying for position for when we leave. They figure that they should intimidate as many Sunnis out of the country before while they have our protection because once we are gone the Sunnis will literally be fighting them for their future. It's logical from their POV but is not permittable.



Yep, that would significantly reduce US casualties and significantly increase Iraqi civilian deaths because of the emboldening of militia due to the absence of US presence in the streets.

What have the earlier "raids on suspected insurgent and sectarian killer locations" achieved that you are hoping will repeat now with this "new strategy?

The death squads can easily hide amongst the sympathetic or fearful locals and use religious places like masjids to hide stuff and operate. How will this new strategy work?
Iraqi civilian deaths would only increase temporarily b/c the shiias would have to default on their plan and work w/ their other advantage, their voter numbers. The raids are only to supplement this strategy and not to secure the country. The militias will not be emboldened b/c they will still not be able to go out in the middle of a road and have a fight b/c american QRF will be on 'em in a minute and what they can do to each other is much worse than what the law permits us to do to either side. We can obviously not secure the entire country outselves and will never be able to unless we force both sides to lay down their arms.






Shias are already being hit by sunni attacks and their response is their own death squads. This is the result of US inability to rein the sunnis. By withdrawing from the streets, the violence will only explode not subside.
In actuality, the vast majority of the sectarian violence is shiite against sunni. Our operations have damaged and restriced sunni military capabilities to the point that shiia militias don't have a problem against them.
Sunni insurgency has the primary aim of denying shias controlling Iraq. They are not looking for peace. They are mad because the power they enjoyed for millenia over the majority shia is so swiftly and brutally taken away. Their sense of frustration is so strong that they are still in denial.
The extremist sunnis goal is to commit jihad. The moderate sunni goal is to drive us out and to protect themselves from shiia attacks which they will realize are counter-productive goals once the new strategy is in place.
And no mention has been made in this thread of the external powers jockeying for leverage in Iraq. The sunni Arab countries like Syria, Jordan, KSA etc and the Iran on the other side.
I really don't see their big part in the whole scheme. They havn't made any deals w/ any groups for once we leave and none of the groups need weapons so they wouldn't need to supply anything. I think the "it's foreigners meddling that's the problem" crowd is just trying to look for an excuse for their failures.

Captain pooby approves of Operation Wilgrove.

Yes.

So victory in Iraq (against an enemy that is nebulous at best) would be worth leaving every man woman and child save one in the USA pushing up daisies?

Question: what they hell are you fighting for?

If the only war to defeat the insurgent forces in Iraq was to destroy the entire planet with nuclear weapons, would you press the button?

But I think we could and should do a lot to lower the price tag of our efforts. Also, it would be nice for other countries to chip in or for the new Iraqi government to enter into like a 100 year 0% interest debt whereby they would repay us for most or all of the money we spent liberating them from a horribly oppressive regime.

Firstly, you ain't the only ones fighting in Iraq, in case it escaped your notice. Secondly, your idea of global justice is to charge people for removing repressive regimes that they have happened to fall under, yes? So they get shafted under that regime and then shafted again afterwards? Thirdly, at what point do you draw the line between 'liberating' the Iraq people, and between fighting the ill-defined war that currently rages and has little directly to do with the prior regime?

Define "Victory".

Then try to explain to me how much it is worth in terms of how many more tens of thousands Iraqi civilian casualties.


Screw them.

This is an American affair, and if Iraqi civilians are dumb enough to let themselves get in the way of the USA being able to congratulate itself with the idea that they got 'teh win', then tough.

What the hell are Iraqi civilians doing on an American battlefield anyhow?

I think we will fail as a superpower unless we adopt the same dedication to victory as the Japanese people had in WWII.

So in order to avoid failing you advocate surrender?

I'm sick of the "liberate the people" bullshit.

who the hell do you think you're liberating?

what do you think you're liberating them from?

Saddam's Iraq is dead and gone.

the only ones left are the Iraqi people, and most of them just want us to get the hell out.

some of them even want us out enough to kill themselves for it.


You want to liberate the Iraqis? fine: pull out the troops. We're doing more damage to them than Saddam was.

Screw them.

This is an American affair, and if Iraqi civilians are dumb enough to let themselves get in the way of the USA being able to congratulate itself with the idea that they got 'teh win', then tough.

What the hell are Iraqi civilians doing on an American battlefield anyhow?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :D


That made my day...thanks :)

Define "Victory".

Then try to explain to me how much it is worth in terms of how many more tens of thousands Iraqi civilian casualties.

The terrorists are the ones killing the civillians by the myriad, not us. Victory is establishing a free democratic republic that guarantees civil rights, is peaceful with Israel, and is a stabilizing influence in the region and an example (like Japan) of how the US can help a people to secure democracy and have a stable non agressive government.

Basically, we need to make Iraq as stable as Israel or even Jordan but with as much human rights protections as in Israel.

The terrorists are the ones killing the civillians by the myriad, not us.

Remember kids, it's not the cigarettes that kill you, it's the lung cancer. So smoke up!

Fact is the insurgency is there soley because we are. Our actions triggered this response, if it weren't for us it wouldn't have happened.

Victory is establishing a free democratic republic that guarantees civil rights, is peaceful with Israel, and is a stabilizing influence in the region and an example (like Japan) of how the US can help a people to secure democracy and have a stable non agressive government.

Basically, we need to make Iraq as stable as Israel or even Jordan but with as much human rights protections as in Israel.

Establish peace through...shooting them. That's bullshit. You can't force peace with violence, period.

So, where does the money go?

My realpolitik sense tells me it goes to a group of corporations that supply the expensive and disposable tools of war: arms dealers. If the arms dealers have a powerful enough voice in Washington, then they will provide pressure to stay the course. They will oppose any effort to end violence in Iraq. If you really want to end this war, you have to find a way to beat these folks.

Realpolitik also tells me that there is an economic interest in securing Iraq for the USA. Let's assume it is oil. It is probably a myriad of reasons, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the people who are trying to secure this economic interest are also capable of dicating US foreign policy and US defense policy. If you really want to end this war, you would do well to find out exactly what these people want, and then provide a solution that satisfies their agenda, while still bringing peace to Iraq.

On the other side, you have the insurgents and terrorists and freedom fighters and other random non-affiliated groups. This is the hardest area of all. These groups have many different motivations and goals, as well as tactics. Also, it is difficult to influence these people from the comfort of your keyboard. For practical purposes, you are isolated from them.

Perhaps this should help you understand what you need to do to win this war.

The terrorists are the ones killing the civillians by the myriad, not us. Victory is establishing a free democratic republic that guarantees civil rights, is peaceful with Israel, and is a stabilizing influence in the region and an example (like Japan) of how the US can help a people to secure democracy and have a stable non agressive government.

Basically, we need to make Iraq as stable as Israel or even Jordan but with as much human rights protections as in Israel.

I agree, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it is the terrorists killing the Iraqis, not us. Except when we mistake civilians for terrorists. Except when we accidently kill civilians in place of terrorists. Except when a few US Army privates go apeshit and purposely kill civilians instead of terrorists. But never mind that, let's assume the majority of deaths in Iraq are caused directly by terrorists.

But who brought the terrorists to Iraq?

Did they have all these problems under the previous regime, however dispacable it might have been? Terrorist violence in Iraq is a direct the result of the American occupation; after all, we're fighting over there to keep them from fighting us over here.

Furthermore, let's say we establish a "free democratic republic". If it is truly a free democratic republic, we have no control over whether or not they support Israel. If the Iraqi people's stance on Israel is at all like the rest of the Arab, very likely they will not support Israel, and if they live in a democracy, the democracy will reflect those views. So we can have a pro-Israel state or an autonomous democratic republic, but probably not both.

Furthermore, I fail to see how such a regime is likely to be a "stabalizing influence" in the region, given the vast amount of instablitity the current situation has engendered.

In other words, it's impossible to "win" at this point; let's just try to minimize the damage as much as possible as we withdraw.